Violent Video Game Law Struck Down 502
The Importance of writes "Washington State banned the sale of violent videogames depicting violence against 'law enforcement officers' to minors under age 17. When challenged, the law was blocked by a preliminary injunction. Yesterday, a federal district court decided that the law was unconstitutional because it failed the strict scrutiny test and was also void for vagueness. Read the 15-page decision [PDF]. A summary of the case's holdings with quotations here."
Good (Score:5, Insightful)
Mod Parent Up (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:So.. (Score:2, Insightful)
Good...and bad... (Score:5, Insightful)
While I think that this is a great win for free speech, does it seem a bit weird that the ability to blow someone's head clean off is given a higher protection than showing someone's nipple? Which one is really worse in the long run?
Note: I am not for censorship of any kind, though I think voluntary ratings and PARENTAL INVOLMENT I N CHOICES are the best solution, but it speaks volumes that violence seems to be celebrated but anything sexual must be covered up "for the children". It really goes to show the almost paradoxical prudist warrior culture that permeates America today.
I get more violent watching Congress on C-SPAN (Score:5, Insightful)
BS (Score:5, Insightful)
I'll tell you what the problem is with the youth of today with all the violence.... Shitty parents. Mystery solved.
Re:So.. (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:So.. (Score:5, Insightful)
In this country, ([stand up straight, remove hats] our Blessed and Glorious Country), you are a child, a child you hear, with no rights, no voice, no nothing, until you turn 18 and then wham, society hits you with a ton of bricks (paperwork) and all of a sudden you're supposed to conduct yourself as an adult and a productive member of society. Well, if you don't get the training and exposure, sherlock, you ain't gonna be any good at dealing with adult stuff.
I'm of the opinion that all the under 17 or under 18 laws can be brought to under 13 and society will be better off in the long run.
US, wake up, the other 5.7 billion people can't all be wrong.
Video Game Demographic (Score:5, Insightful)
For the younger crowd, there's a rating system in place. If mommy buys Hitman: Contracts or Vice City for little johnny (even after reading the rating for it) -- and continues to let the PS2/TV/Internet babysit the child, I believe no law can help that "family."
It's a strange society that looks to everyone else for responsibility in raising children. When all else fails, I suppose we can always blame Canada. Until then, spend time with your children. Make sure they know the difference between reality and fantasy. Give them a sense of morality. Lead by example and for fsck's sake, let them know they matter. I bet that'll work much better than any legislation could.
Re:Good (Score:5, Insightful)
What's interesting about her job is she is now a PO with the local ISD. When she worked at the school in east county where the average income is much lower, and people are more "common" for lack of a better term, a phone call to a parent resulted in an apology and an action. Now that she works at the school in the "affluent" neighborhood, a phone call to a parent results in blamestorming, "not my child" and "you people should be doing more to make sure this sort of thing doesn't happen." Those folks want the rest of the world to raise their children so they're not inconvenienced, and they're the people that think laws like this are a good idea.
Re:i love violent games. (Score:1, Insightful)
Cites (especially re video games)? Or did you just make that up to impress the moderators?
You reminded me of (Score:2, Insightful)
So my point - other countries don't make a big deal out of nudity and nothing bad is happening to them. Is it?
My question what's the real difference?
Is it that we're, generally speaking, infantile or adolescent here in the U.S.? Or what?
Re:i love violent games. (Score:3, Insightful)
Wait, which one was supposed to be the causation? Or is there causation at all? Perhaps it's just correlation?
Please be a little more specific with regards to "linking". Vague comments don't help anyone.
Re:i love violent games. (Score:3, Insightful)
funded by?
I have heard of several of these "studies" but when you read about the protocals used in the study there are huge causal leaps of faith one must take to believe the data.
This is ridiculous (Score:3, Insightful)
GTA is much more "light" than any cops movie, yet are these censored all the time? Are all of these X-rated or something?
Second, the thing about law enforcement officials, specifically, is absurd. If that law passed, then what would come next? Shouldn't firefighters enjoy the same "protection" from violence in games? Old people? Women? They can be killed in a movie, but not in a game, because a game is different, right?
