Illinois Game Law Passes

The Illinois law banning the sale of violent games to minors has passed another milestone. The Illinois House has given the law an okay, meaning both the House and the Senate have passed the law. It now moves on to be signed by the Governor. From the article: "... supporters insisted the government has a duty to help parents shield children from violence and sexuality. 'Don't let them become the monsters that we see in these violent games,' Democratic Rep. Monique Davis said."

Comments

Emotional Overcharge

[Travelsonic]

Don't let them become the monsters that you see in games? Simple, talk to your kid about the game before/after (preferably before) he/she plays the game, is it just me or is this bill being passed with an unusual emotional ovecharge?

Re:Emotional Overcharge

[chman]

The cynic in this uninformed non-American reckons that it's because the video game industry isn't giving kickbacks to the legislators in the way the MPAA and RIAA have been. Maybe when they start paying their protection money, these guys will ease up the pressure and add software pirates to the axis of evil, along with the P2P users that are already being rounded up in their outposts of tyranny.

But as I said, that's me being cynical. If I were rational, I'd say that while it is unfortunate that this legislation was even thought up, it probably is necessary these days. There's already a rating system in place for video games, but it's for nothing if the retailers won't enforce it. We're going to have to accept that video games could possibly have the same effect on a child as other forms of media when the violence isn't given the right context - if the child is too young to understand the difference between reality and fiction, they shouldn't be playing these games. The important thing to remember though, is that these games do not teach people how to kill. It's an argument that's often thrown around, and it's just bullshit. We're born with instinct, a hard-wiring in our evolved brains that gives us the ability to kill our prey, and to say that a video game trains us to kill is absurd. People then make the point that the Army uses games to teach soldiers how to kill, but to the best of my knowledge these tools are used for tactics and strategy, rather than actual simulation of the act of killing. Let's not forget that guns also operate on a simple point-and-click interface that makes it ridiculously easy to take a life. But that's the fault of video games, obviously.

Is this legislation a substitute for parental responsibility? Of course it is. Is it being forced through by those that lack understanding and evidence? You betcha. But somehow those two wrongs have made a right. Don't moan at me, you guys voted for it. We voted for that lying fuck that sweats a lot.

Re:Emotional Overcharge

[Walkiry]

> Simple, talk to your kid about the game before/after

Or even talk to your kid about why he won't be playing that game. It's perfectly fine not to let your 8 year old brat play an 18+ rated game, just as it's perfectly fine not to let him watch an 18+ rated film. But the emotional overcharge, as you so aptly put it, is totally off the scale, and completely unnecessary.

I don't understand

[the_unknown_soldier]

In Australia, the rating system for movies and games ensures that if a game is MA 15+ you have to be over 15 to buy it. Doesn't this follow logic? What on earth is the point of your esrb rating system if it is not used. It is not as if it stopped me playing GTA:1,2,3 when i was under the recommended age, but the idea was that my parents knew that i was. Incidentally I pirated them so my parents didn't have to pay, but they **knew** what games I was playing. Isn't that the role of every good parent? p.s. this new authentication image has the worst clarity of any I have seen. Took 3 times to get it right!

Re:I don't understand

[Adelbert]

There are similar systems in America, and across Europe. However, these systems hit problems when confronted by "conservative parenting". Conservative (not necessarily politically conservative) parents don't want to be put through the difficulty of actually supervising their kids or anything. They never had these games when they were kids, and hence don't see the need for them.

What's more, they see that some games contain nasty things such as guns and violence. We can't have kids experiencing these things. The only possibility available is to ban these games. Forget all the adults who actually enjoy playing games.

All that is really happening here is people are frightened of things they don't understand.

Re:I don't understand

[alexandreracine]

Yep,

Now the only things that need to be done for the kids in Illinois is to stop posting violent content on the tv news, papers, books, puzzle games, toys, and coke bottles.

Re:I don't understand

[kingsmedley]

What on earth is the point of your esrb rating system if it is not used

The difference here is HOW it is used. The ESRB is a voluntary system at every level - the publishers voluntarily put the ratings on the boxes, the retailer voluntarily chooses to restrict sales based on the ratings, and parents voluntarily choose to observe the ratings when they purchase games for their kids. In my experience, the majority of retailers DO restrict sales to minors, and most parents DO understand the ratings system. In fact, it seems the only people to witness wanton disregard for the ESRB ratings are the people who want them to be codified into law.

