Holy carp! Pete Wilson (former gov. CA) said nearly the same thing when he banned video poker and other electronic gambling machines from all Native American lands in California (in violation of at least 50 treaties).
Not even his speech writers ever had an original thought!
Get this:, Goldeneye, minus the blood and made an arcade unit, would not be restricted by this ordinance. So this ordinance would still allow 'that same boy to train to become a sniper at the local arcade without his parents' permission.' I wonder if the Judge did the same as most slashdot readers, read the title but not the text of the ordinance.
If any of these polititions have ever played any videogame I'll eat my hat. This hat right hear, I'll eat it.
Virtual violence (as opposed to real violence) is quite possibly protected speech, in some cases may be art and is most certainly a protected form of protest. (publically burning a dummy with a picture of Joe Lieberman on it, for instance, is legal)
Alcohol has measurable proven adverse physical affects and cannot be compared to videogames.
>Games say mature on them.. 17+ so the law just says "yeah you aren't sposed to sell it to younger people... and we back this rating".
The law says no such thing. Just like MPAA rating (G, PG, PG-13, R, NC-17), ESRB ratings are voluntarily assigned and enforced in most all locations.
Every comment posted by Indianapolis residents has ranged from hesitancy to condemnation. No one from Indianapolis has come forward in support of this ordinance.
Every child should be free play any video game...regardless! Even if the goal of the game is to rape, mutilate, dismember, kill jews, blacks, whatever...ALL CHILDREN SHOULD BE CONSTIUTIONALLY PROTECTED TO PLAY ANYTHING RENDERED AS A VIDEO GAME!!!!
As far as the government is concerned, YES! Restrictions for every videogame concept you mention is the responsibility of parents and not government.
>(like when jr & the gang are dropped at the mall for hours)
If the kids won't behave themselves then why the **** are the parents dropping them off at the mall for hours!!
The ordinance is not based on ESRB ratings. Rather it 'restricts' games that are "Harmful to Minors" and that is defined as "Graphic Violence", "Sexually Explicit" and/or "Nudity". Those terms in turn are also defined in detail. If the blood were removed from Goldeneye (and it was converted to an arcade unit) it would not be restricted. Kids could be 'trained as snipers' as the judge puts it, and the ordinance would not protect them. Games that are rated E on consoles, (Maniac Mansion is E right?) could be restricted under the nudity definition. (Maniac Mansion has a visual depiction of Michael Angelo's reclining nude sculptures). Ironically the game could not be restricted (under this ordinance) for containing the phrase "Muff Diver" (Muff Diver is a parody arcade game within the Maniac Mansion game placed their in protest to videogame censorship back when it wasn't 'an issue'. Just think, all this censorship and rating carp might have been stopped right then and there, but no one payed any attention. Such is the way of history)
>there are also many communities which have local ordanances against showing NC-17 movies to minors, whether or not they are accompanied by an adult.
The MPAA says "NC-17", "No One 17 and Under Admitted". So saying "whether or not they are accompanied by an adult." is a mute point for NC-17. The voluntary rating of NC-17 excludes minors period. You may have meant the "R" rating, "Restricted-Under 17 requires accompanying parent or adult guardian". Sometimes the MPAA includes the disclaimer "(age varies in some locations)". For many years I have always presumed this meant some local ordinances lowered the restricted age (this was the case were I lived, 15 was the restricted age) and some increased the restricted age. But since MPAA revised the NC-17 (formally X, and having nothing to do with XXX or 'adult films' believe it or not) I have never seen the age variation disclaimer on it.