Besides, doesn't the game have an "M" or an "18" on the box? Shouldn't be sold to minors, period. No need to create a NEW law about the killing of THESE people you PARTICULARLY don't want killed, even if it's just a game. If a parent wants to buy it for his 8-year old kid, anyway, despite the obvious sticker, then it's HIS responsibility (although in America he'll blame the games industry and/or the government anyway, if something goes wrong with the kid later).
(BTW: the "kill the haitians" thing in Vice City was even more ridiculous. Drug dealers can sell drugs, kill people, but god forbid they make racist comments, because they are NICE people, good role models, after all...)
Re:i love violent games. (Score:1, Insightful)
Killing babies is OK, Video games are bad. That is fscked up.
Re:i love violent games. (Score:3, Insightful)
This is even older than video games, though. Remember when D&D supposedly made kids violent? The amazing thing is that we live in one of the least violent times in history.
Re:Mod Parent Up (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Mod Parent Up (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Someone help me out with this one... (Score:3, Insightful)
Firstly, sex can have some pretty bad consequences, for instance teenage pregnancy which severely handicaps young people. I know. I was a father at 19 and while I've gone on to great things many do not, especially in poorer communities. That said, young people who are not violent can watch violent movies and just be entertained, then shrug it off later. Young people however are naturally all VERY horny and extremely curious. Growing up I can remember plenty of "show me yours and I'll show you mine" moments. Stealing dads pornos, running out of the adult book shop porno movie securely stashed under the coat. Lots of awkward moments with girls etc etc. People are afraid easy access to this material will cause trauma, and the fact is that if it goes unchecked and without guidance it will. Imagine being 10 years old and seeing a japanese bukake video and thinking that's normal.
I'm not defending it, but people seem to think these days that sex has no consequences when it very clearly does. Young people are the least aware of these consequences and subsequently the most effected by them. Disease, pregnancy, disrespect of the opposite sex. The effects these activities have on education, emotional development and maturity. These are all real things and should not be neglected because you and others think sex is harmless.
"Sex like fire makes an excellent servant but a terrible master" - The Buddha
Re:Why is that... (Score:5, Insightful)
Erm... that's been a long standing arguement here in the USA, so I hope you didn't get the feeling you'd come up with something original
When the founders of this county added the second amendment, they knew that the only way to remove an oppressive government (which they'd just been under) was with force. Protecting the right to own arms was essential to being able to use such force.
We have laws banning such substances as cocaine, marijuana, crystal meth, etc... None of these laws stop criminals from being in possession of those substances. The long standing arguement against banning guns is it means only the criminals will have them.
ontopic
The idea behind laws such as this one is that children/teens are desensitized by violence in games and on tv. I don't agree with that, but it's what these pretentious lawmakers think. These same people seem to think that, in the 1950's, the world really was like Leave it to Beaver portrayed.
The simple solution is for parents to become parents again. We (I have 3), collectively, need to quit blaming other people for our shortcomings as parents and own up to the fact that kids turn out pretty much how we raise them (and who we let them hang out with). We, not laws, should be the filters that sort out what our kids watch and do.
My 11 year old boy is a big fan of Will Smith, and we own (lease?) the Bad Boyz DVD's, and he's allowed to watch both of them. Why? Because we speak with our children all the time about how people should act and how they should treat other people. He understands that what he's watching is purely for entertainment, and stuffing people in trunks, while funny on tv, isn't funny in real life.
The idea of having more laws on the books infuriates me, wether it be banning violent games or guns. We just need to stop blaming other people when our ignored child turns out rotten.
Re:Useful metaphor for this kind of reactionism:dr (Score:4, Insightful)
Yeah, the several Nobel Laureates that were pot smokers were pretty stupid.
Reminds me of when I was a young lad... (Score:5, Insightful)
Fucking stupid Tipper Gore bullshit, and my ma bought into it like a sucker.
My point? Kids are smarter than people give them credit for, and they need to be held responsible more often. I knew what the fuck the difference between fantasy and fiction was back then (I was 8), and so do kids today. In fact, I truly believe they are smart enough to game the system for protection when it comes down to it. What really needs to be done is for children to have better education. Spend all this wasted money on effectively teaching kids and giving them a future, and shut the fuck up about violence, because we all know that it's bullshit anyway.