What makes this law significant is that movies and music, which also have been subjected to voluntary ratings systems, are NOT restricted by law! This legislation gives creedence to the idea that a form of media can be just as dangerous and unhealthy as alcohol and cigarettes in the hands of a minor.

Historically, there has always been conflict between generations as new forms of expression are invented and embraced. Look at historical reactions to movies, comic books, jazz, swing, rock, punk, and so on. But aside from the occasional town ordinance, a form of expression has not been placed under such legal restriction - until now. This is a dangerous precedent. What happens when they decide that not only are certain forms of media harmful, but that certain IDEAS are dangerous? Who gets to choose these ideas?

Some may regard legal restrictions on game sales to be a logical step, but they are starting down a slippery slope with this law. Right now it is violent and sexual content. Next it could be foul language or depictions of smoking & drinking. And after that? Outlaw the expression of certain political ideas? It may seem extreme, but it is a logical progression. This is tyranny of the majority, outlawing socially unpopular notions. Right now, it is the sex and violence that is unpopular and alarming to the majority. Once they are gone, what will replace them?

I know I sound alarmist, but as I said - this is a dangerous precedent. This is a legal restriction against the expression of certain ideas. We must all be vigilant to make sure things don't get out of hand.

Help the parents?

[mwvdlee]

the government has a duty to help parents shield children from violence and sexuality

Does the government have a duty to help the perents only if the parents want help or does it include forcing the parents to use a prescribed set of "morals"?

Not saying children should be exposed to violence and sexuality but as we are all well aware, both terms (especially sexuality) can be widely interpreted. Some parents would as say a mere romantic kiss is sexual content, some would even go as far as saying two same-gender people holding hands is sexual.

Governments should be allowed to assist parents to be parents, they should not do the parenting themselves.

Re:Help the parents?

[Bastian]

I'll skirt around all of that and just respond that the government has a duty to help its society remain at least remotely sane.

And maybe with this law, idiot parents will finally be forced to realize that they are responsible for what video games are brought into their house.

Which means maybe, just maybe they will finaly sit down and shut up with respect to this whole bitching-about-violent-games-making-people-violent thing.

Which is good, because I am seriously going to lose all vestiges of sanity if I hear one more idiot parent make one more idiot claim that flies in the face of the vast majority of scientific research and his/her own morals as firmly established through their own actions. (Don't you f***ing pretend to dislike violence or act like you think it's a bad way to solve your problems after voting George W. Bush in for a second term as President. Anyone who can swallow and regurgitate that set of memes without gagging is in serious need of a brain transplant or some time in a detox center or something.)

So I welcome this law, because I value my sanity. Maybe it'll move north and we'll see folks voting on it here in Wisconsin, and I will be Happy.

Maybe we can follow it up with a law that forces us to keep our children locked in closets with no lights and only a tasteless, vitamin-enhanced gruel and water for sustenance, and which bans anyone from talking to children about world history (especially American history), politics, or current social issues, because if kids are exposed to anything, ever, it just might destroy their fragile little minds because nobody is capable of evaluating any information, ever, until the age of 18 (and NO SOONER).

And I will welcome it, because (A) I don't have any kids myself, (B) I don't think I will because lately I have been getting the impression that parenthood will make you stupid faster than a really wicked sack of chronic, and (C) they're pissing me off, and somebody needs to shut them up.

Re:Help the parents?

[servognome]

If I had a 13 year old, for example, I might let it play a 15+ game, but would not allow it to play an 18+ game.

The law doesn't stop you from doing that. What it does is prevent the clerk behind the counter from making that decision for you.

Where's the sense?

[Anonymous Coward]

help parents shield children from violence and sexuality

Newsflash: Everybody has sexuality. Everybody has a penis, or breasts and a vagina. Sexuality isn't something you *shield* people from. Sexuality is something you encourage kids to become familiarised with. It's something you educate them about. It's something you nurture to maturity. This maturity, and confidence in sexuality, is part of being civilized.