But you forgot the 10 foot zone between 'violent' games and others. Also there must be a divider. Videotapes are fairly small so video stores can waist a little space and still have thousands of movies. Plus videos can be stacked compactly since the viewer does not need room to operate it (they only need to read and perhaps remove it from the shelf). Plus the law (in most cases) does not mandate a buffer zone so Barney cartoons can be placed on the opposite side of the adult section wall (where one would be unaware of the other section's existence unless they went all the way around and passed through the curtain with the "adults only warning"). The 10 foot zone this ordinance calls for works out to a minimum of 75 square feet of wasted space where no unit can be placed. That's if one violent unit sits the corner of a corner room. If the arcade cannot be engineered in this design (because of cost, building structure, or fire ordinances or other such restrictions and/or regulations) then this space increases up to 314 square feet. Don't be fooled, this ordinance is designed to make it extremely costly and difficult to have violent games at a site. It is an effective ban
>This is great news. Anything that prohibits the sale of dangerous material to children is a briliant idea.
This ordinance does not restrict the sale of anything, if you'd read the article you'd know that. So your saying no minor should buy, say, dishes for their mother? (dishes, glasses and knifes can be used as weapons) or a stereo (drop it in a bathtub it's dangerous). Or perhaps they have parents to inform them how to use these products safely?
>Hopefully, this will cut down on the number of shooting incicdents that are occuring across the states involving minors. If they can't use these "games" to practice target shooting, they are not going to pick up a gun and go after their school friends. Anything that saves lives is a good thing.
Violent crimes by minors are down. The average age of killers has been rising each year(more adults kill, less kids kill), the number of violent crimes committed by kids are falling each year. These trends started in 1994 when Doom was released and is now 46% lower.
>If they can't use these "games" to practice target shooting, they are not going to pick up a gun and go after their school friends
Why? If they don't have access to toy guns then that only leave real guns for them to play with. And they don't shoot friends, the don't have friends, they shoot kids who taunt, exclude and shun them. Why is that issue not addressed? ALL OF THESE SHOOTINGS WOULD HAVE BEEN PREVENTED IF JUST ONCE THE KILLERS HAD BEEN INVITED TO A PARTY BY ONE OF THE POPULAR KIDS! That's the cold hard fact.
>Now, if we can get violent programing and films restricted (Or banned altogether), we may be able to get back some semblance of normality and morality in this once Great Country.
Before videogames and movies there was no violent crime? Once again I point out that violent minor crime is down since Doom and the movies Pulp Fiction, Timecop, True Lies, Children of the Corn III, and Natural Born Killers.
Check recent history of Fort Lauderdale Florida. In 1985 city officials made it quite clear that college students were not welcome back ever again and should find another place to vacation. Their economy plummeted businesses declared bankruptcy and unemployment skyrocketed. They had thrown out bathtub and baby just to rid themselves of the soapy water. City officials quickly decided to rewrite history, and declared that 1985 was the start of their new tourism plan. The not welcome policy is ignored by all now. Today they claim the newly built upscale condos and hotels are for upper income families and European tourists. While it's true the they had about 6.7 million visitors last year, they refuse to admit any of them are college students.
Ya, no one in your country is allow to see the word "Ninja". Ninja, Ninja, Ninja, Ninja. Now you must report yourself to the police for five violations.
>Do you want the movie theater ratings to go away too?
>Do you want the movie theater ratings to go away too?
Yes, their somewhat useless. Sure I see R on the poster. But what does that really tell me about the movie and what I may or may not want my kids to see? Is it R because the words "Shit" and "Fucking" appear, maybe a lot more bad language? Is it R because off in the distance on a beach there is a quick glimpse of a woman's bare breasts, or a long look up close? Is it R because a married man is seen suckling his wife's nipple, or maybe they are unmarried, do the just fondle or are they in gauged in intercourse? Is it R because dozens of people get shot, or aliens, or animals, or a criminal, or a suspected criminal, a police officer, or they riddled with 3600 bullets, or burned or thrown outta windas? Some of things can be tolerated for some children depending on their level of maturity. Others are unacceptable. But the R gives no clues as what to expect. The Ratings PG, PG-13, and R don't specify much other than tell you what the MPAA has decided is acceptable for your kids see (they can see this but not that and we don't say why exactly). I've seen movies rated R just because of one pair of bare breast but PG movies with full nudity.
