Slashdot Mirror


Indiana Tries to Pass Game Law Again

phaedo00 writes "Ars Technica has posted their take on Indiana's newest attempt at passing a game law that seeks to restrict the sale of violent video games. This, despite that fact that similar legislation has a track record of failing in every state it has been proposed in. From the article: 'The state capitol, Indianapolis, was one of the first cities in the nation to try and strike out at violent video games, first going after arcades and other entertainment vendors back in 2000. The quest ended up where they all do: in front of a judge, and left for dead. Now that California, Illinois, and Michigan have all suffered astounding defeats in their attempts to address PC and console game sales, Indiana wants to join the ranks of the failures.'"

3 of 267 comments (clear)

  1. Re:It's cheap for politicians to pass an invalid l by fishbowl · · Score: 2, Informative


    "They can, its called election day."

    Even when successful, they are free to mingle in society, and able to run for office again. What about the concept that a violation of the peoples' rights by a lawmaker or official would make that official risk death, life in prison, forfeiture of assets, that sort of thing?

    --
    -fb Everything not expressly forbidden is now mandatory.
  2. Re:Those under 18 do not have the same rights by sqlrob · · Score: 2, Informative

    Then why not get rid of the drinking age laws? Parents can watch their kids to make sure they don't drink.

    There is documented developmental harm from alcohol. None from games.

    Some places won't sell R movie tickets to those under 18, without a parent there. How is a game different?

    If a store wants to do that, let them. Don't legislate it.

  3. Re:Those under 18 do not have the same rights by fishbowl · · Score: 2, Informative

    "Unfortunately, the letter of the law meant that even though I could drive and pay taxes, I couldn't watch a horror flick on the big screen."

    The letter of the law? What law was that? The only law that applies to film ratings, is the one that permits a private property owner to refuse to allow you on his property for *any* reason. A valid reason is that the screening of a film is limited only to patrons over the age of 17 or whatever. But there was no *law* that said people under 17 cannot be admitted to an R-rated movie.

    --
    -fb Everything not expressly forbidden is now mandatory.