Violence, on the other hand, is in a totally different ballpark. You aren't born weilding a weapon, with blood on your hands and murderous intent. The absence of violence is part of being civilized.

Why is it, then, that American culture is accepting of displays of violence in movies and on TV, but the hint of a nipple in a game or TV show is so scandalous? Fucking insane.

Common sense and reason allow one to distinguish between theatrical or game violence, and real life violence and death. I see nothing wrong with playing violent games as long as one has developed those rudimentary mental faculties, hence age restrictions are somewhat sensible.

The same applies to sexuality versus perversion. Young minds should be taught about the human body and sexuality, and nudity as not beingn perverse in itself. The perversion of sexuality is something young minds would benefit by being shielded (age restrictions, again, seeming somewhat sensible) from until they are able to distinguish between the two.

My point is although there *can* be seen to be valid motive behind restrictions on both violence and nudity, but the generally accepted reasons are completely turned on their heads and turned into pure emotionalism and sensationalism. Why, oh why, are people so fucking stupid?

Re:Fine.

[Travelsonic]

I know i wont let my kids buy them. I dont see a problem with this at all.

I see a problem, and that is YOU are not the one that would make that choice. Not only are "Violent" and "sexual" broad terms that can be mis-interpreted, but the choice really should be the parent's choice. I feel that many people, but not everybody mind you, who supports this are too lazy to do the job of being a parent and say no to video games they don't approve of, and allowing laws to ruin it for kids whos parents allow them to play said gams for certain reasons, such as proven maturity.

This bill's dead as soon as it becomes law

[Anonymous Coward]

This bill has been treated as nothing more than a joke since:
a) The Illinois State Police has basically said that they have better things to do than waste their time busting video game retailers when they should be busting drug dealers and murderers.
b) At least two politicians that voted for it said they had no choice but to vote for it for fear of their vote against the bill being used against them come re-election time.
c) One politician called it for what it actually is: A publicity stunt by the governor of Illinois to boost his Presidential bid in 2008(like that's really going to work out for him, look at how Lieberman fared in his Presidential campiagn last year).
d) As soon as the governor signs it into law, it's going to challenged in Federal court and ruled unconstitutional, just like all the others before this one.

== BearDogg-X ==

Monsters

[GQuon]

"Don't let them become the monsters that we see in these violent games"

Wouldn't it be, like, wicked cool if some of the kids who played these games became real zombies, goblins and orcs and stuff? Would make for an interesting drive through the suburb.

Me: "Orc, 11'clock"
Friend 1: Click! "Dang, shotgun jam!"
Me: *sverve* BANG! "Eat car door!"
Friend 1: "Wow! Cool!"
Me: "Crowd of zombies!"
Friend 1: "Man the M2!"
Friend 2: "Ok!" rattattattatta

I play video game, so I'm a terrorist (True Story)

[Anonymous Coward]

I had a Federal Marshal and 2 FBI agents come to my house one day and ask if they could speak to me (this being Autumn 2001).

They asked a bunch of stuff about what I did for a living, where I went to school, knew I had thought about joining the Navy after high school, etc etc, before getting to the meat of it all. The Marshall then said that they had records dating back to 1996 of me requesting maps of municipal water and electric systems, city maps, county maps, lots of platt records, DOT road maps, and the like. I aasked them "Did you check to see where I've worked since 1996?", to which the answer was, to my surprise as he fliped thru his notebook, no.

I was then working as a runner for a law firm, which included a real estate lawyer, and often I'd end up in the county clerks office getting copies of maps for disputing property boundries, easements and the like.

I'd previously worked as a summer technology assistant for my school district, for 3 years, which had entailed laying uunderground conduit for ethernet, phone, and fiber between buildings on our central campus, thus needing maps of power and water systems so we didn't slice anything. Then I invited them to my room to see the other reason I needed many of those maps.

Posted on the walls were quite a few of them, with my own grid sheets on top. Powering up my G4, I showed them the SimCity2000 game in which I'd recreated my home town of ~20,000 people, and had started some of the surrounding towns too. The Marshall just looked in disbeleif and told me to have a good day, he didn't have any more questions.

~DW

Re:Fine.

[PipOC]

If I weren't allowed to play violent video games at all, I'm certain I would be one of the most violent people I know.

thanks!