Yes age is important. Your impressionable, irrational, irresponsible and incapable of making your own decisions. Then seconds later, after you've officially become a year older, your unimpressionable, , rational, responsible and entirely capable of making your own decisions. This is how the government defines things so this is the way it is and no parent or demonstration of maturity will substitute for arbitrary marking of passage of time.
Age discrimination (for those under 18) is not only allowed but encouraged in the US. Witness restricted driver's licenses, curfews, different blood-alcohol standards and the fact that some sates don't require employers to pay minimum wage to minors.
He! The Sims! I guess you weren't aware that The Sims lets kids experiment with same sex couples. You've suceeded in corupting your little sister, what will you tell your parents?
OH MY GOD YOUR RIGHT!!!
We must act quickly and ban, I mean restrict, knives. They must be kept 10 feet from the other kitchen utensils and blocked from view. A sign must be posted that clearly states knives are present beyond this point!
But they are! Haven't you heard. Try searching for "laws against pedophilia" at this site here. You will note the search successfully defends children (and anybody else) against all those harmful "laws against pedophilia"
Children should be neither seen nor heard if at all possible. Keep them locked in school, home or handcuffed to a parent. But when they turn 18 they are instantly responsible adults and can be let loose on society.
Barring all minors from entering will cost a lot of profit.
Not every child will show up with a parent so the owner will have to take precautions.
The law is more of "Thou shalt not have violent video games with in 10 feet of non violent ones." (that's 75-314 square feet that must be cleared, that means less units, that means less money)
"And thou shalt put a divider between violent video games and other" (cost money to remodel)
And thou shalt not allow minors access violent video games (post a guard to keep minors away, he gets at least minimum wage)
The only economical option is to not have any violent videogames at all. Hence violent videogames are effectively banned.
Well it is ironic that you need a license to drive or a permit to change the size of a window in your house, but there are absolutly no legal requirements for being parents. It is a fact that some people shouldn't be parents. How about this, anybody who has a child must pay $10 to the IRS. That would probable deter the worst of the lot.
>I have not read the full text of the law, but I supposed it to be intended to prevent teenagers from purchasing video games without parental consent. I doubt it contains a provision to throw the kids in jail if they play such video games. If it does contain such a provision, then I stand with you in disagreeing with that position.
The ordinance say nothing about purchasing. It specifically says minors can not 'operate' machines. So yes, playing the game is a violation. Operators seems include the owner of the arcade and all his/her employees and the customer playing the game. An owner of the arcade and all his/her employees are either registrants or exhibitors (as defined by some other ordinance, but basically if your not a customer your either a registrant or an exhibitor. Doesn't really matter I think, penalty is the same effect) The ordinance skips over the possibility that an employee might also be a minor. "Violations of the Ordinance are punishable by civil fines under Section 103-3 of the Code. The minimum fine for a violation is $200. No more than one violation may be assessed on any one day. For multiple violations, a registrant or exhibitor may lose the right to make available to the public any machines that are "harmful to minors." The City may also suspend or revoke an amusement location's registration in some circumstances. See 831-5(k-(l), 831-6(i), 831-9". Since there is no special mention of further punishment for the minor-customer I presume they could eventually end up in juvenile detention for multiple violations the same as any other city ordinance. Though I'm not sure of Indianapolis code in this matter. Someone who knows could help out and tells us?
No arcade owner is going to remodel his building with a new room for violent videogames nor pay more people to supervise everyone nor bar anyone under 18 entering the arcade period. The only economically sound solution is to not have an 'violent videogames' on the premises. The ordinence becomes an effective ban. It's a twist on the old catch 22 trick of 'you have to have a permit to do that, permits cost $1,000,000'. Only now it's 'you have to do this, this, this and this before you do that and we don't care how much money it costs you' Which somehowornuther was once upheld by the US surpreme court.
Arcade owners should close up shop and leave. When crime rises and parents complain their kids have nothing to do the city will beg people to open arcades again.
