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.'"
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.
Indiana, ya know what? You can bite my fleshy white ass. I just bought gta: Liberty City Stories for psp and am enjoying every fucking sicko minute of it. Woohoo, there goes another pedestrian! *smush!*
You can't outrun them. You can't destroy them. If you damage them, the essence of what they are remains -- they regenerate and keep coming... eventually you will weaken -- your reserves will be gone... they are relentless.
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.
look! ive play all teh quake and gta gamez and im not stupider than any1 else i kno... and if u belive it amkes ppl crazy or sumthin i just hav 1 thing to say u... im gonna fucking eat ur children!! yea u heard me right... im gonna do that and then eat ur fuckin ears like mike tyson and kill hookers like they do in gta... omg thats awesome lol dont u think
so u fuckin losers get a life video gamez dont affect u!!!
Beware: In C++, your friends can see your privates!
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.
You do realize that the Army has a video game out with the specific intention of recruiting people for service?
(lol, like a video game could really prepare you for sweating to death inside an APC...)
What was that Asshat?
Dedicated Cthulhu Cultist since 4523 BC.
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.
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 violent games did Hitler play? What awesome game did Ghandi play? What's in Kim Jong ils PS2 right now you think?
Why would you trust a testimonial when choosing hosting?
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
You fool, you silly fool. The Amouth (879122) post is intentionally mis-spelled to discredit Liberal America.
More specifically, it's part of a plot to make all you Freedom of Speech nutters, Homosexual Marriage supporters, Abortion Baby Killer advocates and Water Fluoridation practitioners look ignorant, uneducated, and stupid. (You gotta admit - pretty good work).
879122 is with a branch of the NSA PR Office and works with cookie dissemination ... and please gimme my off-topic hit here.
ok, I'll bite.
well first of all if you don't "Give a Shit" then why did you bother posting in the first place? Why waste the time, effort, energy, and money on something you don't care about?
Second, if the big circle represents the universe, the dot in the middle is not you.
Third, learn to see beyond what is in front of your face. If you are over 18 as you claim you should know well that laws rarely only apply to what they are written about And are used as precedents for other things. This law could turn out to be the very law that is use as the deathblow to free speech, and brings about regulations not only to video games, but all forms of communications including, but not limited to your "I don't give a shit" comments on SlashDot.
So the moral of this story is even things you do not think have any effect on you, may in fact do. S.E.Ps(please see you hopefully well read More Than Complete Hitchhiker's Guide for a definition of S.E.P.) are visible out of the corner of your eye, and certainly not observable enough for you to make a slashdot posting. So therefore you should care, and should greatly as this not Someone Else's Problem, but everyone problem, an last time i check you are part of the everyone (even though your dues are bit behind, we'll be sending Rock-o over to collect, I'd advise you to lock up the liquor as he's a mean drunk, but i digress)
I hope that makes everything clear as mud for ya.
Drinking age laws are, like video game legislation, not suitable as a substitute for proper parenting, although when properly handled are invaluable tools to good parents. I was more than mature enough to watch R-rated movies when I was sixteen, and my parents agreed. 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.
If you ask me, it all comes down to hypocrisy. If you consume illegal substances, how do you expect your children to not desire the same thing? If you watch violent movies, how do you expect your child to not want to watch violent movies... or to play a violent video game, which is pretty much the same thing?
The job of parents in this world has to be as much to prepare their children as to shelter them.
AC: Only on slashdot... could the sentence "My hovercraft is full of eels." be moderated "+4, Insightful
They can be impeached; they're violating their oath to the Federal Constitution, and often to their respective State Constitution as well.
The problem is, impeachment is done by the legislature. They're not going to pass a law and then vote themselves out of office for passing the law.
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.
You might have been mature enough at age 16 to watch any movie, but what about those who are not? And where is the line? 15? 14? What about 11 years old? The point is not about mature, the point is there must be some line. And even with a law denying 16 year olds access to R-rated material, they still could get access if a parent made the purchase. It is not set in stone.
I don't think it is asking too much to have laws which let the parents in on what the kids are doing. Everyone on slashdot knows that most 14 and 15 year old hide what they believe their parents will not approve of. If the 14 year old knows dad does not want violent games, that game will be hidden and played while dad is at work. By having a law which will not allow sales to minors without a parent, it gives dad the upper hand.
I learned my ABC's watching television! I learned science watching Voltron.
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.
Far be it from me to instruct you guys - as Americans - on the use of American English, for I am a Brit and as such there are sure to be others better qualified to make the observation I am about to make, but in the absence of such, I humbly submit as follows:
It's "capital", not "capitol". Go. Check now. Go on. I am fortunate enough to have a copy of the Oxford American Dictionary only a keypress away, which defines "capitol", or rather "Capitol" as:
Thus the usage in the submitter's blurb - "the state capitol, Indianapolis" - is incorrect, as, unless I am very much mistaken, the building implied by the term "capitol" is not named "Indianapolis". I presume the submitter intended the wording "state capital", and only namedropped Indianapolis after a comma for the benefit of international readers like myself who, unlike Americans, are sometimes unfamiliar with certain of the state capitals. Otherwise, if "capitol" was intended, might I suggest "the state capitol, (in|located in|situated in) Indianapolis". Incidentally, it is worth noting that the word "capitol" does not really exist in British English.
