Politicians Wising up on Game Legislation?

Blackjack writes "Ars Technica looks at recent failures to pass laws regulating the sales of violent video games. They ask whether politicians are finally wising up to First Amendment issues and the costs associated with lawsuits resulting from the laws. Recent attempts to pass video game legislation in Mississippi, Utah, and Indiana have either failed or been put on indefinite hold. 'Now, state lawmakers are more cognizant of the constitutionality issues at stake. The judicial landscape is littered with the charred husks of laws passed by Illinois, Washington, Michigan, California, Louisiana, and others. All of them tried in some way or another to regulate the sale of violent video games to children, and all of them were struck down on First Amendment grounds.'"

Comments

I don't get it???

[ArsonSmith]

I consider my home brewed beer to be an artistic expression of brewing abilities. Does this mean I can sell it to minors and be covered under the first amendment?

Re:I don't get it???

[Zephyros]

Beer is a product. I won't argue that good beer can indeed be considered an art form, but not in the same way that media (books, music, movies, games) are. Beer expresses hops, malts, etc. Media can express ideas, and that's what the first amendment protects.

Re:I don't get it???

[paeanblack]

I consider my home brewed beer to be an artistic expression of brewing abilities. Does this mean I can sell it to minors and be covered under the first amendment?

Minors can't buy any beer from any brewer. If only your beer was specifically regulated due to its artistic content, you might have a point.

Re:I don't get it???

[thebdj]

The first problem is that most of these laws have totally ignored the rating system currently in place. They use vaguely defined terms that could be interpretted in a variety of ways. It could actually result in T games being considered too inappropriate and result in stores being fined for selling a game that was rated to the purchasers level anyway.

Another problem is that even if they do not ignore the ratings system, most judges are still going to argue that you are preventing the expression of ideas. Stores may stop selling certains games in state because it becomes too difficult to control the sell of games. This is, of course, more likely with stores where video games are not their primary business. I wouldn't be surprised if a few judges also see the self-regulated movie industry and say, "They can do it, and so can video game retailers."

There is also this confusing idea that since the law, "only protects the children", then it is fair game. First, it is not the job of the federal government or states to raise your children. Second, kids have as much right to free expression and to open ideas as the 40 yr old. Does this mean your kid should see every R-rated movie or play M or AO rated games? No, but it also means they should be allowed to explore them with proper PARENTAL supervision, not GOVERNMENTAL supervision.

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances. I won't use any "chilling effect" and I even avoid the "slippery slope," but at least my argument isn't an Ignoratio elenchi. (God, I love some of these terms.)

Re:I don't get it???

[joshetc]

Sorry, I just got out of a meeting

Re:I don't get it???

[ChaosWeevil]

"The right to swing my fist ends where the other man's nose begins." --Oliver Wendell Holmes, Jr.

I am relieved

[Sneakernets]

Yet still disturbed that some politicians haven't given up.

Maybe politicians are figuring out that you need evidence to prove their points. Too bad there is none even slightly credible.

Another thing I've noticed... Since when has the Constitution been a "barrier" for these politicians? one of the links in the Article lead to another article (truth in ratings act) that said this:

"should it manage to emerge from Congress as a law, the First Amendment may prove too big a barrier for it to overcome."
"Barrier", in my mind, is something that obstructs or impedes, and in this situation, it obstructs "progress" in making a Government-controlled Ratings board.

I'm so glad I have these politicians that care for me and my children, because I'll be damned if I have to see what my child is buying and to read the ESRB sticker on the front of the box.

Re:I am relieved

[Purity Of Essence]

Since when has the Constitution been a "barrier" for these politicians?

Since forever. Barrier is the correct terminology. The Bill of Rights is designed to protect the people from the government. Our founding fathers understood that need.

Re:I am relieved

[Jerf]

Maybe politicians are figuring out that you need evidence to prove their points.

What politicians need, if they want to pass a feel-good law like this, is a law that passes First Amendment muster. It can be based on a theory of Evil Fairies penetrating the minds of unsuspecting young teens and corrupting their precious bodily fluids, and it'll hold up, as long as it passes First Amendment muster, and all other relevant criteria. No amount of scientific studies demonstrating the evils of video games will help with that, because we have no criteria about laws being scientifically sound. (For better or worse, probably mostly better, but that's a separate argument.)

You are confusing your desires with reality.

Re:I am relieved

[king-manic]

The argument that video games make kids into little killing machines, that's a different kind of claim altogether. There is no such study, doing one would be completely unethical.

Child soldier all over africa could be used. A control group that gets just a regular upbringing, a test group that gets brain washing, physical abuse and violent video games, a test group that just get violent video games, and maybe a group that just gets the brain washing and abuse. I'm sure if mercenary corps get big enough they'd try it.

psychology is a very slim science. Large scale studies might have strong science behind them but far too often you have sample sizes of 1 and psychologists drawing conclusions from that. Those "case studies" are what make the rest of science think very lightly of psychology. I think this psychiatrists study seems better. psychiatrist tends to be closer to real science. But I'd like a few more studies before I'd change my mind about the effects of violence on people.

No, because I don't read, listen, or interpret....