You are speaking of larger issues which this particular case is not about. Unfortunately the facts of this one case is not what people will see, they will see it as support or disapproval of a ban on videogame violence as a whole. Its not, no matter which way it turns out. The suit is based mostly on "Graphic Violence" not being clearly defined in City-County General Ordinance No. 72-2000, amending Revised Code of the Consolidated City of Indianapolis and Marion County 831-1. It looks like they don't have a case since the definition of "Graphic Violence" in the ordinance is quite clear: "Graphic Violence means an amusement machine's visual depiction or representation of realistic serious injury to human or human-like being where such serious injury includes amputation, decapitation, dismemberment, bloodshed, mutilation, maiming or disfiguration". They filled the wrong suit, or used the wrong objection, because this 'unclearly defined' argument is baseless. They should be claiming they can't be charged with parenting every child Indianapolis, or undue financial burden, or something other than unclearly defined. But for them to do so, they would have to attack the entire ordinance. That would look bad for them since the ordinance includes: "Strong sexual content means the visual depiction or representation by an amusement machine of nudity or explicit human sexual behavior by any human or human-like being in one or more of the following forms: deviate sexual conduct; sexual intercourse; or, fondling of genitals" and "Nudity means an amusement machine's visual depiction or representation of human male or female genitals, pubic area or buttocks with less than fully opaque covering, or of a female breast with less than fully opaque covering of any part of the nipple, or showing of covered male genitals in a discernibly turgid state.". If they were to dispute the ordinance (as opposed to the definition of graphic violence) then the moralist groups would be crying "They want to put fondling, genitals and intercourse in video games for children!". It's a no win situation. Politicians have been doing that a lot lately, tacking on twice as much stuff no one will object to, to the unconstitutional law they really want to pass
They also made an argument for the First Amendment, but recent politics and the judge's own words would suggest that minors are not protected under the First Amendment.
That being said, if politicians just have to legislate then this is the lesser of evils. This ordinance is almost a good message for parents, almost telling them they must supervise their children at arcades. I hope they keep rewriting the legislation in that direction as opposed to censorship
It was an incremental process to the level of violence in today's game. Programmers were faced with the difficulty of what to do with an enemy graphic and what the player can do to it. Sending a moving missile graphic at it then erasing it from the screen and memory upon collision turns out to be the least challenging. From there its a short walk to "Shoot" and "Kill". the shoot and kill concepts stuck so as videogames' capabilities advanced the depictions of these concepts were depicted with more realism just like most other types of human behavior in videogames (speaking, playing sports, driving cars, etc...). Working the shoot and kill concepts in reverse, one could make the argument that older videogames were actually worse in their depiction of violence. How many beings died horribly in the vacuum of space in the game Space Invaders? How many innocent pellets did Pac-Man indiscriminately eat, how many times did he bite those poor ghosts (certainly more times than they did violence to him). And look at the violent beating the ball got in Pong, bamb, bamb, bamb, bamb, bamb, it just never stopped till the ball was dead, then another ball was slaughtered. All of this violence and without consequence. You never saw blood or dead bodies, heard screams or pleas for mercy. All this taught a generation of children that they could commit violent acts and there would be no messy blood to clean up, dead bodies to dispose of and no voices to haunt their conscious. How many of you, right after Columbine, managed to play Quake (or Doom, or Goldeneye, or some other game with realistic depictions of violence) without hearing your conscious? Less than those of you who played videogames without realistic depictions of violence I'm sure. So which game is worse, the one that let's you kill with or without hearing your conscious?
As for water pistols and nerf swords, politicians would really have a fit. Don't you remember when water and nerf guns were banned? Imaginary violence has always been an easier target than real violence. Politicians have tried (and in some cases succeeded in) banning videogames and toy weapons, why would they sit back and allow videogames about toy weapons? Plus such a game would probably not sell very well. Witness Wolfenstein 3D and Super Noah's Ark 3D . THE EXACT SAME GAME with graphics changed to remove violence. Well over 250,000 copies of Wolfenstein were sold, but WisdomTree is still trying to sell their remaining Super Noah's Ark 3D cartridges and CD-ROMs.
