Slashdot Mirror
Illinois Videogame Law Struck Down
Big_Al_B writes "CNN reports that a federal judge ruled against the state of Illinois law that banned the sale of some games to minors." From the article: "The Illinois law, which also was to go into effect January 1, would have barred stores from selling or renting extremely violent or sexual games to minors, and allowed $1,000 fines for violators. Kennelly said the law would interfere with the First Amendment and there wasn't a compelling enough reason, such as preventing imminent violence, to allow that." Triumphantly, GamePolitics offers up the ESA's reaction to the decision. The Governor has vowed to appeal, so this isn't over yet.
But isn't it _your_ duty?
The parent post probably needs a tag.... :P
But isn't it _your_ duty?
You must be new to dealing with contemporary parents.
Amidst all the cries of regulating violence and sexual content, this law seems rather moderate. Parents can still buy the stuff for their kids if they want to - nothing is banned. Too bad the more sane laws get struck down while extreme and harmful ones pass inspection.
With Freedom comes responsibilities. It is about time parents took some responsibility for what goes on in their home and not defer their parental responsibilities to the State. The sad fact is, too many parents don't take any responsibility for what their kids watch, read or play.
to ensure that children have access to violent and or filthy materials?
Do you think that it's GOOD that kids should be seeing this sort of trash?
As a parent and a grandfather, I would not want my kids partaking in this sort of degenerate filth. It's garbage.
And don't get all excited. I'm an atheist so I'm not some religious right wing zealot..
I'm an adult and I know what's bad for kids. I've raised two kids myself, they are adults now and I'm happy to say I think they turned out pretty good and I had strict rules on this sort of thing in my home. I absolutely forbid MTV and such trash under my roof and it was NOT a problem, as a matter of fact my son came home from college last year and told me that he was glad that I had forbidden MTV type trash in the home..
Pick a standard and stick with it - kids should either be allowed to purchase sexual images or they shouldn't. Just because one particular format sells more than others isn't a valid reason to allow it but exclude everything else.
If the g'vt kept the data on you that google does you'd better believe you'd be calling it "doing evil"
Does this mean that it's unconstitutional to ban the sale of Playboys to minors?
Honestly, I'm confused here. I'm all for freedom of speech and all that, but this was a ban on selling "extremely violent or sexual games" to minors. I'm guessing this is AO rated stuff, which could be comparable to nudie mags (Playboy Mansion?). What's the big deal?
The way this law looks now it's more of a patchwork, and a kind of "let's do something so it looks like we care and are actually giving value back to the tax payers" law which should be shot down and replaced with something better. Or ignored.
This is part of the crackdown on panhandlers and street-muggers. If this law had been passed, young children would be forced to pay homeless guys to buy games for them. Less incentives for those few homeless who might commit violence or other undesireable acts against children.
Then, there's inevitable creation of a underground kindergarten black^H^H^H^H^H African-American market for adult video games. Once this distribution chain gets established, it's bound to escalate its content from slasher-games to porn, snuff, cocaine and 2nd hand ballistic missiles. And we don't want our children to get their grubby little hands on those, do we? Not without proper training. So the court has ordered that this law may be passed if it is accompanied by a raider that mandates training in the proper use of cocaine and nuclear missiles.
Irene KHAAAAAAN!
Would it not also be helpfull to expose a kid to all the things in life, but explain to the kid what is morale and what is not. Looking at extremist behaviour, it is mainly because of taboos that they get worse than necessary. No taboos, but just a good sense of what is normal and what is less normal (or plain abnormal) works a lot better.
So next time when you think of forbidding something because it is bad, maybe you should allow it and educate on it.
My wife's sketchblog Blob[p]: Gastrono-me
what's the compelling reason behind banning porn sales to minors then? can the porn industry use this case in their favor?
Jack, is that you?
I was under the impression (from over here in the UK) that the rating on a game means that no-one under a certain age should be sold it. The article suggests that such a thing is against the First Amendment, WTF?
Over here in the UK, games are rated in the same way that movies, alcohol, tobacco etc are in that if you are caught supplying them to anyone underage you can get prosecuted.
I'm against censorship in that an adult should not be censored from what they wish to see/do, but ratings are a good thing IMO. This kind of court decision just seems back-asswards to me. Does this ruling mean that a child can go to an adult rated film, and if they get denied entry claim it breaches their First Amendment rights?
Bob
Listen to my latest album here
So government commitee? The MPAA? These laws open the door for corruption and lobbying by groups that want to govern what you can see. Perhaps we should let free markets and parents govern this issue instead.
Gloryhoundz has a good write up on this: http://www.gloryhoundz.com/
They regulate the movies so I'm a little confused about this. I suspect that it wasn't the spirit of this law that got shot down so much as some provision of it.
I am no expert, but it seems like this is why we have a constitution, so that laws cannot screw up for basic rights without a major fight. Too bad laws get passed without getting reviewed against the constitution.
Dvorak on Doomtech
Where can anyone now draw the line? The judge ruled that there wasn't a compelling enough reason, such as preventing imminent violence The Illinois law, would have barred stores from selling or renting extremely violent or sexual games to minors.
Deeper into the ruling the judge makes an interesting statement:
"The First Amendment embodies a principle that is at the core of our political system and our national ethos: "each person should decide for himself or herself the ideas and beliefs deserving of expression, consideration, and adherence." A law that restricts speech because of its message "contravenes this essential right. For this reason, content-based regulations are presumptively invalid."
