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.'"
next up, all women have to wear a veil and cannot go out in the day
When i frist read the artical i though it was "India" and i couldn't figure out why they where refrencing US court stuff.. now i get it "Indiana"... yea.. i can't wait for it to fail.. slowly every state will do this and then mabey just mabey they will sit back and realize.. humm mabey the parents need to watch what their kids are doing.. it isn't the governments job to raise kids.. it is the parents..
but i could be wrong.. becuse common sence never seems to make it to the people in government
'...if only "Jumping to a Conclusion" was an event in the Olympics.'
It's a very good thing that the United States has a system of judicial review, wherein legislative folly can be overturned by courts. HOWEVER, there's a downside. Legislators know that they can pass anything they want, since their mistakes are subject to being overturned anyway. This lets them legislate recklessly. It's a free pass to allow them to pander to the religious right, for instance, by passing laws that will sound good to the party "base", and getting a double benefit by being able to rail against "activist judges" who are predictably bound by law and precedent.
Pandering to their "base" is their job. If they didn't represent their constituents, they wouldn't have a job any more. Judicial review exists as a system of checks so ensure the majority does not violate the rights of the minority.
But I do agree with you, it would be nice if legislators could be impeached for introducing laws that violate people's rights.
This, despite that fact that similar legislation has a track record of failing in every state it has been proposed in.
This will certainly get modded into oblivion. But the fact that gay marraige laws and gay marraige amendents were defeated in all 11 states which had them on the 2004 ballot has not stopped people from trying to get those laws passed. Everyone has something near and dear to his (or her) heart that he (or she) would really like to see change.
Incompetent implimentation in the past doesn't mean that game rating is a bad idea, just that it needs a national censorship regime to clearly impliment a standard that can be applied across all states.
Yes... let us blame bad legislation on all religious people. Religious people are after all... evil... right?
There's a conceptual fallacy in there somewhere...
Anyway, the real problem is not with religious people, but people who don't think that parents can or should be responsible for themselves or their children. Not all religious people think like this.
Summary: This is about personal responsibility, the government's influence, and video games. Not religion.
Quoth the replyee: Pandering to their "base" is their job.
No, representing their constituents is a politician's job. Their party base (which I assume is the "base" you refer to) represents only a tiny portion of said constituents.
So by pandering to their "base", they are NOT doing their jobs, they are serving the interests of a very small minority. Ergo, in this case, judicial review serves to protect the interests of the MAJORITY. The special interest groups don't like that, because then they don't get what they want. So they whine and moan about the "activist judges".
I could go on, but this s*** irritates me, and I don't like being irritated.
Then why not get rid of the drinking age laws? Parents can watch their kids to make sure they don't drink.
There is a HUGE difference between a state saying "No sales to those under 18" and a state saying "No sales". As long as those over 18 can buy it, it should be legal.
Some places won't sell R movie tickets to those under 18, without a parent there. How is a game different?
The RIAA that is suing grandmothers is the same type of lobby that wants these games sold. The big corporations want to sell you these games at 50 bucks a pop. And since they don't innovate, they turn up the shock value. At some point, it is going to twist young 9 and 10 year old minds.
I learned my ABC's watching television! I learned science watching Voltron.
If a law like this were to pass, the state would be hurt in the bank account for it. Pair that with the fact that you arent protecting kids from these games, you are only forcing them to get them through other means.
The state will lose a decent amount just from sales tax from these games and all the while kids are still buying the games online and givin money to out of state companies.
Nothing really helps these motions along, the more you look at it, the more you laugh at the proposition.
Invexi - a Phoenix, AZ based web design and web development company.
What is the big deal here? Is Indiana a liberal or conservative state also?? (no flaming please, I just want to know)
I guess violent video games have become the new porn. I recall that years ago it seemed that someone in Indiana was always proposing or passing laws to restrict the sale of pornography. These laws were regularly struck down as unconstitutional just as the laws restricting violent video game sales have been. Oh well, I guess porn is just out of style!
To the making of books there is no end, so let's get started
What you're saying is very true. But it is also true that legislators from left-wing areas do the exact same thing.
The laws that the lefties try to pass that violate our gun rights get struck down just as readily as the right-wing laws that violate our 1st amendment rights, and often by the same judges.
Lee
Muslim community leaders warn of backlash from tomorrow morning's terrorist attack.
why do I give a shit if EA can't peddle its warez to minors? Can someone explain why I should care or this is this an issue only teenagers and the people who stand to loose money care about?
For the same reason thet ACLU cares about the rights of the KKK, presumably. Presumably they aren't interested in lynching people (they are stereotypically a buncha peace-loving hippies afterall), but they are interested in preventing the establishment of legal precedent to restrict the rights of a minority group because that minority has opinions that differ from the majority.
What if, by some "heaven" sent miracle, the law survives judicial review? There will be legislators nation-wide that will snap up the opportunity to win the votes of parents who want to worry a little less about their kids; and don't think they won't eye (successfully or not) other commercially consumed art (if today's box office bombs can be called such a thing)-you might have to give back your thirty silver in taxes for the states' legal fees.