Slashdot Mirror
Holy carp! Pete Wilson (former gov. CA) said nearly the same thing when he banned video poker and other electronic gambling machines from all Native American lands in California (in violation of at least 50 treaties).
Not even his speech writers ever had an original thought!
Get this:, Goldeneye, minus the blood and made an arcade unit, would not be restricted by this ordinance. So this ordinance would still allow 'that same boy to train to become a sniper at the local arcade without his parents' permission.' I wonder if the Judge did the same as most slashdot readers, read the title but not the text of the ordinance.
If any of these polititions have ever played any videogame I'll eat my hat. This hat right hear, I'll eat it.
Virtual violence (as opposed to real violence) is quite possibly protected speech, in some cases may be art and is most certainly a protected form of protest. (publically burning a dummy with a picture of Joe Lieberman on it, for instance, is legal)
Alcohol has measurable proven adverse physical affects and cannot be compared to videogames.
>Games say mature on them.. 17+ so the law just says "yeah you aren't sposed to sell it to younger people... and we back this rating".
The law says no such thing. Just like MPAA rating (G, PG, PG-13, R, NC-17), ESRB ratings are voluntarily assigned and enforced in most all locations.
Every comment posted by Indianapolis residents has ranged from hesitancy to condemnation. No one from Indianapolis has come forward in support of this ordinance.
Every child should be free play any video game...regardless! Even if the goal of the game is to rape, mutilate, dismember, kill jews, blacks, whatever...ALL CHILDREN SHOULD BE CONSTIUTIONALLY PROTECTED TO PLAY ANYTHING RENDERED AS A VIDEO GAME!!!!
As far as the government is concerned, YES! Restrictions for every videogame concept you mention is the responsibility of parents and not government.
>(like when jr & the gang are dropped at the mall for hours)
If the kids won't behave themselves then why the **** are the parents dropping them off at the mall for hours!!
The ordinance is not based on ESRB ratings. Rather it 'restricts' games that are "Harmful to Minors" and that is defined as "Graphic Violence", "Sexually Explicit" and/or "Nudity". Those terms in turn are also defined in detail. If the blood were removed from Goldeneye (and it was converted to an arcade unit) it would not be restricted. Kids could be 'trained as snipers' as the judge puts it, and the ordinance would not protect them. Games that are rated E on consoles, (Maniac Mansion is E right?) could be restricted under the nudity definition. (Maniac Mansion has a visual depiction of Michael Angelo's reclining nude sculptures). Ironically the game could not be restricted (under this ordinance) for containing the phrase "Muff Diver" (Muff Diver is a parody arcade game within the Maniac Mansion game placed their in protest to videogame censorship back when it wasn't 'an issue'. Just think, all this censorship and rating carp might have been stopped right then and there, but no one payed any attention. Such is the way of history)
>there are also many communities which have local ordanances against showing NC-17 movies to minors, whether or not they are accompanied by an adult.
The MPAA says "NC-17", "No One 17 and Under Admitted". So saying "whether or not they are accompanied by an adult." is a mute point for NC-17. The voluntary rating of NC-17 excludes minors period. You may have meant the "R" rating, "Restricted-Under 17 requires accompanying parent or adult guardian". Sometimes the MPAA includes the disclaimer "(age varies in some locations)". For many years I have always presumed this meant some local ordinances lowered the restricted age (this was the case were I lived, 15 was the restricted age) and some increased the restricted age. But since MPAA revised the NC-17 (formally X, and having nothing to do with XXX or 'adult films' believe it or not) I have never seen the age variation disclaimer on it.
