Slashdot Mirror
Judge Throws Out Michigan Violent Games Law
kukyfrope writes "The Entertainment Software Association (ESA) gained another victory today as Judge George Caram Steeh struck down the Michigan law previously attempting to ban the sale of certain games to minors, ruling the law unconstitutional. Judge Steeh is pushing for evidence showing the link between playing violent video games and actual acts of violence committed by players."
Here's to more "activist judges" like this guy.
Though it's a shame when a judge pointing out that that the government has just passed an illegal law is declared a "victory."
From TFA: Translation:Hats off to Judge Steeh.
____
~ |rip/\/\aster /\/\onkey
There are also some adults who shouldn't be parenting kids. That's the real issue, I think. In today's world, chances are sooner or later a young child will hear someone say "fuck," or surf something R-rated on cable, or click somethng online that will show them boobies, or play a violent game like GTA, or read a banned book... if not at their own house, then at someone else's. The idea should be to educate your kids on what is and isn't appropriate to do in real life from an early age, but what parent wants to actually take that sort of blame nowadays when they can easily find some big company to sue?
Slashdot Burying Stories About Slashdot Media Owned
Unfortunately, this is a frustratingly inaccurate assumption - parents do not monitor a video game as they might a movie or a television program (and many do not even monitor those enough, but that is another topic). I worked in a GameStop (it was actually a Funcoland at that point) during the GTA3/GTA Vice City period and time after time, parent or grandparent would walk up to my counter buying GTA for a kid who was in his early teens or even younger. This was, in fact, my favorite situation because I get to see the look on their face as I explain.
"Do you realize this is rated M for mature?"
"Oh, no, I didn't read the label. Why is it rated mature?"
"Because you can pick up a prositute, pay her for 'service', kill her, take the money you just paid her back, drive around running over innocent people, and then wind down by lighting bums on fire and shooting cops."
The look on their face was priceless, but it was also incredibly sad that they didn't even go to the trouble of reading the game's packaging. I just don't understand how a parent can be so unconcerned with what their child is doing, and I don't know why they want to punish the entertainment media for lazy parenting.
An ambitious politician (we'll just call him... Mr. X) is looking to gain some bi-partisan appeal. Mr. X becomes aware of the Hot Coffee issue and it's run off, and decides to push forward a law banning the sale of M rated video games to minors. The bill isn't all that well writen, but that's not the point.
Mr. X has several others sign on to his planned bill, including folks from the othr side of the political spectrum. The bill gains huge support from both sides of Mr. X's legislative body.
The bill is passed, and signed by the Governer.
The game industry has the state sued for violation of the first amendment of the constitution, and the state supreme court rules in the game industry's favor. The state is forced to pay for the game industry's legal costs.
Mr. X can then blame the failure of his efforts to 'protect children from violent video games' (a duty ment for parents) on 'Activist Judges'.
In the end... the losses are:
-A unknown amount of time lost to pushing forward the game legislation that could have gone to more meaningful efforts.
-Taxpayer dollars lost trying to defend the bill in court.
The gains, however:
-Mr. X gains a reputation as a politician who wants to protect children, and has another example to use when playing the 'Activist Judge' card.
I really don't know. My parents have never forbidden me to play any game, nor have they forbidden me to watch any movie (at least not by other means than sending me to bed when it was past my bedtime anyway). However, I would never describe my parents as bad or unconcerning.
Does this mean I'm one of the 'lucky' people that isn't influenced by all the violence? I don't think so. I think most people have thought about some nifty GTA (or any other violent game)-scene when some annoying prick was talking to them. The main difference imho is that most people don't actually act on these thoughts (unless maybe afterwards, in-game, to release some pressure).
The main question is: do videogames make it easier for people to go across that boundary and start shooting around in the real world too? I think it's quite safe to assume not, otherwise the world would be a far worse place. And people that are *that* influenced by games will probably be quite as influenced by 'The Matrix' too.
In the old time we played 'army' or 'cowboy and indian' for real. And yes, some people had the crazy idea that they should go and try it with real guns when they grew up. I didn't see any court action against that.
If parents should do *anything* to 'protect' their children, it's talking to them every now and then so they can detect problems early, and keep them away from weapons, not videogames.
The idea should be to educate your kids on what is and isn't appropriate to do in real life from an early age, but what parent wants to actually take that sort of blame nowadays when they can easily find some big company to sue?
Part of parenting is knowing what is and is not appropriate for your own child. The best person in the world to judge that is a good parent. Not society, not a game company, not Congress, and not some random person on the internet (yes, I've had people tell me what is and is not appropriate for my son, here and elsewhere). Some children have no problem viewing "graphic" content like GTA. I was one of those. However, some--a minority in my opinion--are not emotionally capable of seperating fantasy imagery from real life. It's not that they don't know the difference between GTA and the real world, it's that they think that they can apply what they see in GTA to the real world.
I've seen kids whose parents tried very hard to teach them that TV and video games aren't real continue to attempt to carry out what they saw there...and more than once it resulted in physical injury. Parents are supposed to filter the world for their kids. Getting hit with the full reality of how things are at age 6 is a bit much for most kids.
120 characters for a sig? That's bloody useless.
I wasn't the father you saw, but I could easily have been. Here is the situation as I imagine it from the father's point of view. The parents take their son to the video game rental shop to rent him a game as a treat, perhaps because he brought home a good report card, or did well in sports at school. He has heard about this particular game, and picks it from the rack. The parents look over the cover and decide, in spite of the M rating, that it is appropriate for him. At the counter the father, hearing the question from the clerk, is concerned that his son might be embarrased to have porn. When the son indicates he is OK with it, the transaction is completed.
How do you not see the sames your kids are playing? As a parent it's your job to watch what your kid does in your house. No you cannot and do not want to be the all invasive 24-hour hovering parent, but you need to have basic awareness of what is going on. If a kid is able to hide a TV, videogame console, and games from you, you are doing a poor job.
Game systems should be in public areas of the house where you are likely to spend your time. That way you can keep an eye on what your kids are playing.
Here's an even better thought: Play the games your self before your kid does, and with your kid as well! What a concept! You don't like games you say? Suck it up, part of being a parent is doing things for the benefit of your child. You'll find, if you try them, that games are actually designed to be entertaining. Play the games and decide if you personally feel they are acceptable, don't rely on the opinions of others.
Of course, where your argument falls down to some extent is that the RC simulator
a) claims to be a simulator, and realistic, and
b) uses the same control system as a real RC vehicle.
Clicking on a head-shaped collection of polygons is rather different to aiming and firing a gun, and it's clearly a fantasy.
This does, however, lead to a rather contentious thought I had yesterday, when hearing a news item about the increase in fatal accidents among younger drivers. Are the anti-games lobby missing the real target here? I don't think there is a causal relationship between playing FPS games and psychotic rampages, but how many boy racer idiots think that their modded-up Citroen Saxo will handle as easily as Gran Turismo when they do something dumb at speed?
"I Know You Are But What Am I?"