Re:Useful metaphor for this kind of reactionism:dr (Score:2, Insightful)
Actually there is at least one study that shows drivers under the influence of pot drive MORE safely than those not; thought to be due to slower driving perhaps due to paranoia.. heh ;)
Oh, and there is not a single death attributable to marijuana in all of recorded history. Yet the stuff is not something to mess around with, I'll say.
Re:Someone help me out with this one... (Score:2, Insightful)
Right.. Porn made you get a girl pregnant.. Ah-huh. Nothing at all to do with hormones, being a horn-dog, not using protection, and having no sense of responsibility to the extent of even today blaming society rather than your cock.
Why won't anyone think of the 19 year-old children??
Will it never end? (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Mod Parent Up (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Someone help me out with this one... (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Useful metaphor for this kind of reactionism:dr (Score:5, Insightful)
Now, I support teaching kids about the dangers of drugs. But I'm against lieing to them about it. If you want your kids to be able to deal with drugs they need to know the truth.
The problem with lieing to kids about drugs as mostly-harmless as pot is that when the kids do try it, and none of those evil things happen to them, they doubt your word on the really dangerous stuff like cocain and heroin.
Honesty is paramount when dealing with children if you want them to have the tools to survive.
The important thing that everyone missed... (Score:5, Insightful)
Woulda Coulda Shoulda (Score:5, Insightful)
Probably not at all smarter. I'm not a particular fan of pot (it makes me paranoid; I much prefer a nice glass of 2000 Estancia Meritage), but there is absolutey no evidence it "makes you stupid" and a great many studies that indicate it is quite innocuous, including several fairly recent studies by the US Federal government that were subsequently squashed for political reasons.
Chronic abusers of any drug are another story, however, even there we see far greater damage resulting from alcoholism and addiction to prescription drugs. Recreational use isn't terribly healthy (no alien chemicals to the body are), but there is no correlation between pot use and lack of intelligence except in the most egregious cases of chronic, ongoing, long term excessive use where the abuser is essentially stoned 24/7.
2) Wonder how many others would've been without it?
Again, probably none. Anyone who abuses marijuana enough for it to impact their intelligence probably has an addictive personality, and would have substituted alcohol or some other equally if not more harmful substance had pot not existed.
Re:So.. (Score:3, Insightful)
If you do, then they are no longer subject to their parents at 13, and I'm sorry but kids that age need parents to watch over them as much or more than any time in thier life. Preferably it will more hands off, but parents need the ability to step in when the situation merits it. Doing what you say would basically be giving state blessing for parents to stop taking responsibility for thier kids actions at 13 and would be a very bad policy in my opinion.
Re:Reminds me of when I was a young lad... (Score:2, Insightful)
I agree with you but I would disagree with this statement. SOME kids are smarter than people give them credit for. Children develop at different rates. The choice should be totally up to the parents to decide if their child is able to handle and understand the differences between real life and video games. There are some adults that don't even seem to grasp the difference yet. It is not the job of the government to tell parents what their child is capable of understanding.
Amen (Score:3, Insightful)
The convenient part of this whole setup is, you still get the honor of paying taxes under 18, even without any representation in government or any rights. I started working part time jobs at 14, so thats 4 years of government oppresion (basically). I would be very happy to see a law put in place to allow the parents of a child to lower the age of majority for their kid. If they feel that their child is ready to take responsibility, they should be able to. (This should apply to smoking, drinking, etc. as well IMO)
You want it banned, pip some T&A and a BJ (Score:3, Insightful)
I'm sure that people will get up in arms (which would not get them upset in the least,) and parade against the game.
Kinda like pr0n in that regards ... (Score:2, Insightful)
In reality, it's probably determined by the individual.
A lot of people use the argument that pr0n will incite people to perform rapes. The reality is more complicated -- certainly they can find a relationship between people who have commited offences and use of pr0n, but can't establish a causal relationship. They can't say that all users of pr0n will commit a rape; merely that rapists are also likely to be consumers of pr0n.
