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.
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.
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!
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.
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.
In the United States this is not accurate.
In the USA, NO ratings on media are government enforced.
All ratings from videogames to TV shows to movies are self-imposed.
There is NO law that prevents minors from entering R rated movies.
Therefore to single out games would take an overwhelming amount of evidence that games were harmful.
Even things like "XXX" movies are not government rated. If someone is arrested for selling pornography to a minor, they first have to establish that the item in question is indeed pornography (sure in many cases this is trivial, but there have been several cases where comic books containing sexual material have been seized and the court cases have basically revolved around proving they were pornographic).
Moreover, the film industry has largely taken to circumventing their own rating system by releasing the film as PG-13 in US theaters and then come out with an "unrated edition" on DVD which they commonly advertise as containing more nudity and/or violence. Even if it were illegal for a store to sell a child an "R" rated film, how could it be illegal to sell a film which isn't even rated?
http://www.popularculturegaming.com -- my blog about the culture of videogame players
I more or less post basically the same response to every single videogame law thread on slashdot because no matter how many stories are posted there is always at least one person who is under the assumption that ratings in the USA are given out by the government.
I don't blame the people who post or anything. Online they are frequently from England or other countries where the ratings are government enforced, so there's no reason why they should know US laws. However, it does indicate the power of the rhetoric that these lawmakers use. Quite often the lawmakers or anti-videogame activists will say, "The ratings are voluntary and enforced by the industry themselves!" without mentioning that film ratings are rated in the same manner.
http://www.popularculturegaming.com -- my blog about the culture of videogame players
The politicians are not stupid and they have advisors. They have lawyers to talk to. They're damn well aware that every time one of these laws gets passed it's going to get struck down.
Problem is, they don't care! It's all in the spin. "Ladies and gentlemen of this great state, I tried to pass a law allowing YOU to decide what kind of video games your children should be exposed to. A single liberal activist judge has decided he knows better..."
Sure, the people of the state lose. But the politician still wins. Politicians may be a lot of things, very few if any of those things good, and probably most of them can't even be said on the radio. But for the most part, they're not stupid. Nasty, cold, arrogant, vicious, cynical, uncaring, dishonest? Sure, and probably then some. But they are dangerous in these things precisely because they are -not- stupid-and we are not watching closely.
(Note before anyone's head explodes: All those not-so-nice things apply to politicians on BOTH sides of the aisle.)
To fight the war on terror, stop being afraid.
Schwarzenegger signs game-restriction bill. The concept of the guy who played the Terminator, Conan, etc. coming out against violent images is hysterical.
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