Couldn't the same argument be made for anything? Movies? Porn? If you get specific about what constitutes imminent violence even guns qualify. In essence, you cannot stop someone from selling anything to anyone because you cannot prove it creates or produces an immanent threat to anyone.
If I were the porn industry, the focus would change to video games. Why not, since I can now sell to anyone, regardless of age. They cannot do that with magazines and online.
For the posters who said - it is up to parents. I agree to a point. I watch my children, however I still expect the police to arrest drug dealers, child molesters, etc. While I can watch mine, who knows if you are watching yours. Sure, you buy them Super Mario Brothers XXVIII, but they took the birthday money from grandma and bought Leisure Suit Larry does Las Vegas. It is also a contiguous fight with game manufactures to really explain what is going on in the game. While I would have passed on GTA for the violence, I must have missed the "Contains explicit sexual acts" statement on the game - oh wait, it wasn't on the game.
Has the court ruled that snuff films and porn are legal for minors, too?! I'm confused.
From http://www.theesa.com/archives/2005/07/video_game_ indu_1.php
"It's illogical that video games would be treated more harshly than R-rated movies or music CDs with parental warning labels, both of which can be legally viewed and sold to minors. We should be treated the same way as those industries." - Douglas Lowenstein, president of the ESA
It is NOT illegal to sell rated R movies to kids. Most retailers have methods to prevent this from happening. The video game companies aren't trying to get special treatment but rather semi-equal treatment.
this law will become more powerful than we possibly could have imagined.
As a good christain parent, I am disgusted. Children need to be protected from the filth of video games.
As a real Christian parent you should be more involved in your child's rearing, instead of relying on lawmakers. And if you aren't being sarcastic about this, you should know that you are generalizing all video games as violent. There are many non-violent video games and some are even educational.
"Kennelly said the law would interfere with the First Amendment and there wasn't a compelling enough reason, such as preventing imminent violence, to allow that."
Oh, yes it is over.
The only thing that isn't "over" is a waste of taxpayer dollars fighting over what should be and is, in fact, the most effective control: Parents/Guardians actively raising their children.
The best thing you can spend on your kids is time. Grow up and set a positive example for them.
Dont like games you consider to be violent? Fine. Don't let your kids buy them, and don't buy such games for them. But *do* be prepared to explain why and don't act like a hypocrite (i.e. dont act violent yourself or watch violent programs). Instead give them something else that is fun and educational to do.
Too bad that for some this is so hard to do...
uR iGn0ranc3, Their Power
Remember when you were a teenager & you wanted to buy Mortal Kombat for your Sega Genesis/SNES? Imagine if the guy behind the counter would tell you that you can't: "you're too young". You're 16, you're allowed to drive in some places, but you can't play Mortal Kombat... I know I have played ultra-violent games, I grew up playing them, I enjoyed them. But I also played games like Civ, Transport Tycoon, Populous etc... I graduated from high school and university with the highest honors. Yet I enjoy blood in games.
For all of you above 20 who probably did play these games just as much as me, remember, you were a teenager once too, and I don't think you would've appreciated it if a law would ban you from playing such games. It's so ironic that parents do the dumbest things when they are young (i.e smoke pot, play lame games with no educational value whatsoever) and grow up to become uptight pricks. "We don't want them to do the same mistakes we did...". I'm not condoning the "everything goes" attitude of some parents today, but focus on the things that are actually IMPORTANT, like pushing him to excel in school, grow up to be a respectable and responsible adult, not to avoid "the fruits of the devil" or whatever you feel like calling these things...
Besides, if you're THAT concerned about your child's safety, by him a Ninendo :D [yes I know, flamebait].
The law does not need to be put into it. If the parents don't monitor the minor's activities it is their own fault. My parents were strict when I was under 18 (and still am since I live at home). I was not allowed to watch "South Park," Look at porn on the Internet, stay up after 9 PM on a school night, etc. While my parents were conservitive on this, they allowed me to do other things, such as play "Grand Theft Auto" and so on. It is the parent's job to regulate, if they choose not to do so, don't make them. If they let their minor buy an M rated game, why should they be required to go to the store to buy it with them.
sudo mod me up
Hum... for me, ESA means European Space Agency :/
And the law says that Congress can make no law preventing freedom of expression or speech. As long as the expression does not do direct physical harm to someone or their property, it isn't illegal. A video game IS a form of expression -- art.
These laws (all of them) are merely instruments of governments in order to tell people "We're doing something!" What are they doing? They're replacing parents' responsibility.
Should a 12 year old be able to buy beer? Honestly, leave it up to individual cities (or better yet, the parents) to decide. Should a 12 year old be able to buy porn? Again, it is for the cities (and individuals) to decide. A State is too all-encompassing to allow the trials and tests that a free market offers. In Europe last I went, preteens were able to pick up beer and cigarettes for their parents. Retailers weren't held responsible for carding or anything as rights-infringing as we have in the States.
I live in Illinois and I hope we continue to see these laws shut down. It is just a political ploy to increase government's power while reporting it as positive for the citizen base. Citizens today are too irresponsible and too mentally restricted to understand that we all have responsibilities, parents especially, to monitor what is used in our households. It is not government's problem.
Judge legalizes peddling porn to minors.
Film at 11... You wish!