Same for the video games. In the case of the all-too-well-known example of Columbine, those were certainly users of violent video games. In fact, their shot-accuracy was better than the police trained people tend to be because of those video games. You can't draw a general causal relationship between violent video games and vioent behaviour.
The more meaningful statement is more along the lines of "people who might already be borderline for the behaviour might rev themselves up with the activity" and "people who wouldn't do anything aren't affected by it". It's just simply neither "always a cause" or "never a cause" for all persons.
There are always going to be those for whom it is a relief of the impulses, and others for whom it just feeds it. This is why a lot of people argue against the cencoring of those things -- you simply can't know what it will do or if it did anything.
As long as there are two sides to it, there will always be people who say "ban 'em all in case someone is incited" and "don't ban any of 'em and make people responsible for their actions".
However, having seen games like GTA and the like, I wasn't impressed that my nephews had copies of them. They just seemed not something for a 13 year old to have as a past-time.
Re:Useful metaphor for this kind of reactionism:dr (Score:3, Insightful)
Please keep in mind that I am trying to make it painfully clear that I am not claiming that pot killed anyone. I am referring to the influence of pot.
The first incident happened before I went to the school, but I learned about it because the memorial to the student was being removed to build a car lot. Some students were getting stoned on the water tower at night where they wouldn't be noticed by anyone. Once well stoned, one fell off.
The second incident happened while I was at school. A student was hunting with his father. The student was stoned and most people believe both the father and student were smoking pot and hunting at the same time. The student claims that his rifle just went off in his hands and shot his father.
Third incident happened while I was at the school, but to a student who had already graduated. He was smoking pot with buddies, volunteered to do a Taco Bell run, and promptly drove his motorcycle right into the side of a building at 40-50mph. It was a Ninja, so his position on the bike was such that he hit the building head-first. I don't know if he had a helmet on or not, but I assume he didn't.
Again, if you read what I posted earlier, I am only trying to state that the influence of ANY drug (including alcohol) impairs a person's capabilities. To compare drugs to video games would require comparing the influence of drugs to the influence of video games.
Err (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Mod Parent Up (Score:2, Insightful)
Happiness lies in being content with what you have. Very few women can compare to the air-brushed beauties in magazines. And the ones that DO look like playboy models are not likely to hang out with your average slashdot geek. So, if you let the magazines and videos dictate what your sense of beauty is, you find that your real love live is not quite up to the ones in the videos. The, you get dissatisfied. Then, you cheat. Then, you get caught. Then, you pay $2000/month in alimony + child support. Then you wind up alone at the gas station of love and use the self-service pump because the playboy models are not attracted to guys who drive Yugos because they pay too much alimony.
Re:Amen (Score:1, Insightful)
18 is an arbitrary line, but it's the best we can do. If we evaluated everyone on a case-by-case basis, that's probably all that society would ever get done.
Accountability (Score:5, Insightful)
Have these people ever watched the news?
The difference between the Nightly News and a violent video game is that the games are NOT REAL. My kids are smart enough to know the difference.
Life must be lived not legislated.
Re:Reminds me of when I was a young lad... (Score:3, Insightful)
Huh... My parents raised me on James Bond films and those cool 1970's martial arts flicks. I knew how to break a spine in three places or seduce a sexy Soviet double agent before I could tie my shoes.
Because parents... (Score:5, Insightful)
Kjella
Re:i love violent games. (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Mod Parent Up (Score:5, Insightful)
I wish more women understood this. Some of them out there actually get offended that the guy they're involved with looks at porn. "I should be enough for him!" *Shudder* Hint, ladies, there is no such thing as a woman on this planet that would 100% completely satisfactorally squelch a guy's curiosity about other women. We are not WIRED this way. We are not programmed to take one mate, settle down, and that's it. We were developed to run around and make everybody pregnant. Don't believe me? Look at other examples of the male's role in nature. We bend over backwards to have monogomous relationships, we should be granted at least a little bit of release.
