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???

[joshetc]

Sorry, I just got out of a meeting

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.