Illinois Videogame Law Struck Down

Big_Al_B writes "CNN reports that a federal judge ruled against the state of Illinois law that banned the sale of some games to minors." From the article: "The Illinois law, which also was to go into effect January 1, would have barred stores from selling or renting extremely violent or sexual games to minors, and allowed $1,000 fines for violators. Kennelly said the law would interfere with the First Amendment and there wasn't a compelling enough reason, such as preventing imminent violence, to allow that." Triumphantly, GamePolitics offers up the ESA's reaction to the decision. The Governor has vowed to appeal, so this isn't over yet.

Re:Laws are no substitute for Parental Control

[Narcoleptic]

A judge with lifetime tenure could really care less about the business interests. If the business interests were so powerful, then they could have prevented the law from being passed in the first place, but clearly other interests weighed against them. The decision was based on an interpretation of the First Amendment. Read the full court opinion yourself to see. http://www.ilnd.uscourts.gov/RACER2/recent_opinion s.cfm?judge=Kennelly [uscourts.gov]

Re:Why is everyone so gung-ho

[sqlrob]

I can't belive that people think that an underage child that lives in his parents home has the RIGHT to do any thing he wants, that he has the RIGHT to view any materials, to play any games, to surf anywhere on the internet, that he has the right to do anything he feels like doing and that the parent should have no say so, no right to restrict or deny the activities in their own home

Very few people have been saying that here. It is not the government's responsibility to control your child. You are free to deny any web site, TV show, game for your children, have at it. That does not allow you to prohibit others, nor does it allow you to place a chilling effect on expression.

Re:The law is the law

[Bazman]

Not in this part of Europe! In the UK, sales of cigs and booze to under-agers is a serious offence. The police have recently been cracking down on this sort of thing with assorted sting operations in pubs and shops.

The right for kids to buy beer stops and my puke-covered pavement.

How BBS's used to handle these things

[joneil]

Remeber bulliten boards, way before the day when everyone had internet? I would guess at the peak of the BBS popularity is when the first shareware version of DOOM came out.

I was a sysop back then,and we had a local group in our city of about 30 BBSes that met once a month to discuss everything from LD chrges to the latest hacker activity.

DOOM caused a real sensation. Every sysop had his own copy, but we were all at a quandry where to offer it for download. Would it offend parents if we let children download such a violent game?

When we did all meet, we found out the guys who ran the "Adult" BBSes, or guys who had "Adult" sections limited to 18 or over, autmatically stuck DOOM in the 18+ category. Seeing how the "Adult boards took the lead, we all followed.

I dunno if the law struck down was good or not - how a law is written, and how it plays out in real life are sometimes 2 different things, but I am still weirded out today that back when DOOM first came out, the guys running "Adult" content automatically assumed it belonged there because of the level of violence, whereas today any kid can just about and store selling computer games and buy the game off the shelf.

the reason this sticks with me is one off the cuff remarks a sysop, who ran a totally adult BBS , made, that DOOM was "damned near a snuff film" it was so violent. We all of course would laugh at this comparison today, but isn't it just a wee bit creepy how fast attitudes change? Where does it stop?

One last thoguht - being a parent myself, please, please, please stop with this "it's time for parents to put down their foot" or "parents to take things into their own hands", "or parents to take responsibility", etc, etc, etc. Parents can only do so much, and sometimes we need help from the community as a whole. Yes, there are parents who take zero responsibility, but for those of us who refuse certian things in our households, it is a constant, uphill battle given the general direction of society.

  I think that was the *intent* of the law that was struck down, to show parents that yes, we the people support the idea that some items do not belong in the hands of children, not to play babysitter for irresponible parents. Now I never lived in that state, so I have no idea if it actually worked. Sometimes the best sounding laws turn out ot be the biggest duds in history when set to real life. Prohobition for example. So who knows. Where do we all draw the balance?

joe

 

Re:So 12 y/o kids should get playboy?

[bigbigbison]

As others have noted, in America, movie ratings are voluntary, just like videogame ratings. There is no national or state law preventing a minor from going into an R-rated movie. The studios enforce these policies themselves.

I know that the cash registers of many stores ask for an age when a customer tries to buy an M-rated game. Do they ask for ages when buying an R-rated film? What about the very common "unrated" editions of films that were PG-13 when they were in the theaters? I'm certain the local videostores didn't back when I was 17 and my friends and I would rent the movie that promiced to show the most skin ond/or blood as possible.

As far as the Playboy game is concerned, unless parents watch their kid's computer usage 24-7, I think they are much more likely to fine nudity online than in a videogame and if they ARE watching their kid's computer usage 24-7, well then they would know if they were playing Playboy: the Mansion anyway...

The fact that people assume movie ratings in America are legally enforced is one of the reasons why people think that any videogame regulation is sensible. I firmly beleive that any law that applies only to videogames is wrong. If the videogame insustry doesn't want these alws, they will need to follow the MPAA's lead and make sure that retailers are enforcing the ratings guidelines.

Re:Uh, kinda sane

[Generic Guy]

I am reminded of the entire Tipper Gore vs. Frank Zappa music censorship battle.

Tipper Gore, wife of U.S. vice-president and 2000 election Democratic candidate Al Gore, was huge behind the whole censorship of music. She wanted to ban all sorts of stuff (yeah, nice line for a supposed 'liberal' to take). After some capitulation, we're still stuck with those giant "bad laguage" warning stickers.

I'm a parent, and of course I'm concerned about what my kids see and do. But these are the kind of nanny-state politics which cause me to spend my vote on independents. I'd almost swing to the republican side (idea of lesser government), but that party has been abducted by neo-con heavy debt-spenders and the ultra-conservative fundamentalist Christian taliban. I woe the Democrats if they're actually serious about running Sen. Billary, who is spearheading her own unconstitutional anti-game rhetoric.

And the Democrats wonder why the true liberals and moderates are abondanding them at the polls.

Re:Not really that sane.

[hunterx11]

As much as I'm against obscenity laws, and as telling as that utterance is to their arbitrariness, it is a bit intellectually dishonest to ignore the Miller test:

1. Whether the average person, applying contemporary community standards, would find that the work, taken as a whole, appeals to the prurient interest,
2. Whether the work depicts/describes, in a patently offensive way, sexual conduct specifically defined by applicable state law,
3. Whether the work, taken as a whole, lacks serious literary, artistic, political, or scientific value.

Re:Uh, kinda sane

[TheLoneDanger]

Just a minor correction: Porn is allowed at 18, but smoking and drinking are set at 19 in Ontario.