The answer, of course, is the parents. An outright ban on the sale of violent or "filthy" materials to children ignores the fact that different parents have differing levels of comfort with what their children are exposed to. As long as the material in question isn't going to harm the child (i.e. showing real snuff videos to kindergartners or some such) then the parents should be allowed to make that decision.
The question is, do you ban everything and require specific parental consent for exceptions, or do you permit everything and rely on the parents to keep track of what their kids are doing? Personally, I'm in favor of the latter, and for that to work, children must have access to materials that some parents find offensive.
...and yes, I'm posting as an AC. I'm tired of being modded down for admitting I'm a Reganite.
Our Governor it a retard and will be voted out of office in the next election. Even his own party hates him. His threat to appeal means nothing.
As far as the law goes, I agree that our children should not be playing adult oriented games, but a feel-good law isn't going to do squat. The parents need to step up and raise their own kids, not just let the State do it. I agree that this law should be shot down.
Its illegal to sell porn to minors. Video game content should be treated no differently.
Until you are an adult, your rights *are* limited. ( as they should be ).
Sure, the concept of 'adult' is arbitrary, but you have to draw a line somewhere, its the law of averages that is used. ( anyone remember the bell curve? )
---- Booth was a patriot ----
As a good Christian parent I say fine - don't buy them for your kids. And teach your kids why you don't think they are appropriate. That's what *I* have done with regard to games like GTA: San Andreas. It is absolutely, positively NOT the government's job to determine what my kids can and can't see, read, etc. That's MY job. The First Amandment says they can't pass laws limiting freedom of speech. And I agree. The one exception is providing obscene material to children, and I have no problem with that restriction.
The limits you want to set for YOUR kids are between you, your kids, your church (possibly) and God. Period. I will set the limits for MY children, thank you very much.
Just so we're clear, my church is very conservative, and I'm an ordained minister. But I believe in the First Amemdment and that it's the parents' duty to monitor and control their kids - not the government's.
Man, you're advocating responsibility... How naive is that?
Global warming is a cube.
http://www.ilnd.uscourts.gov/RACER2/recent_opinion s.cfm?judge=Kennelly
First on the list (as of this posting)
Sadly, the governor and his people are already in full reelection campaign mode which means that good sense gets mowed down like so many pedestrians in San Andreas. Too bad he can't spend his own campaign money to finance the appeal instead of wasting my tax dollars on what is clearly motivated by his desire to look good to conservative voters. The other sad fact is that Governor Blagojevich probably isn't going to have a strong challenger anyway, so this inept bunch will probably get another term. As a generally Democratic voter, it really shames me that Democrats are going out of their way *cough*Hillary*cough* to support what they think are conservative values. Being pro-video game censorship is just pure pandering. If they are true Democrats, they know this is BS and as such it is fundamentally against the historic principles of the party to play the voters this way. The Democrats should remain true to their values. If we're going to be damned, then let's be damned for what we truly are!
To the making of books there is no end, so let's get started
No study has ever shown a link between onscreen sex and violence and real-life sex and violence, so what's the motivation for restricting access? Movies, TV, and video games don't turn normal kids into criminals. And criminals who've been exposed to these things were already criminals *before* they were exposed; media depictions weren't the *cause*.
What church is that? Church of Bold Emphasis?
...computer games weren't all ridiculously violent. I mean, there's so much more you can do with this medium than shoot stuff. The games industry wouldn't even be opposing this if they weren't scared that big sellers like GTA and Doom would be restricted to adults only and thus pulled from many store shelves. They've allowed themselves to rely on a lowest-common-denominator market that other media are prevented from targetting. They know it can't last but while it does, they're raking it in faster than Hollywood so they aren't going to give up easily.
As a real Christian parent you should be more involved in your child's rearing, instead of relying on lawmakers.
Nice smokescreen, dude. But what happens when parenting suddenly becomes ILLEGAL? i.e. a parent spanking his child, and ending up in jail for domestic violence (it has happened, in LA if i recall correctly).
Look, a parent pays his taxes so the people at the congress pass laws that protect him and his children. A parent has the right to decide Whether violent videogames promote violence or not. Therefore, it is the PARENT, and NOT THE CONGRESS who should have control over videogames. But this sets a precedent: It's the congress, and NOT the parents, who have the final word on this issue.
In Soviet USA, the government parents YOU!
Forbidding violent videogames from minors is not an attack against a teenager's freedom. It is a protection of the PARENTS' WILL. But if laws suddenly began granting the wishes of immature kids against the wishes of their parents, why not just lower the adult age to 15? Heck, why not just abolish parenthood and let the brats do whatever they want?
The current laws are stupid and full of hypocrisy.
Many of you have already commented that certain video games should under the same "regulatory standards" as cigarettes, alcohol, and pornography under the guise that it's there to protect the children. Protect the children from what? Real life? These laws do not really teach our children anything at all. From their eyes, it's sending the message "you can't have that". When they ask "why", most people use the crutch statement "because it's against the law". What a stupid answer. Tell them the real reasons why and put it in the context of your family. In order to do that, you would need somewhat responsible parents who actually talk to their children and communicate with them.
Coderz 4 Life
Remeber bulliten boards, way before the day when everyone had internet? I would guess at the peak of the BBS popularity is when the first shareware version of DOOM came out.
I was a sysop back then,and we had a local group in our city of about 30 BBSes that met once a month to discuss everything from LD chrges to the latest hacker activity.
DOOM caused a real sensation. Every sysop had his own copy, but we were all at a quandry where to offer it for download. Would it offend parents if we let children download such a violent game?
