Slashdot Mirror


Illinois Ban On Explicit Video Games Is Unconstitutional

An anonymous reader writes, "A federal court has struck down an Illinois law that criminalized the sale of 'sexually explicit' video games to minors. In reaching this decision, the court held that the Illinois law was too broad, because it could be read to encompass any game which displayed a female breast, even for a brief second. Interestingly, the court chose the game God of War as the model of gaming art which must be protected. As the court explained, 'Because the SEVGL potentially criminalize the sale of any game that features exposed breasts, without concern for the game considered in its entirety or for the game's social value for minors, distribution of God of War is potentially illegal, in spite of the fact that the game tracks the Homeric epics in content and theme. As we have suggested in the past, there is serious reason to believe that a statute sweeps too broadly when it prohibits a game that is essentially an interactive, digital version of the Odyssey.'"

7 of 195 comments (clear)

  1. Wait... by frosty_tsm · · Score: 5, Funny

    Are we saying that Greek social values are trumping modern day ones?

    I see more parades on the horizon...

    1. Re:Wait... by sckeener · · Score: 5, Insightful

      It has been said before but when the public wants to censor give them graphic violence and sex in a biblical wrapper and they won't censor...

      It sounds like the judge is taking the track that any historically accurate game is ok...

      Of course it doesn't always work...take Oscar Wilde's Salome...banned in the UK and produced in France.

      --
      "Only one thing, is impossible for god: to find any sense in any copyright law on the planet." Mark Twain
    2. Re:Wait... by morgan_greywolf · · Score: 5, Funny
      It has been said before but when the public wants to censor give them graphic violence and sex in a biblical wrapper and they won't censor...
      Sodom & Gomorrah Only on Xbox 360! Complete with homosexuality, rape, and brutalization! Will you survive the Wrath of God? Brought to you by Religious Right Software: Games With a Higher Purpose.
  2. Paint me surprised by Control+Group · · Score: 5, Interesting

    How stunningly...sane.

    Every now and again, something happens to help convince me that all hope is not, in fact, lost.

    --

    Reality has a conservative bias: it conserves mass, energy, momentum...
    1. Re:Paint me surprised by RsG · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Why is this surprising? That the law was blatantly unconstitutional was clear. This was strictly a political move from the get-go.

      The politicians involved said to the public "look, I'm taking a stand on the evil violent games! Vote for me!" because games are a wonderful scapegoat, and because taking such a stance is politically safe. The law didn't need to remain in effect in order to serve its purpose, it only needed to be passed. I doubt anyone who drafted the thing will care at this stage, months after the fact.

      Now what will they say to the public? "Oh folks, I tried, but those damn activist judges ruled against me. So sorry." It's so easy to shift the blame when the public doesn't care whether those in power respect the constitution.

      What amazes me isn't that the judges showed common sense. That's their job. What amazes me is that voters continue to fall for these simple tricks.

      --
      Erotic is when you use a feather. Exotic is when you use the whole chicken.
    2. Re:Paint me surprised by Dhalka226 · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Why is this surprising? That the law was blatantly unconstitutional was clear
      That, unfortunately, is often no bar to laws being upheld by the judiciary. Retroactive copyright extensions are an obvious example.

      Well I'm sure to get some troll mods for this, but what the hell. There's a certain amount of zealotry in your statement usually only reserved for religion.

      The fact that I do not agree that retroactive copyright extensions are unconstitutional should speak to the fact that it is not "blatantly unconstitutional," but if you were arguing with me about it I wouldn't be too put out if you were just sure you were right.

      The problem I have is you're arguing with the people whose job it is to decide these matters. (If you want to get REALLY technical, the power to declare laws unconstitutional, which you seem to support, is nowhere to be found in the Constitution.) The case of retroactive extensions was heard and the extensions upheld. Until such time as they review the decision and overturn it, not only are retroactive copyright extensions not blatantly unconstitutional, they are not unconstituional at all. While I know nothing about you specifically, /.'ers often like to make these sort of assertions about Constitutionality without even any legal education which just makes it twice as annoying to me. We'll complain about managers who aren't technical making technical decisions, but in the very next breath we'll argue the law with judges. It really floors me.

      Look, if these issues were as simple as you make them out to be, there wouldn't be a judiciary. At the very least, could we not pretend Constitutional issues are so cut and dry? Very little about the law is blatantly anything. Often including intelligible.

  3. Re:Two comments by laffer1 · · Score: 5, Insightful

    People can't have it both ways.. women want to breast feed in public. Women like to wear practically nothing at the beach. Sears likes to send underwear ads in the sunday newspaper. Then video games are immoral for showing the same thing in an often ANIMATED way.

    If society choses to be modest in every other way then they can regulate video games. Many video games are played by adults... so much in fact that Nintendo released a console targeted toward them! Just as the simpsons isn't meant for a 5 year old, not all video games are for little tikes. I think my cousin could handle most of the games in my collection (he's a minor) but I wouldn't let him play doom 3. However, his parents let me play doom at 15 (just a little older) at their home when he was almost 2. Its up to them to sensor him and not the government, the PTA, or anyone else.

    1. Parents should be responsible for their children. That includes their behavior and what they view/see.
    2. Parents should monitor what their children do online and offline. They should teach them what they expect and how to be safe.
    3. When someone tries to solicit a child online, its not just that persons fault. Its also the parents fault for not watching their child, letting them use myspace or ET or whatever.
    4. Parents need to learn their kid doesn't get a cut in line or special favors. Nothing is that much greater about your kid than every other kid on the planet and if there was it would be on CNN right now.

    I could have handled most if not all video games in my teens. Hell i was playing doom and leisure suit larry at 16. I didn't blow up anything, threaten anyone or have 8 children with a bunch of child support. I guess video games aren't the only motivating factor in society! Heaven forbid I might have learned something from my parents and others.