Slashdot Mirror
Federal Judge Strikes Down Ban on Violent Games
CaptainEbo writes "A federal judge in Louisiana has issued a preliminary injunction blocking a statewide ban on violent video games. The judge's holding that 'depictions of violence are entitled to full constitutional protection' flies in the face of Louisiana's assertion that video games interactive nature make them inherently more likely to incite people to violence, and therefore requires reduced First Amendment protection. In rejecting the state's argument, the judge compared video games to literature. 'It is the interactive aspect of literature that makes it successful — 'draw[ing] the reader into the story, mak[ing] him identify with the characters, invit[ing] him to judge them and quarrel with them, to experience their joys and sufferings as the reader's own.'" GamePolitics also has reaction to the news from Louisiana political figures, as forwarded by Jack Thompson.
Well, at least the judge found a video game to be essentially an interactive book, instead of a "violence starter". Really, if a 13 year old kid is playing, say, Doom 3, and his parents are aware of it's rating and think that the kid is mature enough to handle it, they usually are. I first played Doom when I was 6, and Half-Life when I was 9. My parents didn't think that it would incite violence, and, well, it didn't. People like Jack Thompson only make ignorant parents more ignorant.
"the point I'm making is that the more violent a game is, the more unrealistic it appears to be.
Most kids end up thinking that it would never happen."
Seems normal enough, except that quote comes from an 11 year old.
Still, I look forward to being old so I can start blaming the problems that have existed for millenia on the latest, greatest thing that I do not understand.
Warhammer forums
However, stupid jackasses passing laws trying to ban violent video games make me want to kill the jackasses passing the laws. Perhaps I can have a ban passed on banning violent video games because that makes people violent.
http://yro.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=06/08/11/21 4250
Probably not the same judge?
Mainly because she's such a bitch, but still.
The heavens do not fall for such a trifle.
what is this, the 20-something-ith attempt at a violent video games ban?... We might need to find some new activity to fill up the time of these politicians. Maybe adding recess and nap-time...
The judge issued a preliminary injunction, he did not strike the law down. All the preliminary injunction means is that the law will not take effect while the lawsuit is being conducted. It may be a good sign, but the case isn't over yet.
It's going to get to the point with these cases that just citing all the relevant precedent alone is going to take tens of pages.
:) (After checking them, of course.)
Maybe the ESRB should help these guys out and provide a pre-written list of all the relevant citations so the judges can just copy/paste the list into the ruling.
People focus too much on the detrimental effects of video games, what about the good ones? I walk to work every day and have to cross a busy 5 lane highway, I can run across that thing like nothing else, dodging trucks, cars, logs, you name it. Thanks Frogger!
...that we ought to hook him up to a generator and power the country for about 50 years!
"[Regarding the 'cloud,'] ownership was what made America different than Russia." -- Woz
Title and summary are incorrect. The law was not a ban on violent games, it was a ban on selling said games to minors.
From the second link:
I have talked to Guidry on this matter and express my disappointment of not getting everyone input before putting for the argument,
Hmm.
SB
It's old. The more humans I meet, the more I like my cats. At least they are honest.
How many times does this need to happen before the TotC right-wing gets the idea? It doesn't seem to be working, maybe they missed the memo?
Great Intellect...
I mean, "Judge strikes down..." ? Do we have to use violent words like "strike?" There are teenagers reading this web site, and just seeing words like that could cause them to become violent.
Don't disappoint your bird dog. Go to the range.
Why not pass a law that treats video games like other forms of entertainment?
It is illegal to allow a child under 17 to see an R-rated movie without a parent or guardian present.
It is illegal to allow a child under 18 to purchase pornographic materials.
Why not make it illegal to allow a child under 17 (or 18) to purchase an M (or AO) rated game?
It doesn't prevent the games from being sold. It doesn't make it illegal to have, or play, the games. It just requires that a parent must be willing to get involved enough to purchase the game for their children instead of handing them $50 and telling them to go buy a game. Yes, there might be trouble enforcing it if the games are purchased online, but verifying age online has always been a problem. Could this cost the game companies some money? Yes. However, this is also true for movie studios that make R-rated movies. They generally don't make as much as movies with a PG rating.
Reading code is like reading the dictionary - you have to read half of it before you can go back and understand it.
Jack Thompson can stick his nanny state where the sun doesn't shine. I'm the parent of a 3-year-old and that means I have to police my language, I have to watch what shows I have on TV. Does it get harder? Hell yes it gets harder. That doesn't mean I'm entitled to throw up my hands and tell the state to protect my kids--which, by the way, (a) the state sucks at since they're too busy doing things a limited government was never intended to do, and (b) will do all the things the opinion says it will. It will reduce all of us to playing only those games suitable for minors.
And those games by and large suck.
Happy goldfish bowl to you.