[Fallen Kell]

...you beer. The primary use of beer is to consume as in, drink, the product. It is not an idea or thought that is passed through a written, or visual media. Thus, your "free speech" rights do not apply to this product.

Laws in action, minus the laws

[Applekid]

The other day I went to Best Buy and picked up a game rated Mature. They asked for ID. I don't buy a whole lot of M games, but I was still taken back a little bit regarding this. I'm willing to wager a lot of retailers either have implemented or are implementing processes to check IDs.

It doesn't solve the problem when adults buy it and turn around and give it to a kid, but do we really need big huge scary laws with fines and jailtime for something the industry is already doing?

Re:Laws in action, minus the laws

[Rob T Firefly]

It doesn't solve the problem when adults buy it and turn around and give it to a kid

But it can sent that one last necessary jolt to the addled brain of Clueless Joe Sixpack, who is about to buy "Manhunt" for his eight-year-old because one time in his youth he played "Pac-Man" and that's what all video games are, right?

It seems stupid to anyone on /., but this is an accurate representation of the sort of braindead masses that overregulation or censorship would actually serve. If we can cause the necessary brain-attacks in these people by having the cashier gently suggest that the M-rated game a parent is about to buy their kid isn't happy friendly "Super Mario" stuff, in the accepted manner of other comparable age-restricted purchases like R-rated movie tickets, then the ultimate responsibility is once again reverted to the parent where it belongs, and said parent is hopefully forced to become educated enough to properly make the decision on what to buy their kids.

Re:Laws in action, minus the laws

[king-manic]

It doesn't solve the problem when adults buy it and turn around and give it to a kid, but do we really need big huge scary laws with fines and jailtime for something the industry is already doing?


Is that actually a problem? TV has as much or more violence then GTA. Just watch greys anatomy or CSI. There is no way to gerentee young children are watching and there is actually little evidence that it actually harms the children. A troubled teen doesn't need doom to push him over the edge and a healthy teen will not be altered by violent games. Sex for the matter is the same. Porn won't turn a healthy teen into some degenerate. I find the nanny state mentality more harmful then the actual content in question.

Re:Laws in action, minus the laws

[alan_dershowitz]

When I worked at Blockbuster video, a significant number of people attempted to rent the Mature-rated N64 game "Conker's Bad Fur Day" for their child. Every single person thanked me and declined to rent it after I informed them of the content of the game. I think this supports your point that people need to be jabbed to kick in their parental responsibilities sometimes. I would hope that a law would be unnecessary. I would never have rented that game to a kid unless their parent approved it, law or otherwise.

On the other hand, one of my friends would let his little girl play Mortal Kombat, but he knows full well about the content. I disagree with him on that, but it's his kid, his home and his responsibility. And to be fair, his child is perfectly well adjusted, so who am I to say what's bad for one kid and not the other? But when it comes to actually selling or renting the game, I am going to make sure the parent is an informed parent.

Re:Laws in action, minus the laws

[silentounce]

one of my friends would let his little girl play Mortal Kombat, but he knows full well about the content. I disagree with him on that, but it's his kid, his home and his responsibility. And to be fair, his child is perfectly well adjusted, so who am I to say what's bad for one kid and not the other? I think I saw that girl the other day. She was standing over a little boy on a playground. Then a disembodied voice yelled out "FINISH HIM!" and she ripped the kid's spine out through his chest. After that she went and picked some daisies and rode away on a beach cruiser.

Violent games and violence.

[Jbcarpen]

Many politicians seem to think that violent video games are the root of all that is wrong with the youth of this world today, yet they conveniently ignore the fact that correlation != causation. The real link between the two is that violent people (among others) will be attracted to games that allow them to act out their desires. For some people this is an outlet that allows them to release the violent urges that would otherwise be acted out in the real world. (I am one such person.) Others will find games to be an insufficient outlet and will then lash out at the world in general. Of course, since they were a gamer beforehand the games themselves end up taking the blame.

Few Gamestop Experiences:

[Brigade]

As an assistant manager at Gamestop over the holidays, I had a few experiences with this:

One time, a kid wanted an M game. After telling him he needed a parent to buy it, he rode his bike home. Dad drove him back up, and sent him in with his ID. Told him still no go. Kid left and got Dad out of the car (poor guy, looked dead tired). I apologized profusely for the hassle, but Dad was extremely understanding, and even thanked me for doing a proper job.

Another parent comes to mind that was shopping for her son. He wanted an M-rated game, and when I told Mom about it, she didn't understand what that meant. After the explanation, she 'got it' and told him to shop for other things.

Other parents have come in and allowed their kids to buy M-rated games based on content. One kid wanted God of War (Sex, Language, Violence, etc. etc.) and Mom said "No, find another game without sex or language." I think he found something WWE 2006, which if I remember correctly was only violent content, which she was OK with.

All in all, of the (likely) dozens of M-rated ID/Get your Parents situations that I experienced, the only time I had even close to a confrontational parent encounter was one parent that asked why we didn't have chairs in the front of the store so tired folks could rest while the kids went nosing around. I told her about the ratings and how parents should shop WITH their kids, and a lot of parents did just that. She seemed stunned, having no idea what I was talking about.

Parents really are taking a much more active role, at least from my personal experience, and I am very reassured by it.