When we did all meet, we found out the guys who ran the "Adult" BBSes, or guys who had "Adult" sections limited to 18 or over, autmatically stuck DOOM in the 18+ category. Seeing how the "Adult boards took the lead, we all followed.
I dunno if the law struck down was good or not - how a law is written, and how it plays out in real life are sometimes 2 different things, but I am still weirded out today that back when DOOM first came out, the guys running "Adult" content automatically assumed it belonged there because of the level of violence, whereas today any kid can just about and store selling computer games and buy the game off the shelf.
the reason this sticks with me is one off the cuff remarks a sysop, who ran a totally adult BBS , made, that DOOM was "damned near a snuff film" it was so violent. We all of course would laugh at this comparison today, but isn't it just a wee bit creepy how fast attitudes change? Where does it stop?
One last thoguht - being a parent myself, please, please, please stop with this "it's time for parents to put down their foot" or "parents to take things into their own hands", "or parents to take responsibility", etc, etc, etc. Parents can only do so much, and sometimes we need help from the community as a whole. Yes, there are parents who take zero responsibility, but for those of us who refuse certian things in our households, it is a constant, uphill battle given the general direction of society.
I think that was the *intent* of the law that was struck down, to show parents that yes, we the people support the idea that some items do not belong in the hands of children, not to play babysitter for irresponible parents. Now I never lived in that state, so I have no idea if it actually worked. Sometimes the best sounding laws turn out ot be the biggest duds in history when set to real life. Prohobition for example. So who knows. Where do we all draw the balance?
joe
Now why, oh why, can't more conservative Christians be like you? Bravo!
To know recursion, you must first know recursion.
You are equating video games with porn?
Why not equate violent movies with porn? What about war movies? Those are pretty violent, aren't they? Are you saying a 16-year old kid should not be allowed to watch Saving Private Ryan?
Hell, his *cable television* has as much, or more, violence on it than a lot of the M-rated games.
Well, violent movies are rated R today. This currently makes them illegal for a minor to get with out paraental intervention.
I still see no difference. And expect the law to be applied equally, without having to resort to yet another law.
I only used the porn reference as its pretty clear cut. But if you want to fall back on violence to prove my point, go ahead.
---- Booth was a patriot ----
The inherent problem with all those posts saying that individual parents should decide and raise their own children is that parents have very very limited responsibility. If you allow your kid to play Carmageddon plus GTA:SA and then he steals your shotgun and your SUV and runs amok in the city, flattening and shooting a dozen people, neither he nor YOU can be capitally executed for the crime, according to current US laws. Both will get away with very light sentences and noone resurrects the dead.
Kids can murder with impunity and this is a big problem. We must protect the right to live of the vast majority of the population from degenerates. Murder is the most serious safety issue in modern developed societies, where homicide is the greatest threat to your average 77 to 84 year life expectancy! Violent games incite to murder, so many US school massacres have illustrated that.
If kids are allowed to buy porn and play violent video games, they must also stand in the face of law just like adults. Rape --> permanent castration, Murder --> gallows, even if you are mere 11. Good riddance!
And I am a european telling you that. America don't be sissy, keep finishing off the convicted murderers. 1000+ and counting. God bless President Jackson!
Read this one instead: http://www.gamasutra.com/php-bin/news_index.php?st ory=7388
:wq
Violent games incite to murder, so many US school massacres have illustrated that.
Interesting, considering youth violence is at the lowest point it has been in decades. In fact, it has been going down as video game consumption has increased. Maybe that correlation needs to be studied.
I don't see anything wrong with that: physical abuse is not a substitute for "parenting".
Actually, it's an attack on the retailer and the publisher. The retailer will decide not to carry any items which could possibly bring a $1,000 liability for the $5 the retailer would earn from the sale. And therefore the publisher will stop making these games, since no retailer will carry them.
Trying to legislate morality is always a bad idea.
I feel fantastic, and I'm still alive.
Being a responsible parent includes being politcally involved on your child's behalf.
There aren't a lot of minors on Slashdot who play video games are there? They might add a little bias to the responses here.
Why isn't Illinois - or any other state that's trying to enact such laws - pass a law mandating game consoles include technology for the V-chip? Wasn't this sort of the thing the exact reason the V-chip was mandated?
Forget about the logistics involved with such a mandate - after all, Illinois forgot the 1st Amendment when they passed their "no sales to minors" law - it's just that technology for this sort of thing already exists, so why don't the Microsofts and Sonys of the world just implement it in future consoles, if only to shut up the cries of "won't someone think of the children?!"
I don't want to argue against this, but the same argument, if valid, should also allow kids to buy porn in other forms such as videos and magazines. Are THEIR first amendment rights any less in need of protecting?
Can someone explain to me how the right to sell a video game with violence or really selling anything to a minor is protected by the First Amendment? Freedom of Speech? Maybe freedom to make a buck, but I don't see the constitutional angle.
Shouldn't they allow sale of porn to minor, since that's free speech and doesn't incur on imminent violent either?
How can you trust the statistics? Especially considering the nature of violence, it's a very difficult thing to collect accurate data on.
If that's the case, then you can't trust the ones saying games *cause* violence either, and laws like these have no legitimate purpose.
I don't want to argue against this, but the same argument, if valid, should also allow kids to buy porn in other forms such as videos and magazines.
... except when in cases when the game is porn believe. Pornographic games are regulated just like a Playboy, so no new law is required.