But you forgot the 10 foot zone between 'violent' games and others. Also there must be a divider. Videotapes are fairly small so video stores can waist a little space and still have thousands of movies. Plus videos can be stacked compactly since the viewer does not need room to operate it (they only need to read and perhaps remove it from the shelf). Plus the law (in most cases) does not mandate a buffer zone so Barney cartoons can be placed on the opposite side of the adult section wall (where one would be unaware of the other section's existence unless they went all the way around and passed through the curtain with the "adults only warning"). The 10 foot zone this ordinance calls for works out to a minimum of 75 square feet of wasted space where no unit can be placed. That's if one violent unit sits the corner of a corner room. If the arcade cannot be engineered in this design (because of cost, building structure, or fire ordinances or other such restrictions and/or regulations) then this space increases up to 314 square feet. Don't be fooled, this ordinance is designed to make it extremely costly and difficult to have violent games at a site. It is an effective ban
>This is great news. Anything that prohibits the sale of dangerous material to children is a briliant idea.
This ordinance does not restrict the sale of anything, if you'd read the article you'd know that. So your saying no minor should buy, say, dishes for their mother? (dishes, glasses and knifes can be used as weapons) or a stereo (drop it in a bathtub it's dangerous). Or perhaps they have parents to inform them how to use these products safely?
>Hopefully, this will cut down on the number of shooting incicdents that are occuring across the states involving minors. If they can't use these "games" to practice target shooting, they are not going to pick up a gun and go after their school friends. Anything that saves lives is a good thing.
Violent crimes by minors are down. The average age of killers has been rising each year(more adults kill, less kids kill), the number of violent crimes committed by kids are falling each year. These trends started in 1994 when Doom was released and is now 46% lower.
>If they can't use these "games" to practice target shooting, they are not going to pick up a gun and go after their school friends
Why? If they don't have access to toy guns then that only leave real guns for them to play with. And they don't shoot friends, the don't have friends, they shoot kids who taunt, exclude and shun them. Why is that issue not addressed? ALL OF THESE SHOOTINGS WOULD HAVE BEEN PREVENTED IF JUST ONCE THE KILLERS HAD BEEN INVITED TO A PARTY BY ONE OF THE POPULAR KIDS! That's the cold hard fact.
>Now, if we can get violent programing and films restricted (Or banned altogether), we may be able to get back some semblance of normality and morality in this once Great Country.
Before videogames and movies there was no violent crime? Once again I point out that violent minor crime is down since Doom and the movies Pulp Fiction, Timecop, True Lies, Children of the Corn III, and Natural Born Killers.
Check recent history of Fort Lauderdale Florida. In 1985 city officials made it quite clear that college students were not welcome back ever again and should find another place to vacation. Their economy plummeted businesses declared bankruptcy and unemployment skyrocketed. They had thrown out bathtub and baby just to rid themselves of the soapy water. City officials quickly decided to rewrite history, and declared that 1985 was the start of their new tourism plan. The not welcome policy is ignored by all now. Today they claim the newly built upscale condos and hotels are for upper income families and European tourists. While it's true the they had about 6.7 million visitors last year, they refuse to admit any of them are college students.
Ya, no one in your country is allow to see the word "Ninja". Ninja, Ninja, Ninja, Ninja. Now you must report yourself to the police for five violations.
>Do you want the movie theater ratings to go away too?
>Do you want the movie theater ratings to go away too?
Yes, their somewhat useless. Sure I see R on the poster. But what does that really tell me about the movie and what I may or may not want my kids to see? Is it R because the words "Shit" and "Fucking" appear, maybe a lot more bad language? Is it R because off in the distance on a beach there is a quick glimpse of a woman's bare breasts, or a long look up close? Is it R because a married man is seen suckling his wife's nipple, or maybe they are unmarried, do the just fondle or are they in gauged in intercourse? Is it R because dozens of people get shot, or aliens, or animals, or a criminal, or a suspected criminal, a police officer, or they riddled with 3600 bullets, or burned or thrown outta windas? Some of things can be tolerated for some children depending on their level of maturity. Others are unacceptable. But the R gives no clues as what to expect. The Ratings PG, PG-13, and R don't specify much other than tell you what the MPAA has decided is acceptable for your kids see (they can see this but not that and we don't say why exactly). I've seen movies rated R just because of one pair of bare breast but PG movies with full nudity.
