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.

Comments

Uh, kinda sane

[Ztream]

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.

Re:Uh, kinda sane

[malchus842]

But this is how it always starts. The cry of We have to protect the children by politicians looking for re-election (and Gov Rod has several investigations into his administration to distract people from right now) leads to LOTS of bad law. And this one is no different. You know the next step - banning sales to kids didn't work, they are still getting their hands on them. So we have to make the law tougher. And the cycle continues.

Fundamentally, the responsibility lies with the parents, not the state, to monitor what their kids do. This goes for all manner of things, not just buying video games. My kids know the rules that we have, and I know they know them. But my rules should not limit what OTHER parents or kids do! This is just another 'nanny-state' law - the kind I'm really getting tired of.

I am reminded of the entire Tipper Gore vs. Frank Zappa music censorship battle. To quote Zappa (from the Joe's Garage liner notes:

Desperate nerds in high offices all over the world have been known to enact the most disgusting pieces of legislation in order to win votes (or in places where they don't get votes, to control unwanted forms of mass behavior).

Environmental laws were not passed to protect our air and water...they were passed to get votes. Seasonal anti-smut campaigns are not conducted to rid our communities of moral rot...they are conducted to give an aura of saintliness to the office-seekers who demand them. If a few key phrases are thrown into any speech (as the expert advisors explain to these various heads of state) votes will roll in, bucks will roll in, and, most importantly, power will be maintained by the groovy guy (or gal) who gets the most media coverage for his sleaze. Naturally, his friends in various businesses will do okay too.

All governments perpetuate themselves through the daily commission of acts which a rational person might find to be stupid or dangerous (or both). Naturally, our government is no exception.

Frank knew what he was talking about! Here's an excerpt from his congressional testimony that speaks volumes

It is my understanding that, in law, First Amendment Issues are decided with a preference for the least restrictive alternative. In this context, the PMRC's demands are the equivalent of treating dandruff by decapitation.

No one has forced Mrs. Baker or Mrs. Gore to bring Prince or Sheena Easton into their homes. Thanks to the Constitution, they are free to buy other forms of music for their children. Apparently, they insist on purchasing the works of contemporary recording artists in order to support a personal illusion of aerobic sophistication. Ladies, please be advised: The $8.98 purchase price does not entitle you to a kiss on the foot from the composer or performer in exchange for a spin on the family Victrola. Taken as a whole, the complete list of PMRC demands reads like an instruction manual for some sinister kind of "toilet training program" to house-break all composers and performers because of the lyrics of a few. Ladies, how dare you?"

To bad Zappa died of cancer in 1993.

Laws are no substitute for Parental Control

[xoip]

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.

Not really that sane.

[worb]

If this is the same law proposal that specifically targeted video games but ignored things like movies, then the law isn't that sane after all. This was one of the big problems pointed out by the industry and its defenders - that the law was singling out video games and ignoring other forms of entertainment.

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.

Re:Why is everyone so gung-ho

[Rocketship Underpant]

As a parent and a grandfather, I would not want my kids partaking in this sort of degenerate filth. It's garbage.

So be a responsible parent and grandfather then, and restrict those things from your kids yourself. Don't take the easy, selfish route of asking the State to do your parenting for you. Your temporary convenience is not worth your freedom, nor the freedom of your neighbours.

Re:Why is everyone so gung-ho

[ashridah]

"...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?"

Obviously, you don't believe YOUR children shouldn't. Doesn't mean everyone should automatically agree with you.

The reason this is being fought tooth and nail is because it's a stepping stone to greater losses of the so-called freedoms you americans face (note, author of this post not american)

"As a parent and a grandfather, I would not want my kids partaking in this sort of degenerate filth. It's garbage."

By your reasoning, so's most of shakespear's work.. oh. so that's written on paper, so that's okay? Right, double-standard much? May as well burn every library and start again with fresh culture.

"And don't get all excited. I'm an atheist so I'm not some religious right wing zealot.."

*blink* so that means you're just a right wing zealot? You don't have to be religious to be a moral crusader, it just seems to be common.

"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.."

A sample of two is not a valid experiment. Come back and talk to me when you've raised about 30-thousand children, AND when you have a valid cross-section of lifestyles, living areas, etc. Your experiment is also loaded with bias. Read http://www.badscience.net/ for examples of bias in experiments.

Millions of children grow up with video games, MTV, books, porn, the internet, and none of them turn out to be serial killers, gang members, murderers, rapists, drug users, etc.

Some kids who have no contact with any of the above media still commit crimes of these nature, hell, they were committing these crimes before the media existed at all!

Statistically speaking, the fact that there's an intersection at some point between violent crimes and these types of media is just a proof that both exist in a random selection of people!

ash

PS, I find it entertaingly co-incidental (aka, an alanis-morriset style ironicism) that i was asked to reproduce the word 'gunned' to verify my humanity.