Illinois Gov. Seeks Violent Video Game Ban

Foobar_Zen writes "Gov. Rod Blagojevich of Illinois has apparently decided to build on past "wins". He seeks to impose legislation that will prohibit the distribution, sale, rental and availability of mature video games to children younger than 18. Breaking of this law would be punishable by up to one year in prison or a $5,000 fine." From the article: "The Illinois Retail Merchants Association blasted the governor's proposal as a way for retailers to become "the violence and sensitivity police for the state of Illinois." Update: 12/16 21:14 GMT by Z : Lum's take on this over at Broken Toys is excellent.

Comments

America's Army

[justforaday]

I'd like to see how this is handled if some kid downloads America's Army...

Re:America's Army

[iminplaya]

Nursery rhymes?? Jeez. If anybody wants violence, they just have to read the Bible. You'll get plenty of violence right there in the first book(Genesis). It's all downhill from there. There's murder, war, anger, rage, jealousy, envy, hate, mayhem, you name it. Once again, somebody's trying to distract people from other much more serious problems. And once again, it will work. It's like a guy that buys flowers for his girlfriend to make her forget that he cheated on her last light. That usually works also.

Availability?

[SoTuA]

If I, as a parent, decide that my under-18 child is fit to play the game, buy it (since the store can't sell it or rent it to him/her) and give it to him/her, am I breaking the law?

Re:Availability?

[Auckerman]

"If I, as a parent, decide that my under-18 child is fit to play the game, buy it (since the store can't sell it or rent it to him/her) and give it to him/her, am I breaking the law?"

Which is the only relevant question. I really have a hard time imagining WHY people could object to this. Any law that empowers parents to raise their children, within the bounds that limit abuse, is a good law. Under common law, and iirc, written law, in the States, children are classified somewhere between a slave and a citizen. They do NOT have full rights of an adult citizen, but have rights that are clearly spelled out. The "right" to do what you want without your parents permission is not one of them.

Yes, of course parents can't always watch over their kids. They are going to get access to unwanted media when they are outside the view of their parents, including video games that they aren't "allowed" to play, but at least the parent has a little more control.

Personally, I think laws like this should be extended to include ALL media (games, books) should be bought by people over an age defined by the individual state (perhaps one state wants it set at 15 and another at 18) as long as that age does NOT exceed 18 or exclude emancipated teenagers.

Don't they have more important things to do?

[supersloth]

... than doing the job of parents?

What's the problem?

[DeDmeTe]

I don;t see the problem with this legislation. It's just like the R rating at theaters, or the fact that kids can't buy tobacco until 18, or beer until 21. I certainly woulnd't want my kids to (at age 9) walk into a store and buy GTA 8: Be a Porn Star. When he's 18, or I decide to buy it for him.. fine.

video games are NOT physically harmful!

[garcia]

"We already place limits on alcohol, tobacco, even adult movies. It's just logical that video games, which are so heavily marketed to young kids but many of which contain adult images, should not be available to young people or to minors," Ottenhoff said.

Ok, I see the connection with adult movies (and I'm talking about porn, not R rated movies) but I cannot see how they think this can cross over into alcohol and tobacco territory!

Alcohol and tobacco are PHYSICALLY HARMFUL. You can die from alcohol and tobacco. You *cannot* die from abuse of video games... Explicit or otherwise.

On a personal note: Yes, video games showing full frontal nudity or realistic depictions of death (and when I say this I mean watching actual video clips of people being tortured, decapitated, etc) should be looked into as we do with movies... But video games showing a completely unrealistic depiction of human characters (as real as video games are looking they are still not 100% on) in a fantasy world should be treated as such.

I thought that as we matured as a society that this type of conservative bullshit would cease. Perhaps we are regressing?

Ridiculous

[stratjakt]

Absolutely ridiculous the way video games are the scapegoat for this generation.

Remember Judas Priest , Ozzy, et al being sued back in the 80s because their satanic lyrics caused all of the problems with young kids today?

Remember when it was Dungeons and Dragons?

The people are idiots though, if the movie and recording industries can police themselves (MPAA ratings / "explicit lyrics" stickers), whats the problem with the (incredibly coherent) ESRB rating system?

And once again, games are created for and marketed to adults, primarily 18-40 year old males. Just go google for any statistics (Nielson, etc) on who plays/buys games if you dont believe me.

The "think about the children" argument is a red herring. This is all about appeasing Hollywood by helping eliminate the competition. Pure pork. And politicians think it's win-win because it'll get them a lot of "cranky old bitch" votes.

Err.. talk about a biased article..

[nicpottier]

The /. one that is. Ban? What?

Hello, how is this different than R-rated movies today? Mature games are intended for a mature audience and you better believe we shouldn't have 8 year olds playing GTA3 unless their parents approve of it and buy it for them.

What's the crazy backlash to this? It's absolutely sound to set up laws prohibiting sales of these games to minors (just as it prohibits sales of pr0n to minors).

If parents choose that their kids are mature enough for said games then they'll go and buy it for their kids. If not, then kids won't be playing games that they likely aren't ready for.

-Nic

The problem is in the punishment

[Logan_Fu]

I don't see a problem, per se, with limiting sales and rentals of M rated games to children under 17, as the "M" rating is equivalent to an "R" for a motion picture. But, I think that a year in jail for renting a kid a copy of the new Prince of Persia game is a bit harsh. That said, there is no way that this law, even if it passes, will get past the courts, since it's so poorly written. Here's why: In Criminal Law there are what is known as "Strict Liability Statutes". These statutes are written to basically regulate the flow of traffic, commerce, and modern issues that were introduced after most of the common law was already laid down. See, most actual crimes require an act, and a criminal state of mind. The Strict Liability Statutes are the exception - they require only an act. This law is a Strict Liability Statute. The courts have said on numerous occassions, that if a piece of legislation is going to get rid of the mens rea (criminal mind) component of a crime, that piece of legislation needs to have a very minor punishment (usually a small to moderate fine) that will attach no "stigma" to the one violating it. Well, a year in jail is a pretty major "stigma" to have to bear. Dumbass legislators have, on many occassions, tried to pass these Strict Liability Statutes with long jail sentences, and almost always, they've been overturned. This bill is doomed before it's even signed.