Yes age is important. Your impressionable, irrational, irresponsible and incapable of making your own decisions. Then seconds later, after you've officially become a year older, your unimpressionable, , rational, responsible and entirely capable of making your own decisions. This is how the government defines things so this is the way it is and no parent or demonstration of maturity will substitute for arbitrary marking of passage of time.
Age discrimination (for those under 18) is not only allowed but encouraged in the US. Witness restricted driver's licenses, curfews, different blood-alcohol standards and the fact that some sates don't require employers to pay minimum wage to minors.
He! The Sims! I guess you weren't aware that The Sims lets kids experiment with same sex couples. You've suceeded in corupting your little sister, what will you tell your parents?
OH MY GOD YOUR RIGHT!!! We must act quickly and ban, I mean restrict, knives. They must be kept 10 feet from the other kitchen utensils and blocked from view. A sign must be posted that clearly states knives are present beyond this point!
But they are! Haven't you heard. Try searching for "laws against pedophilia" at this site here. You will note the search successfully defends children (and anybody else) against all those harmful "laws against pedophilia"
Children should be neither seen nor heard if at all possible. Keep them locked in school, home or handcuffed to a parent. But when they turn 18 they are instantly responsible adults and can be let loose on society.
Barring all minors from entering will cost a lot of profit.
Not every child will show up with a parent so the owner will have to take precautions. The law is more of "Thou shalt not have violent video games with in 10 feet of non violent ones." (that's 75-314 square feet that must be cleared, that means less units, that means less money)
"And thou shalt put a divider between violent video games and other" (cost money to remodel)
And thou shalt not allow minors access violent video games (post a guard to keep minors away, he gets at least minimum wage)
The only economical option is to not have any violent videogames at all. Hence violent videogames are effectively banned.
Well it is ironic that you need a license to drive or a permit to change the size of a window in your house, but there are absolutly no legal requirements for being parents. It is a fact that some people shouldn't be parents. How about this, anybody who has a child must pay $10 to the IRS. That would probable deter the worst of the lot.
>I have not read the full text of the law, but I supposed it to be intended to prevent teenagers from purchasing video games without parental consent. I doubt it contains a provision to throw the kids in jail if they play such video games. If it does contain such a provision, then I stand with you in disagreeing with that position.
The ordinance say nothing about purchasing. It specifically says minors can not 'operate' machines. So yes, playing the game is a violation. Operators seems include the owner of the arcade and all his/her employees and the customer playing the game. An owner of the arcade and all his/her employees are either registrants or exhibitors (as defined by some other ordinance, but basically if your not a customer your either a registrant or an exhibitor. Doesn't really matter I think, penalty is the same effect) The ordinance skips over the possibility that an employee might also be a minor. "Violations of the Ordinance are punishable by civil fines under Section 103-3 of the Code. The minimum fine for a violation is $200. No more than one violation may be assessed on any one day. For multiple violations, a registrant or exhibitor may lose the right to make available to the public any machines that are "harmful to minors." The City may also suspend or revoke an amusement location's registration in some circumstances. See 831-5(k-(l), 831-6(i), 831-9". Since there is no special mention of further punishment for the minor-customer I presume they could eventually end up in juvenile detention for multiple violations the same as any other city ordinance. Though I'm not sure of Indianapolis code in this matter. Someone who knows could help out and tells us?
No arcade owner is going to remodel his building with a new room for violent videogames nor pay more people to supervise everyone nor bar anyone under 18 entering the arcade period. The only economically sound solution is to not have an 'violent videogames' on the premises. The ordinence becomes an effective ban. It's a twist on the old catch 22 trick of 'you have to have a permit to do that, permits cost $1,000,000'. Only now it's 'you have to do this, this, this and this before you do that and we don't care how much money it costs you' Which somehowornuther was once upheld by the US surpreme court.
Arcade owners should close up shop and leave. When crime rises and parents complain their kids have nothing to do the city will beg people to open arcades again.