I think the story is similar for the violence in video games debate. It needs to be understood that there are a LOT of people out there who aren't against video game violence because they grew up on it. Despite that, they are not violent people. They don't have violent tendencies. They don't have anything wrong with them that they would desperately want to avoid spreading to other children. For this reason, very serious proof needs to come about. Unfortunately, that proof is going to have to by the truckload. One kid shooting a car and blaming GTA3 is not compelling. 100 kids, well maybe. 10,000 Okay, we can believe it.
In both cases, a level of understanding has to be developed.
Re:Someone help me out with this one... (Score:1, Insightful)
Imagine being any age, seeing a bukake video, and thingking that's normal.
Re:Good (Score:5, Insightful)
Everyone else pays? Then why am I shelling out all this money for insurance. You go to a hospital in an ambulance, you pay for the ambulance. They make insurance mandatory for a reason. And I support mandatory insurance, because it forces people to be able to pay for their own mistakes.
If people hurt themselves, so long as it's their own fault, that's life. The alternative is other people making my choices for me. I don't want the government to be able to say I can't go white water rafting or rock climbing or scuba diving because it's too dangerous. Warnings are one thing. Telling someone to get down is one thing. Fines are idiotic.
Why doesn't anyone consider the political consequences of the US government's recent conversion to the belief that people are basically mentally incompetent and need a parental government to protect them?
I can't drive along a 20 mph stretch of road with my seatbelt off, but I can drive 65 mph down some strech of highway with it on. Where do you think I'm safer? The government is doing a shitty job of protecting me from myself. If I get in an accident, I should sue them for letting me drive on that fast, dangerous highway, right? It's their responsibility, not just to warn me, but to force me to be safe.
Ah, but they figure people get more benifts driving down a fast highway. Shouldn't I be allowed to make that decision, for better or worse?
Maybe people just live in a society where they think others should force them to do the right thing, and the consequences for their actions should be other people's responsibility. It would explain a lot of the insane lawsuits flying around.
It's not the government's job to stop stupid people from hurting themselves or to decide what risks are acceptable. It's their job to stop stupid people from hurting me, or cheating me, or giving me false information. The government can give helpful information, but it isn't my parent and it shouldn't have any burden or compulsion to make my cost-benefit anlayses for me. These are the same people who wanted to invest Social Security in the stock market, remember? They suck at cost benefit analysis.
Re:You serious? All Under 18 laws? (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Mod Parent Up (Score:4, Insightful)
There is also absolutely nothing that says that having sexual fantasies is actually going to make you leave your wife. I fantasize about being a baseball player sometimes but that doesn't mean I am quitting my day job. You are basically saying that fantasy is unhealthy. If that is your point than I don't think you will find a lot of converts on this site.
Re:Kinda like pr0n in that regards ... (Score:5, Insightful)
It's funny how many people buy ridiculous statements like this without asking the obvious questions: "Who measured their shot accuracy? How did they measure it?" Just a moment's consideration should tell you how implausible it is. Think about what would have to be be involved to actually be able to honestly make such a claim. Did somebody really go around and try to figure out where every shot was fired from, guess what the kid was aiming at, and calculate how close the shot came to the target? And then somehow work out an appropriate metric to compare it to police accuracy? That would be quite an accomplishment indeed! Where is this tour de force study published?
Re:Mod Parent Up (Score:3, Insightful)
Can you imagine a rapist not looking at porn?
I'm not convinced that porn would cause violent rape. How many rapists have been to jail, arguably a place where porn would be very hard to come by, and commited the crime again upon completion of their sentence? How many people with porn stashes out there have raped anybody?
I can't claim I'm any more correct than those studies. I can tell you that internet porn is so wide spread that it'd make one wonder why rape isn't more common place.
Re:...But I don't like unfavorable depictions... (Score:4, Insightful)
If they actually DID their job of controlling the unnecessarily violent in society, they might get some respect.
Instead, they enforce "institutional morality" like anti-drug laws which are totally irrelevant to preventing coercion. Then they start acting out "us vrs. them" fantasies. They end up sodomizing people with broomsticks in back rooms.
They've been doing this for GENERATIONS now (read any description of 19th Century and early 20th Century police tactics). Until public outrage in the '60's forced a (slight) rollback in those tactics, they were doing it. (Of course, the recent beating in LA shows that nothing's really changed.) THAT's why they don't get any respect.