Of course by now, videogame makers, unable to make as much of a profit on games that portray (nebulously defined) violent and sexual themes, will invest themselves elsewhere. So it's not like you'd be able to spend it on such games if you were so inclined.
"It would be nice if legislators could be impeached for introducing laws that violate people's rights."
They can, its called election day.
Unfortunately there are far too many people in this country who are all too willing to violate the rights of others. They don't care if some "other" gets stepped on as long as they avoid the boot. When individuals and groups fight for their rights, and enjoy adequate political representation to ensure that their rights are protected, then everything is fine. The problem is that those groups that do lack adequate political representation will subsequently suffer from a lack of legal protection. It doesn't matter if you're talking about young people, black people, American Indians, or any other group. Jim crow laws existed specifically because blacks in the south lacked the political power to prevent and overturn them. Likewise the legal drinking age is 21 in every state except Louisianna because 18 year olds lacked the political representation to prevent MADD from usurping their rights as adults. Jim Crow ended not because some white liberals from the north decided they wanted to change things. Jim Crow came to an end when blacks in the south decided that things had to change and began working to secure and defend their rights as citizens of this country.
The only way that your civil rights are ensured is through political power and the political action that creates and reaffirms that power. So if some politician tries to strip you of your rights and freedom, the answer is not to expect some external agency to hold him or her to account. The answer is to organize against this politician and work to have them thrown out of office.
Remember, freedom isn't free. If you're not willing to fight for it, then you've already thrown it away.
As for actual impeachment, what you're talking about is possible. If a politician supports a bill that violates the rights of his or her constituents, then he or she is violating his oath of office. Now convincing people that this politician should be impeached is of course a different story. But calling for impeachment, and screaming loud and clear exactly why you want them impeached, is a very good way of ensuring that even if they do manage to get re-elected they won't try to pull that kind of crap again.
Lee
Muslim community leaders warn of backlash from tomorrow morning's terrorist attack.
It is really only gonna be M and AO which is very few. Everything else appears to be exempted.
;)
So if it is so bad to sell a game for 18 year-olds to a 17 year-old, why is it ok to sell a game for 13 year-olds to 12 year-olds or 9 year-olds ??
Love the sexual definitions using community standards. It seems to include: "patently offensive to minors" Hell, there ain't no sexual content that most minors would find offensive
Anyways, it won;t go far nor would it stay there long if it does.
>I'd like to see Legislators prorate taxes for Gay couples.
I'd prefer to see NO tax implications associated with marriage, at all.
Let existing laws govern property and child custody, and don't let marriage be an institution of the state, period.
The whole concept of marriage favors the "normal", the attractive, the wealthy, and the religious, and brutally excludes others. I would challenge the state sponsorship of marriage on equal protection grounds.
-fb Everything not expressly forbidden is now mandatory.
Why make a bill against violent games? Isn't that why ESRB ratings were developed?
:) I told good ole dad to get a game without guns and prostitutes.
:) - when parents would beat their kids to within an inch of their life for doing something stupid, like smoking or being out late, or perhaps buying that crappy "50 Cent' thug life video game (would like to see 50 Cent do that crap in RL and catch a slug in has @$$)?
If parents actually looked at the game rating before buying 10-year-old Johnny GTA3 for his birhtday, they wouldn't be shocked by what the game offers after the fact. When I worked at a retail job, this sort of thing actually happened while I was manning the video game section. Thank goodness they had me looking out for Johnny
A better law for legislation would be for parents to be held responsible for what their kids do. What happenned to the old days - I'm 28 BTW
Make a law to fine lazy parents that let their kids run wild! Such a law, just like a law banning violent games, would be just as silly as a law that outlaws alcohol- I think we all know what happened with that...
On the same note (this will probably get modded all to hell, but what the hey...), why don't they just put the same age restrictions on Mature video games that they have for tobacco and alcohol? What to by Johnny for his 18th birthday? GTA4 with bazookas and ultraporn!
The reason I left the Republican party to join the Libertarians is because of bullcrap like this. Every damn politician seems to feel the need to legistlate morality from the capitol.
d _States). The reason it is universal is because the MPAA (remarkably, for once) listened to its customers and did business in a way to keep them happy. They tacked a rating onto each movie that asked for one and passed it onto the theaters, requesting that they display it and follow the recomendations.
Why not just encourage the ESRP ratings? Organize a email campaign to Best Buy et al to have them voluntarily follow the ratings. It's not unprecidented.
When you go to a movie theater, and they have it rated as PG-13 or R, it's not because Congress mandated it. It is a voluntary action.
That's right, voluntary.
Movie ratings are entirely voluntary for theaters (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Movie_ratings#Unite
Now most theaters in the US lists the ratings because they feel it's expected and normal, not because some stuffy politican demanded that they do it with laws and tedious regulations.
No laws, no regulations, just good business.
It would be good if these damn crusading politicians realized this for once and stopped adding crap to the lawbooks that doesn't need to be there.
Remember folks, slashdot doesn't have a -1 "disagree" moderation!
Yes, we *could* keep M and AO video games out of the hands of minors, at the request of the government. But think about that for a moment. Government would then be deciding what's best for our children, rather than parents. And if you agree with this law, then should government pass a similar law involving books?