You are speaking of larger issues which this particular case is not about. Unfortunately the facts of this one case is not what people will see, they will see it as support or disapproval of a ban on videogame violence as a whole. Its not, no matter which way it turns out. The suit is based mostly on "Graphic Violence" not being clearly defined in City-County General Ordinance No. 72-2000, amending Revised Code of the Consolidated City of Indianapolis and Marion County 831-1. It looks like they don't have a case since the definition of "Graphic Violence" in the ordinance is quite clear: "Graphic Violence means an amusement machine's visual depiction or representation of realistic serious injury to human or human-like being where such serious injury includes amputation, decapitation, dismemberment, bloodshed, mutilation, maiming or disfiguration". They filled the wrong suit, or used the wrong objection, because this 'unclearly defined' argument is baseless. They should be claiming they can't be charged with parenting every child Indianapolis, or undue financial burden, or something other than unclearly defined. But for them to do so, they would have to attack the entire ordinance. That would look bad for them since the ordinance includes: "Strong sexual content means the visual depiction or representation by an amusement machine of nudity or explicit human sexual behavior by any human or human-like being in one or more of the following forms: deviate sexual conduct; sexual intercourse; or, fondling of genitals" and "Nudity means an amusement machine's visual depiction or representation of human male or female genitals, pubic area or buttocks with less than fully opaque covering, or of a female breast with less than fully opaque covering of any part of the nipple, or showing of covered male genitals in a discernibly turgid state.". If they were to dispute the ordinance (as opposed to the definition of graphic violence) then the moralist groups would be crying "They want to put fondling, genitals and intercourse in video games for children!". It's a no win situation. Politicians have been doing that a lot lately, tacking on twice as much stuff no one will object to, to the unconstitutional law they really want to pass
They also made an argument for the First Amendment, but recent politics and the judge's own words would suggest that minors are not protected under the First Amendment.
That being said, if politicians just have to legislate then this is the lesser of evils. This ordinance is almost a good message for parents, almost telling them they must supervise their children at arcades. I hope they keep rewriting the legislation in that direction as opposed to censorship
It was an incremental process to the level of violence in today's game. Programmers were faced with the difficulty of what to do with an enemy graphic and what the player can do to it. Sending a moving missile graphic at it then erasing it from the screen and memory upon collision turns out to be the least challenging. From there its a short walk to "Shoot" and "Kill". the shoot and kill concepts stuck so as videogames' capabilities advanced the depictions of these concepts were depicted with more realism just like most other types of human behavior in videogames (speaking, playing sports, driving cars, etc...). Working the shoot and kill concepts in reverse, one could make the argument that older videogames were actually worse in their depiction of violence. How many beings died horribly in the vacuum of space in the game Space Invaders? How many innocent pellets did Pac-Man indiscriminately eat, how many times did he bite those poor ghosts (certainly more times than they did violence to him). And look at the violent beating the ball got in Pong, bamb, bamb, bamb, bamb, bamb, it just never stopped till the ball was dead, then another ball was slaughtered. All of this violence and without consequence. You never saw blood or dead bodies, heard screams or pleas for mercy. All this taught a generation of children that they could commit violent acts and there would be no messy blood to clean up, dead bodies to dispose of and no voices to haunt their conscious. How many of you, right after Columbine, managed to play Quake (or Doom, or Goldeneye, or some other game with realistic depictions of violence) without hearing your conscious? Less than those of you who played videogames without realistic depictions of violence I'm sure. So which game is worse, the one that let's you kill with or without hearing your conscious? As for water pistols and nerf swords, politicians would really have a fit. Don't you remember when water and nerf guns were banned? Imaginary violence has always been an easier target than real violence. Politicians have tried (and in some cases succeeded in) banning videogames and toy weapons, why would they sit back and allow videogames about toy weapons? Plus such a game would probably not sell very well. Witness Wolfenstein 3D and Super Noah's Ark 3D . THE EXACT SAME GAME with graphics changed to remove violence. Well over 250,000 copies of Wolfenstein were sold, but WisdomTree is still trying to sell their remaining Super Noah's Ark 3D cartridges and CD-ROMs.