:)
The British are wont to decry the ill effect America has had on the English language. At least try to prove them wrong in matters concerning your own coinages. This is the second time this has happened this week, if memory serves!
iqu
(N.B. The tone of this post is playful. It is not intended to invite lengthy flames. If you do not understand British humour, think twice before replying.)
A spokesperson said "It is a basic fact that any adult who says someone under the age of 17 can't do something is a fucking fascist bastard and should be hunted down like a dog."
They added that a more reasonable way of handling any problems parents might have about what material their children are viewing is to follow them around 24 hours a day and engage in random searches of their rooms and clothing. "That's taking your responsibilities seriously and not just handing them over to the Police State", he said.
Next week Ars Technica will be reviewing conversion kits which allow children to operate up to compact-sized cars and discussing plans to "get The Man out of kids' faces" when it comes to driving licencing.
TWW
"Encyclopedia" is to "Wikipedia" what "Library" is to "Some people at a bus stop"
"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.
"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.
Then why not get rid of the drinking age laws? Parents can watch their kids to make sure they don't drink.
Great idea. Glad to see an American who isn't afraid to follow in the footsteps of most of the rest of the first world.
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.
"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.
My parents knew I smoked pot and also that I drank alcohol every Friday and Saturday from 10th grade on. I also had very little restrictions, no curfew, no real set time to be home if I came home at all, I drove the family car all the time without my license, and I also had VHS porn and mags all around my room and basement. I even had a 1/2 barrel for my 15th birthday in my house with my parents home and my mom covered for us when the cops came. For a time during late 10th grade and early 11th, my grades started to slip because I was missing a lot of school. I had to make a decision for myself, either drop the advanced courses, not make it through high school, or buckle down. I buckled down on my school work and made it with ease (although I kept up the pot and drinking on the weekends).
Fast forward 15 years. I drink maybe 3 times a year and have not touched drugs since high school. I had 10 successful years in the military and I worked my way up to a network engineer making about 100k at my current job.
My parents let me have some freedom and I abused it, I learned from my mistakes and turned myself around. This is while I was 15-16. Everyone is different but sheltering is NOT the best way to bring up a child.
My best friend during these same times? Dad a doctor, church every Sunday, big family etc., Went to catholic schools, did not drink and never took risks, always had to be home earlier then the rest of us blah blah blah. He dropped out of college his parents were paying for, was bouncing around at mimimum wage jobs and spent 10 years in jail for drug trafficing.
Correct my spelling if you desire. I have no desire to make this post perfect for those that are anal about that.
Well, actually this isn't the American way at all - it is the Greek way from roundabout 350BC - The days of Aristotle and Stoa. The problem is that most Americans have not read the classics and therefore keep going over the same old, tired, ancient arguments, that were argued to death thousands of years ago already in Europe...
Progress? What progress? We are still mentally in the bronze age.
Oh well, what the hell...
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.
Video games, from the days we were destroying 'aliens' in games like "Space Invaders", or enemy helicopters in old school games like "*M.A.S.H*", destroying living organisms in the game of "Centipede" or what have you, would be the kind of arguments that all lawyers would love to make money on contesting cases against the Plaintiffs who *might* have indulged into those games at a younger age.
I tend to think that violent games, while they may provide ideas of the 'real' or 'imaginary' world others have seen, they still do not define the person that experiences them. That is usually the reward/punishment system that is supposed to be provided. Their reward was probably the game system on which they were given to play the game, but where did the 'punishment' come in? Perhaps the parents should be aware to that.
If the game industry is actually supposed to be the source of punishment as well, maybe a game system that refuses to turn on for a specific amount of time after a player did something "too violent" would be in order, but I'm not sure I see that happening in the near future.
Parents need to realize that the television and the game console is not a babysitter; their children need to be raised by responsible parents.
Considering that we _were_ the ones who tried to set the value of pi.
:-)
http://www.acc.umu.se/~olletg/pi/indiana.html
Us silly Hoosiers.
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.
The legislature here in Oregon has tried to pass a sales tax NINE times. You'd think they'd get the hint after the first three or four, wouldn't you? But no: any special interest group with enough money (in this case, transplanted Californians who think the lack of a sales tax is a sign of barbarism) can get this sort of shit sponsored over and over and over again.
It's non-stop. They think they'll eventually be able to wear you down enough to vote for them, or at the very least not vote against them. The only thing you can do, really, is to shoot them down at the polls every time they raise their ugly mugs.
Max
My god carries a hammer. Your god died nailed to a tree. Any questions?
PS - If you will insist on using netiquetically repulsive capitalizations, at least get it right. Your last line should read:
The FEDS will be after YOU!
(Note that a misplaced emphasis on the "after" implies that the Feds have failed in an attempt at queue-jumping).
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
They will fail again and the primary reason being for this is the fact that there is already ratings on the games, supervision of kids is the key to this, not banning kids from buying games. Why do parent's complain when their kids go looking for porn on the net and find some? why was the parent not supervising what they were doing. Why do parent's complain about kids watching violence on tv? same thing, why where they not supervise. It seems the parents are lazy and want the government to do their job for them.
Business Voyeur
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!