[aminorex]

I hope that my case can serve as a warning to other families. I let my daughter buy Godzilla: Destroy All Monsters Melee, and she turned into a giant moth that destroys airliners!

WAHOO!!!!!!!!!

[BigDogCH]

This is GREAT news! Finally it will be safe to walk through every area of Chicago.

I guess it boils down to this choice.......
either violent video games cause kids to be violent, or......
violent kids buy violent video games.

Hmmm, I wonder which is more logical? My opinion is that the fault lies in the parenting, though I think most parents don't want to accept this responsibility, so they find the nearest scapegoat (which they purchased for their child).

Re:Fine.

[DrTheopolis]

Would you then object to a makeup and skanky womens clothes to be rated, and restrict who can buy them by age? Would you object to not being allowed to buy lipstick unless your over 16? After all, makeup and skanky clothes are used primarily for sexual purposes. And jealousy from sex leads to violence. As a matter of fact, I'm willing to bet more people are hurt from violent crimes motivated from makeup and skanky clothes than from video games. Hmmm... since we can't take the responsibility to protect our kids ourselves, perhaps we should give the federal government extended authority, beyond protecting liberty, to protect our kids for us. I'm glad you brought this up, because I'm sure you'll now support a law to put ratings on womens clothing and makeup. Thanks for the great idea!

Vague use of the word "violent"

[Tachikoma]

There was a news story this morning on CNN about kids going to trial for the 'stomping death' of a homeless man.

It's blatently obvious that this devious behavior is none other than the result of years of playing violent video games such as SUPER MARIO Bros and SUPER MARIO BROS 3, where innocent children are misguided into playing the role of the malacious character 'MARIO' in STOMPING koopas to death!

Not only does it induce children to stomp out the life of other beings, but it also teaches children racism. 'MARIO' and 'LUIGI' (if that is indeed their REAL names) are obvious and unfair sterotypes of Italian people. Koopa's are obviously represent a minority or, in this case but not limited too, homeless people as they are portrayed as mindless and capable of doing nothing but making you small.

These graphic and violent video games need to be banned so that my children are never exposed to the ideas such as racism or bigotry or the stomping of turtles. I'm a firm believer that so long as my children are shielded from violence that they will never be tempted to enjoy it, and further by controling every thing they are exposed to they will grow to be a wonderful contribution to our violence and sexuality free world. So long as they are not exposed to it until they turn 18 and their body chemically realigns itself into a mature state overnight, I wont need to waste precious time out of my day and my life and divert any attention away from myself, because that is what's important, to educating my child. And remember what kyle's mom said: "violence and sex are ok, so long as they don't use any dirty words!"

The word need....

[LWATCDR]

" They never had these games when they were kids, and hence don't see the need for them. "

There is no NEED for these games. You may want to play them but no one needs to play them.

What I do not understand is this. "The only possibility available is to ban these games. Forget all the adults who actually enjoy playing games. ".
The games are not banned. The law just requires that ratings to be enforced. An adult can buy any game they want. This is nothing but a tool to help parents. No different than the R rating on a movie or laws preventing people under 18 from buying tabbaco or guns.

Re:The word need....

[LWATCDR]

" Anybody who claims this law is a TOOL to help parents is a TOOL themselves."

Baloney.
There are many laws that are designed to help parents and or protect minors.
1. A minor may not drive without his parents permission,
2. A minor may not drink at all.
3. A minor may not smoke at all.
4. Some jobs may not be done by minors at all.
5. Minors my not enter into a contract.

What you and most of the little fan boys on Slashdot don't get is the ugly little truth that the people that do not want laws like this CARE NOTHING about any type of freedom. They are the big mega corps that want to sell any game they want to anyone that will buy it. These are the same companies "Sony" that are trying to outlaw modchips and bit torrent. This law will only require a parent to buy the game it does not forbid a single person from playing it.
And in no way prevents an Adult player from playing it.

Re:My email to Rep. Monique Davis

[Garet121]

It's all well and good to voice your opinion to a congressman or -woman, but email is just too easily falsified for our representatives to pay attention to. The weightiest thing you could do if this really matters to you is to send a letter, via snail-mail, to Representative Davis.