Only not /.'s, but state governments:
Indianapolis
Missouri
Washington
Illinois
Michigan
California
When will the public realize that their politicians are NOT doing them good when they bring in these laws, but doing them harm? It is now so obvious to every district and federal court that these laws are unconstitutional, that the judges are making the states (i.e. tax-payers) pay the defendants' legal costs because they are knowingly WASTING THE COURTS' TIME.
"Now gluttony and exploitation serves eight!" - TV's Frank
Schwarzenegger signs game-restriction bill. The concept of the guy who played the Terminator, Conan, etc. coming out against violent images is hysterical.
It really freaks me out that people like Jack Tomphson, that obviously has some influence, aren't focusing on more serious matters like hard drugs and such. Drugs are being sold to our children in SCHOOL. I know, I know, drugs are already illegal, but they are STILL the real problem.
Ellidi
Even not getting into the sociological arguments, the fact that GAMES are being wholly treated different than movies in the pennalty phase alone makes these laws a joke. The movie industry's rating systems are not law. If a kid sneaks in - the theatre can NOT be held accountable, fined and offending ticket sellers incarcerated.
Now - if the same people pushing felony raps on game sellers want to put the hurt on Hollywood - then fine, I'll consider it. I'll also consider the massive entertainment value of all the lawyers in Hollywood being unleashed on those courtrooms being of the finest money can buy. Would make the RIAA attacks look like bullets compared to H-Bombs.
Where are the parents? You - dear parent - are the one who decided to squeeze out a kid. Therefore, you should be the one raising it. If you're buying your 13 year old kid games like GTA, Hitman, Manhunt, etc., I'm guessing that you buy him booze and hookers too...
Here's the deal, O stupid parent. THE WHOLE $%&*!@# WORLD IS NOT CHILDPROOFED. Nor should it be. Responsbile adults should get to have their fun too. Look at what you are buying for your kid. Take some and read about it on the internet or sit down and play through it yourself before you blindly hand it over to little Timmy. Just because he asks for it doesn't mean he ought to have it.
The PS2 , XBox, etc. is not a substitute for interacting with your child. I know that a lot of parents use the gaming console as a substitute baby-sitter. It keeps the kid quiet and occupied. However, just like the TV, you - stupid parent - need to be paying attention to what little Timmy is doing. Pull that head out of that double-wide behind and start looking around.
2 cents,
QueenB
HDGary secures my bank
I wonder if anyone else sees the irony of the statement above. To write laws, to understand laws... one must have a background (i.e. degree) in law. Weren't laws meant for everyone, including those of us with no understanding of legalese? I don't post as a rebuke or rebuttal Fastolfe's statement, just an observation... laws are no longer written to be understood by the common man.
I am saddened.
From the movie Dodgeball: A True underdog Story
But remember, dodgeball is a sport of violence, exclusion and degradation. So, when you're picking players in gym class, remember to pick the bigger, stronger kids for your team. That way, you can all gang up on the weaker ones, like Winston here.
-Turkey
I have probably played hundreds of games of risk against both people and computers and I have never been tempted to try to take over the world and in fact I'm quite antiwar when it comes to real life. It's quite sad when it's news that a judge has protected our first amendment right to free expression and recognizes fantasy in games is just that fantasy. If the judge hadn't ruled that way I'd be worried about the fate of books from the Iliad to Jarhead.
Tired of all the isms, don't exploit people as an employer, or a government, mmmmK?
Isn't there still something to be done in New Orleans? Something other than sitting and waiting for federal money that is? There's a hurricane not too far away, just dumb luck they're not in this one's path.
I guess "for the children" legislation's just easier in an election year.
vi? Who's that?
First... "preliminary injunction blocking a ban"... We're definitely getting the law system out of hand, people.
Let's hope someone doesn't decide to submit a preliminary injunction blocking the preliminary injunction blocking the ban.
Second, paranoia is not exclusive to our 21-st century society.
You probably remember River Raid, a very kewl Atari 2600 game: images
So anyway, this game was at the time banned because it makes the player "act in a coldblooded fashion and destroy their enemy without mercy, for scores and not for survival".
That's weird, how humanity didn't cease to exist when those pixel murdering savages grew up to rule the modern world.
Another banned game was Atari Party Pack. I'm not sure. Maybe someone was worried that their kid might receive fun overdose.
It's great to see some common sense finally filtering through, definitely after the argument that some of those who have been trying to regulate the gaming industry more vigorously have been using has been that parents buy the games without really looking at the ratings and that it is the games' industries fault for this. At the end of the day, if the parents aren't supervising their kids when the games are bought and played then surely there are bigger problems that those children will be facing other than the 'violent' themes introduced by video games. It seems as if it is really just a culture of blame nowdays, and the main reason behind it all is the lack of parents in their children's life.
Business Voyeur