... they want to try porn that will kill you.
They have tried to compare video games to porn in the past, but it didn't pass the ethical/moral muster to be classified as such
Essentially video games are a form of expression and therefore free speech. Instituting potential financial harm on people who might sell these games causes market pressure to make less risky game. Hence, a violation of free speech.
So they aren't framing this as a free speech issue, or at least they are trying not to frame it as such. They are framing it as a public health issue. In recent interview with old Rob B, he directly compared video games to cigarretes and alcohol (as well as pornography). So basically, having failed the porn test
No kidding. The argument is that violent video games will make violent children who will turn to violent crime, so that it is in the society's best interest to curtail this at the source.
The fact that there is no scientific basis for that argument hasn't stopped the supporters from saying there is. This is equivalent of banning cell phones for kids because they might get brain damage when they are thirty. It makes perfect sense, except it's completely wrong.
Not to mention that this is a solution for a problem that does not exist. There is no epidemic of children buying violent games. There is a trend of parents buying violent games for their kids. So even if this law had logic and facts on it's side, which it doesn't, it would do no good at to solving the problem.
The only thing this law does is pay some lawyers and get some politicians some press to indicate that they care about kids.
How is this any different than a PG-13 or R rated movie? In an R rated movie, you someone under 17 can't but a ticket. With the equivilant video game rating, someone under 17 can't buy the game. It seems to me that if this is going to be ruled unconstitutional, then a 10 year old should be able to go see an R Rated movie because that too should be unconstititional.
Yeah, Gov. Blagovich and Lisa Madigan are wasting my dollars. With any luck he won't be in the Govenor's Mansion after the next election. Well he doesn't spend much time there anyway, I mean why live in the Govenor's Mansion when the state will pay for housing in Chicago.
I/O, I/O, its off to disk I go, with a read and a write, and a bit and a byte, I/O, I/O, I/O, I/O
My children need to be protected from theocratic do-gooders who seem to think they have some special right to do my job for me. We don't live in Iran, pal, so you worry about your kids and I'll worry about mine.
The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
A Christian who is a *real* conservative ... I salute you!
"Because Science" is one step from "Because old book". Try "Because of my experiment testing my falsifiable assertion".
So now you can sell any games to minors but you can't say fuck or show boobies on American terrestrial television?
This comment does not represent the views or opinions of the user.
Of course he's going to appeal. The guy can't lose anything! I go to a Illinois college where all construction was halted for 3 years on a much needed revamping. It was said because it was a George Ryan project (George Ryan is kind of seen as corrupt these days) and they had to be sure it went through the right bidding. Of course, they had just demolished it so it was unusable.
Seriously, this guy would to the ends of the Earth to try and prove he isn't wrong, even if everyone but Chicago knows he is. He thinks that fighting this thing will make mothers vote for him. I hope he's wrong.
"Don't meddle in the affairs of a patent dragon, for thou art tasty and good with ketchup." ~ohcrapitssteve
What I want to know is, why hasn't Congress looked into recording industry collusion on pricing that keeps CDs priced at an exceedingly high margin beyond what the market demands!
Then shut down every Mom-n'-Pop Video Game Store now (since that is where all the smart kids get their M-Rated Games from)and let places like only GayStop and Electronic Bitches sell them(in which Teens will use P2P networks and pirate their M-Rated games), which will lead to the ban of all P2P serivces. Then sooner or later (when Hilary runs for president) places like GayStop and Electronic Bitches will be restriced to selling only Teen rated and below games and make EA release censored versions of games like Madden and NBA Live, at which point the Video game industry will die.
It's a voluntary system. There are NO laws supporting your assumption.
Why does anyone care if those little shits can't buy the game they want and have to ask Grandma to buy it instead?
Now why, oh why, can't more conservative Christians be like you? Bravo!
Because most people who label themselves as "conservative Christians" are neither conservative nor truly Christian?
He is a Christian conservative. Most others who claim to be both are neither.
Cyric Zndovzny at your service.
You are joking I hope. I know teens feel it isn't fair. Too bad. They have their whole lives to smoke, drink, watch porn, and enjoy ultra violent content. I am not an anarchist. I am not a fan of government control either.
Your worry about morailty is interesting. Is it moral to try to prevent measurable damage that would be caused to these children? I think it is reasonable to try.
I suspect you missed the fact that you can vote when you are 18. Why don't you let 8 year olds vote? Can you seriously argue that maturity does not matter and children can make decisions for themselves?
I hope you tune back into reality soon.
Electing this asshole for governer? Thats the big question.
-- If we don't stand up for our rights, now, there will be no right to stand up for them later.
A law like this had to happen at one point or another.
I see the judge's reasoning as a greater threat to freedom than the law itself. What I expect to see from this type of ruling is the conclusion by the general public that we need to repeal/restrict the First Amendment so that we can restrict software, pornography, etc.
The US government have made it clear that we have no inalienable rights; any we do not defend vigorously will be taken.