Christ, they've been showing police TV shows and movies now for FIFTY YEARS which show the police REGULARLY violating people's civil rights in order to apprehend "evil bad guys". If you think video games influence the respect police get, what about the thousands of police-positive movies and TV shows that are everywhere?
If they're not having an effect on generating respect for cops, there must be a reason. Same one as violent video games. People have to deal with reality on the street. Games and TV are not yet indistinguishable from reality - despite the corporat media and the state's efforts to blur that distinction so as to better control this brain-dead population.
The Situationists talked about the "Society of the Spectacle". Well, it's not seamless yet.
I spent eight years in the Federal joint seeing cops (and wannabe cops, which is what correctional officers ARE) on a daily basis. There are only three kinds of cops: morons, assholes, and both.
Get in a cop's way one of these days and see how much respect you have after he takes you down several pegs. Try complaining at an airport check-in - that'll do it.
Re:Good (Score:3, Insightful)
Rapists Eat Bread *FACT* (Score:3, Insightful)
But i think the role is diffrent. Rape is generally never about sex (however stabbings are, go figure). The rapist who is looking at porn, persumably, hates women and is thinking violent thoughts towards her, while the average guy is just thinking about consentual awesomness.
Besides, there aer so many studies that say so many things, the room for sweeping bias is amazing...
As for videogames, i agree that they provide a catahrtic release, and are theraputic. While, not encouraging people to be violent, i do believe that there is the unfortunate side effect of disensitisation (after a while certain stimulus fails to shock). Of course, teh same coudl eb said of the evening news.
I don't think the judge likes Grand Theft Auto III (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Rapists Eat Bread *FACT* (Score:3, Insightful)
Violent kids watch more TV.
Ridiculous conclusion: TV causes kids to be violent
This is incorrect. There is a correlation between the two, but nothing more. Kids who were violent to begin with may be attracted to TV, among thousands of other possibilities.
I make it a point to bring this stuff up every time people make these bad conclusions, but it gets sort of scary when you realize that on a mass scale, these misinformed people are the ones pushing our politicians to pass laws based on bad assumptions.
.
Re:Amen (Score:3, Insightful)
You're overlooking free public education, a massive government-supported public health/immunization initiatave, child protective services and a foster care system should you need them, government oversight of employed minors to ensure safe working conditions, the entire transportation infrastructure (along with its regulatory arm) that you gain access to around age 16, and all the other stuff the government does for kids.
Yes, you can't vote. Yes, you can have certain of your rights waived by parents/schools. But "government oppression" is a wee bit heavy-handed.
The video game industry needs to get serious (Score:2, Insightful)
However, the video game industry needs to get serious about the "M" rating. Right now, they want it both ways - they want to not have restrictions on what can go into an M-rated game, yet at the same time they also want no restrictions on who can buy the games. As soon as somebody brings up the idea of allowing only 18 and older gamers to be able to purchase M-rated games, they get themselves worked up into a tizzy, cry foul, and hide behind the First Ammendment. What makes video games any different than movies? Why are movies expected to work by that rule, but video games aren't? I know why - because a forced ratings system is still not into place, and the video game companies don't want to see their sales decrease. That isn't a valid reason for not wanting to get their act together, though, I'm afraid.
The video game industry needs to grow up, and earn itself more legitimacy. They need to be serious about the M-rating, and put an "ID or no sale" policy into place. Doesn't have to be 18 per say - it could be 17, or even 16.
If the video game industry did this, it would be less likely that any form of government would try to step in and muck around like we see here, and creators would also have more freedom for expressing "mature" ideas and themes in their games.
Re:Mod Parent Up (Score:5, Insightful)
Women want ONE man to fulfill her EVERY need.
Men want EVERY woman to fulfill his ONE need.
Its almost that simple, really. You want to impress a man? Show up naked, bring food, and don't block the TV. We really don't need much, but we can't stand being bitched at, or told our constant hornyness is wrong or bad. You leave us alone about dirty movies, lighten up a little, and we will do anything for you. Anything. Fortunately, my wife already knows this, which is one reason I married her.
To all the women here reading slashdot (both of you), please pass this on.