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?
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
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
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.
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.
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].
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.
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.
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.
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
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.
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.
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".
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
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