Sweet. I guess it'll also be ruled that cigarettes and alcohol can now be sold to minors on the basis of free speech. As well as allowance into rated R movies. What if I were 7? Wouldn't it be my free right as an American to go in and purchase my favorite XXX film? Seriously, I saw two little 6 or 7 year olds in Wal-Mart the other day playing CoD2 on a 360. That should certainly be illegal. Though if the parents had been with them, it'd be OK. But as I saw it, it was neglectful parenting and when that happens the government should step in. IMO until you're 18 you shouldn't have any rights anyway.
y do u religious and selfish freaks like to ruin our happiness keep it under yor own roof im a child i play all the above mentioned "bad video games" im 14 and I DONT SEEM CORRUPTED BY IT QUIT BEING SO BIASED I AM AMERICAN AND PPL SAY I SHOULD BE PROUD TO B but im not cuz of u biased idiots the government sux saying "yor underage" i drink alcohol myself but im responsible w/ it i dont let ne 1 else drink it either i dun sum drugs too but im not an addict the only reasons in my site that tons of ppl do drugs is cuz they herd its bad and forbidden not cuz of video games i also look at porn and i hav to steal to get it cuz they wont let me buy it u biased americans say we hav freedom free of what i say? im not even allowed to voice my opinion w/ out getting yelled at also government i herd is trying to ban gay marriage or sumthin im gay and i think its rong to sum it up government and u selfish biased americans just wanna ruin our entertainment! y isnt ne1 wanted to get rid of movies and books of that content? along w/ ppl try to get rid of it bcuz of their religion WELL IM AETHEIST (idont kno how to spell it) B****ES!!!!! I DONT BELIEVE IN THAT CRAP IN FACT I LAFF AT IT try raising yor kids responsibly i did all those things and i turned out well so far get yor own playground to ruin get out of my eletric brain world
Parents can only do so much, and sometimes we need help from the community as a whole.
I think the key point is really the size of this community we're talking about. Federal and state laws restricting expression and publishing will meet a lot more resistance than county and city ones. A lot of us will fight tooth and nail against state laws like this but are more than happy for people to gather in a city with likeminded people and legislate the type of local environment they want. We really can't expect an entire state full of people--and certainly not an entire multi-cultural country like the U.S.--to agree on what entertainment is "bad for children."
This Bukkakevich is such a pain. Every time I glance at the paper it's him or Daley coming up with creative ways to make money off the citizens. Things will never be right around here because then they'd be out of a job.
That's the point of a leadership position isn't it? To see how much money you can walk away with?
I am not a lawyer, so maybe someone can explain this to me. I thought that the First Amendment guaranteed the right to freedom of expression, but not necessarily some sense of a right to an audience. Since there is no restriction (as far as I can tell) on what kind of software is being produced (the right to express), how does the first Amendment apply to people attempting to gain access to that expression?
In Soviet Russia, us are belong to all your base.
I think the ESA statement sums it up quite nicely.
----- snip -----
STATEMENT FROM DOUGLAS LOWENSTEIN
PRESIDENT OF THE ENTERTAINMENT SOFTWARE ASSOCIATION
Washington, DC - (December 2, 2005) - Today, Judge Matthew S. Kennelly, United States District Judge for the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois, handed down a permanent injunction halting the implementation of the new state law that would restrict video game sales. In his decision declaring the law unconstitutional, the judge forcefully sided with the Entertainment Software Association (ESA) in its lawsuit against the Governor of Illinois and others.
The ESA sought relief from the state's Violent Video Games Law and Sexually Explicit Video Games Law, arguing before the court that these statutes were unconstitutionally vague and challenged the research used to support the laws.
Douglas Lowenstein, president of the ESA, which represents U.S. computer and video game publishers, issued this statement in response:
"We said a year ago when the Governor of Illinois proposed this statute that the court would strike down this law, and that it would be a shame to waste the time and money of Illinois' taxpayers on a political exercise. Today's decision proves that prediction was accurate in all respects. It's unfortunate that the money and time that could've been used to help Illinois families and children were wasted. This is the fifth decision of this type. It's our hope that politicians will start to work cooperatively with the industry by helping parents in ways that are constitutional, effective, and sensible. We again assert that between the powerful tools of reliable ESRB ratings, parental education, and now with the recent announcement that all next generation consoles will have parental controls, there is a wealth of ways that those concerned can ensure that children do not have access to inappropriate games."
In his decision, Judge Kennelly found fault with the state's argument that legislation is the answer to protecting children from inappropriate media. He wrote that, "If controlling access to allegedly 'dangerous' speech is important in promoting the positive psychological development of children, in our society that role is properly accorded to parents and families, not the State."
This is the second court in as many weeks that has soundly rejected the research used to support these laws. In this case, it is particularly striking that the state put forward what it perceived to be the most persuasive research available. The court found the testimony of the state's key witnesses, noted video game critics Dr. Craig Anderson and Dr. William Kronenberger, to be completely unpersuasive. Upon review of the science the government offered, the court ruled, "Defendants have failed to present substantial evidence showing that playing violent video games causes minors to have aggressive feelings or engage in aggressive behavior...With these limited findings, it is impossible to know which way the causal relationship runs: it may be that aggressive children may also be attracted to violent video games." In addition, the judge found "... that Dr. Kronenberger's studies cannot support the weight he attempts to put on them via his conclusions. The defendants have offered no basis to permit a reasonable conclusion that...minors who play violent video games are more likely to '[e]xperience a reduction of activity in the frontal lobes of the brain which is responsible for controlling behavior."
Finally, the judge determined that, "the state may have a compelling interest in assisting parents with regulating the amount of media violence consumed by their children, but it does not have a compelling interest in singling out video games in this regard. In fact, the underinclusiveness of this statute - given that violent images appear more accessible to unaccompanied minors in other media - indicates that regulating violent video games is not really intended to serve the proffered purpose."