One of my favorite books is Slaughterhouse Five. It's violent, sexual, but has a strong message. And I read it when I was fifteen. If Slaughterhouse Five were a video game, this law would prevent minors from buying it.
If we can restrict video games from minors, we can restrict movies, books, and other forms of entertainment and culture from minors. And then, we can control what the future generation thinks, and how it acts. If you hate Big Government, you should hate this law. If you love freedom, you should hate this law.
What if the vast majority of a politician's constituents DO want to suppress the rights of a minority group (of any kind; ethnic, religious, hobby etc.) Then the elected individual WOULD be fairly respesenting the wishes of his/her constituents. It's only the Constitution and Bill of Rights that protect such a minority from the "mob" - majority rule is rightly limited.
BSA: "Would you like a free Software Audit"? me: "No, thanks. My software is all Free".
The problem with that idea is that it would shut down the government. We elect our legislators because we WANT them to pass GOOD laws. If passing a law meant risking the gallows, then not only would congress sit on its hands and do nothing, but no one would want to run for office in the first place.
Muslim community leaders warn of backlash from tomorrow morning's terrorist attack.
They are actually only a vocal minority in Christianity, but they arrogate to themselves the right of dominion over the rest of us. And then when we point out the obvious, that they are small-minded reactionary nitwits with garden-variety monomania on a old-fashioned power-trip, they dishonestly act as if we are tarring all people of faith the same brush. We're not.
I have no problem with the person of quiet and strong faith, whose belief in Christ moves them to judge less and love more. But they don't run for office much, do they?
When a person brings religion into their politics, it's about power 100% of the time. A person seeking worldly power may be working for a greater being, but it ain't Jesus.
I'm a Parent from the state of Michigan.
My kids play games, some of them online. Mostly its E rated stuff on the Gamecube but they have some T rated stuff and they've played one or two M rated games on my PC like Unreal Tournament 2k3 and Doom 3. I've seen nothing to suggest they're learning violent behavior from it at all.
A recent study that was done says that there is no connection whatsoever between violent videogames and violent behavior at all. My kids used to watch Power Rangers when they were little and it didn't do anything to them at all. Yes, children are impressionable and they tend to act out what they see but how much of what they see really does truly effect them on a long-term basis. So far from my own observations violent games have NO EFFECT at all.
In fact, my kids learned their primary colors from the Power Rangers, learned how to manage money from playing Kal Online (a free MMORPG at www.ganengane.com), and are learning to be better readers from ANIMAL CROSSING (an E rated title and probably one of the best game titles ever made for the Gamecoube IMHO). They actually play very few M rated games because I myself have very few. I have Vice City, I caught them playing it one time when my back was turned, but they got bored with it really fast and moved onto Leggo StarWars which they played like crazy. Just goes to show that when they are given an M rated game to play doesn't mean its the only thing they'll like to the exclusion of all else. My oldest son used to play Unreal Tournament a lot before we got Animal Crossing. Now its the only thing he plays and I had nothing to do with this shift at all. He made the choice to switch to the less violent game HIMSELF. Parents have to trust in their children's own sense of judgment. They know what is good and what is bad better than some adults do. This is something I think a lot of us adults have forgotten. Just because the law says someone under the age of 18 is considered a minor doesn't automatically mean they don't understand what is and isn't in their own best interests. On the contrary, I know a lot of young people who know what's in their best interests very well.
Michael "TheZorch" Haney
thezorch@gmail.com
http://thezorch.googlepages.com/home
That's a different argument from saying there's no line at all.
You don't need much of an argument to prove that claim; it's obvious if you think about it for a moment. Human growth is a continuum, everyone develops at a different rate, and there's no way to draw a line that won't leave some adults labeled "children" or some children labeled "adults". Furthermore, human growth doesn't only proceed along a single axis: one person might be capable of voting or holding office but not handling alcohol, while another might be the reverse.
Sure, we can choose to draw a line in law because it's simple and objective, but we're trading away accuracy, and therefore justice.
The principle that a person is innocent until proven guilty is important enough to us that we go to the trouble of having trials, even in cases where statistics might show that the defendant is probably guilty. I believe guaranteeing everyone's rights is also important enough to go to the trouble of determining, on an individual basis, whether a given person is ready for various rights and responsibilities.
And just as guaranteeing an innocent man's freedom is important enough to let a guilty man go when there's no evidence to convict him, I believe guaranteeing an adult's freedom is also important enough to allow minors to vote (for example) when there's not enough evidence to prove they're immature.
Visual IRC: Fast. Powerful. Free.
A) It hasn't seemed to hurt small budget films so far. Even The Blair Witch Project and Clerks, which only cost $25,000 and $30,000 to make respectivly seemed to be able to aford getting a rating.
B) You don't have to get a rating. You only really need one if you want to have a fighting chance of getting theater owners to show your movie.
C) Even if you don't get a rating, there are still a number of theaters who may decide to show the film anyway, as seen in the documentary The Aristocrats which declined to get a rating.
Remember folks, slashdot doesn't have a -1 "disagree" moderation!