###
----- snip -----
From Wikipedia:
Making it illegal to sell video games in many outlets would defiantly create a "chilling effect" on video games and it therefore is against developer's freedom of speech. Developers will feel obligated to avoid any adult content (be it violence, mature plot lines, sexual content) for multiple reasons.
First, developers are now going to feel obligated to make games for people of all ages only, rather then making games targeting adults, to avoid their game being pushed into a back room somewhere. Financially having good shelf space or location in arcades is very important.
Secondly, developers will avoid this content because of the legal reproductions that are possible. When the game ships it could be seen as good enough for all audiences by the majority of public but later when the public opinion shifts what was once alright could then be considered offensive and therefore must be limited and have legal reproductions. This creates a system that is subjective and open to change depending on who is deciding weather the game is only for adults or not and makes creating games for adults a legally scary situation.
Third, I believe this will allow for censorship on reasons other then violence and nudity for video games. Because of the statement below statement this will allow games to be removed because of ideals or mentalities. For example say there is currently a war going on and a video game comes out with a strong anti government theme. Perhaps you are organizing protests against the country and using underhanded political tactics to undermine the government in order to evoke a revolt (like in the game "Republic: The Revolution"). Because the government is currently active in a controversial situation it could be seen that this game is instilling anarchy in our youth and should not be sold. It's not hard to say something doesn't have a "scientific value" literary, artistically, or politically when the ideals given are controversial.
This is most defiantly unconstitutional as the case Lamont v. Postmaster General, 381 U.S. 301, 85 S.Ct. 1493 (1965) set the precedence.
"The principle of free thought is not free thought for those who agree with us but freedom for the thought we hate." US Supreme Court Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes in United States v. Schwimmer (1929).
Violent crime is at it's lowest level in 30 years. However, violent media has become more and more common. Perhaps there is a correlation.
(I am not a lawyer, and most of this post is based on my interpretation of laws that I have no specific knowledge of)
The thing that seems to get lost in these discussions, is that freedom of speech is not the central issue here. IF a reasonable case can be made for legally banning the sale of violent/sexual videogames to minors, THEN we should look at the question of "who could be trusted to decide which games are violent/sexual?" However, these laws have not yet conquered that initial hurdle of proving that there are sufficient grounds to restrict sales to minors. The freedom of speech issue is simply a convenient method for saying "well even if you COULD prove that sales of these games should be restricted, the method of restriction you propose happens to be unconstitutional anyway, so the whole thing should be nixed!"
The debate everyone SHOULD be having is whether there's proper grounds to restrict sales of these games, or of movies/TV/books/music. The courts have so far held that the answer is "no," and that there simply is not a sufficient body of scientific evidence to warrant such a law.
First and foremost, though, recognize that there are two commonly-held reasons to legally ban the sale of a product to minors:
1. The product is harmful to the minor. Because the well-being of minors is considered the responsibility of their legal guardians (for the sole reason that minors are considered too inexperienced in the world to reliably look out for their own best interest), it is thought to be appropriate that, whenever feasible, minors should not have the autonomy to engage in activities that are harmful to themselves.
2. The use of the product is harmful to society. Whether you're a minor or an adult, actions that can be reliably shown to *cause* a net-negative effect on society tend to get banned (as in, the product causes its owner to engage in a harmful act). In some extreme cases the availability of a product may be restricted under the lest strict criteria that it "enables" actions that are harmful to society. However, so long as substantial non-harmful uses can be shown, the product is usually only subject to strict regulations, not outright-banned.
When they finally banned tobacco products, it was only after substantial evidence had been collected to support the claim that tobacco caused harm to smokers. This is why it is only illegal for minors to PURCHASE cigarettes. The legal guardian can purchase cigarettes for the minor if they want. Technically, the only adults who should be legally able to purchase cigarettes for a minor are the minor's legal guardians. I don't know if the actual law says that, but the idea that ANY adult can purchase cigarettes for a minor (as is a common occurrence) doesn't make any particular sense, given the original logic behind the law.
The reason I bring up cigarettes, is that the popular belief is that the sale of tobacco to minors is banned because "we want to protect the children." This is an incomplete view that gets people into trouble. It is not legal to "protect the children" in the general sense. What is legal, is to assist the legal guardians in protecting THEIR children, as they see fit, and also in revoking a legal guardian's custody of a child if deemed appropriate (letting your 2-month-old baby smoke, for example, might indicate that you're unfit to maintain custody). It is for this reason, that adults are not banned from purchasing cigarettes for themselves. It is ALSO for this reason that it is not illegal for children to smoke cigarettes. Namely, because engaging in self-injurious behavior, below a certain extreme threshold, is your RIGHT. As a minor, though, those rights are guarded by the guardian. The guardian's job is to act in the best interest of the child, so for a guardian to "self-injure" the minor who is under their custody, the guardian would have to prove that the action is in the best interest of the minor, which would be almost impossible to justify for any action which you as the guardian know is "se
I want my child to know what is right and what is wrong. To many parents, including in the "It's the parents responsibility" crownd just want to teach what is right, and hope thier children never see wrong. At 20 months, my child aready knows what is pretend and what is not. By making sure he always knows the difference means that no fictional movie, music or video game will be bad for him. There seems to be a large portions of the adult population still have a problem telling the differnce between real and pretend.
The state is leaking money and jobs like a sieve, you keep pushing for more state programs and jobs to be done away with, and not only do you waste taxpayers' money by flying between Chicago and Springfield all the time, now you're wasting your time with this stupid-ass videogame law!
Just remember Mr. Blagojevich, your time in office is coming to an end. Thank God.
Stating on Slashdot that I like cheese since 1997.
Just last week I was at a mall and was itchin' to fire off my BFG.
Stating on Slashdot that I like cheese since 1997.
I, for one, welcome our federal judicial overlords. :-)
Seriously, here in the People's Republic of Illinois, I'm not surprised this law went through, but I'm also not surprised (and I'm happy) that this judge had the common sense that our current set of corrupt public officials (this is Illinois after all) do not.
Is Capitalism Good for the Poor?
"The courts have so far held that the answer is "no," and that there simply is not a sufficient body of scientific evidence to warrant such a law."
It's an oversimplification.
1) There are obscenity laws. Now you can debate whether some video games are obscene, but that's another issue...
Personally, I do believe that some of the things in today's games are obscene by any public standard and should be rated and restricted as such.
2) The courts do not want to step in when adequate measures can be taken -- i.e. through a means of public measures and industry self-policing.
For example, the movie industry instituted a ratings system and self-polices because of pressure from the public. The public generally sees this as being adequate, so no real issues are raised to the government (with the exception being pornography).
In April 1968, the U.S. Supreme Court upheld the constitutional power of states and cities to prevent the exposure of children to books and films deemed inappropriate according to their own local standards. This put further pressure on the MPAA to determine how to market movies in a way that the public would accept.
With the game industry, the public, like it or not, does not see the measures in place as being adequate, hence government involvement. GTA and Rockstar's indescretion was just the icing on the cake; putting doubts in the public's mind about the reliability of the ratings system.
Games, like it or not, are a whole different animal. On one extreme you have alcohol and cigarettes witch directly effect the minor (and those around them). On the other extreme you have film and novels which are completely passive entertainment. Games sit ambiguously somewhere in-between; that's the problem -- the content exists in a grey area.
For me, I would like to see the industry step up and police itself better. I don't want it to come to fines, but if it does, so be it. Heck, I'd like to see the consoles / pc have some sort of v-chip that helps parents with things like this. To me there is not really any sort of censorship going on here; but that's just my 2 cents.
Yeah. The poster you're responding to took the case completely out of context when he cited it. Most likely, there were mitigating circumstances like the parent spanking the child more than once or leaving bruises or, in some other manner, physically damaging the child. Most spankings are not and should not be considered abusive. The purpose of a spanking is to cause physical pain to grab the child's attention in a serious emergency.
Like, if I caught my kid playing with matches I would most certainly spank them. But if I caught them playing WoW for too long, I would just disconnect their internet access. Spankings are a useful tool for parents.
However, laws are not a useful tool for parents. The best way for a parent to prevent their child from doing something is to model good behavior.
SRSLY.
Imagen if that law was passed on the time of pac man and mario brothers... Pac man shal have a hard time eating ghost around... (call that canivalism) and poor mario trowing fireballs to poor gumbas... practicaly you are killing them... (very violent....) any way if this contines what will be of our gameing industry.. in where more and more restrictions are been imposed and this "social control" it is just a move of a minority of people. That have never seen a gun before. It is fine to set some guidelines but thins way will only give more and more publisity to it. Oh it is only a matther of calling some one else to buy the came if it comes to own one. Now then who will enforce the law at the house. Don't tell me house to house search for mature rated games?
And, "physically abusing" means causing any sort of physical pain. I do not agree that "discipline" must needs include "physical shock".
But then, I never intend to have kids, so watch me vote!
I feel fantastic, and I'm still alive.
Mod parent as Troll.
Do your job as a parent, grandparent, or other. I buy games for my neices and nephew, but I call the parents and okay them first. (same with most toys I get them) I have helped people in the store pick games for children, pointing out the ratings and telling them the reasons are on the back. You don't want your kids to play the games, then don't let them. Set the rules and enforce them. And before yu scream about the games causing problems, count the number sold vs the number of players that do something crazy. But if you still insist on leting the state raise your kids, well I'm sure there is a state run orphanage around that can do it... personally I would rather raise my kids then let a cold government do it for me.
"I found no people for killing time, so I found time for killing people" - "Time for People" by Atomship
If you don't have kids, you won't understand, because frankly you don't understand what it is to raise kids when companies are trying to profit from them.
If you are a religious nut, you won't understand, because frankly your view of reality is clouded by your fantasy.
If you are not a gamer, you won't understand, because frankly, you don't understand games.
If you are fine with your kids playing GTA, you won't understand, because frankly, you don't care what your kids do.
But if you are a non-religious gamer parent who doesn't want your 9 year old playing GTA, well then, you probably have a good grasp on the issue and can be reasonable about it.
The rest of you... are all just static.
The question is then: is there a way to protect parents from companies who want to make sure they profit from your kids via any means possible (the easiest being of course lots of sex and violence in the game) without trampling on free speech laws?
I look forward to any reasonable answers.
Cool!
So it is okay to sell drugs outside your house. After all it is your job to determine if your kids can take them.
And, is must be okay to sell pornography outside your church, after all it is your job to determine if your kids can watch them.
And, I can't wait for the local bar to sell drinks your kids, after all it is your job to determine if your kids can drink or not.
Yahoo! I'm going to make lots of money off your kids with no government regulations to stop me.