Illinois Videogame Law Struck Down 320
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:What a shame (Score:3, Insightful)
You must be new to dealing with contemporary parents.
Uh, kinda sane (Score:5, Insightful)
Laws are no substitute for Parental Control (Score:5, Insightful)
Why is everyone so gung-ho (Score:2, Insightful)
Do you think that it's GOOD that kids should be seeing this sort of trash?
As a parent and a grandfather, I would not want my kids partaking in this sort of degenerate filth. It's garbage.
And don't get all excited. I'm an atheist so I'm not some religious right wing zealot..
I'm an adult and I know what's bad for kids. I've raised two kids myself, they are adults now and I'm happy to say I think they turned out pretty good and I had strict rules on this sort of thing in my home. I absolutely forbid MTV and such trash under my roof and it was NOT a problem, as a matter of fact my son came home from college last year and told me that he was glad that I had forbidden MTV type trash in the home..
Not really that sane. (Score:5, Insightful)
The way this law looks now it's more of a patchwork, and a kind of "let's do something so it looks like we care and are actually giving value back to the tax payers" law which should be shot down and replaced with something better. Or ignored.
Forbidding what is bad (Score:5, Insightful)
So next time when you think of forbidding something because it is bad, maybe you should allow it and educate on it.
Re:Why is everyone so gung-ho (Score:4, Insightful)
Don't like video games? Don't allow them in your house, the same way you forbid MTV.
Hang On A Minute (Score:5, Insightful)
Over here in the UK, games are rated in the same way that movies, alcohol, tobacco etc are in that if you are caught supplying them to anyone underage you can get prosecuted.
I'm against censorship in that an adult should not be censored from what they wish to see/do, but ratings are a good thing IMO. This kind of court decision just seems back-asswards to me. Does this ruling mean that a child can go to an adult rated film, and if they get denied entry claim it breaches their First Amendment rights?
Bob
Re:Why is everyone so gung-ho (Score:5, Insightful)
So be a responsible parent and grandfather then, and restrict those things from your kids yourself. Don't take the easy, selfish route of asking the State to do your parenting for you. Your temporary convenience is not worth your freedom, nor the freedom of your neighbours.
Re:Why is everyone so gung-ho (Score:5, Insightful)
Do you think that it's GOOD that kids should be seeing this sort of trash?"
Obviously, you don't believe YOUR children shouldn't. Doesn't mean everyone should automatically agree with you.
The reason this is being fought tooth and nail is because it's a stepping stone to greater losses of the so-called freedoms you americans face (note, author of this post not american)
"As a parent and a grandfather, I would not want my kids partaking in this sort of degenerate filth. It's garbage."
By your reasoning, so's most of shakespear's work.. oh. so that's written on paper, so that's okay? Right, double-standard much? May as well burn every library and start again with fresh culture.
"And don't get all excited. I'm an atheist so I'm not some religious right wing zealot.."
*blink* so that means you're just a right wing zealot? You don't have to be religious to be a moral crusader, it just seems to be common.
"I'm an adult and I know what's bad for kids. I've raised two kids myself, they are adults now and I'm happy to say I think they turned out pretty good and I had strict rules on this sort of thing in my home. I absolutely forbid MTV and such trash under my roof and it was NOT a problem, as a matter of fact my son came home from college last year and told me that he was glad that I had forbidden MTV type trash in the home.."
A sample of two is not a valid experiment. Come back and talk to me when you've raised about 30-thousand children, AND when you have a valid cross-section of lifestyles, living areas, etc. Your experiment is also loaded with bias. Read http://www.badscience.net/ [badscience.net] for examples of bias in experiments.
Millions of children grow up with video games, MTV, books, porn, the internet, and none of them turn out to be serial killers, gang members, murderers, rapists, drug users, etc.
Some kids who have no contact with any of the above media still commit crimes of these nature, hell, they were committing these crimes before the media existed at all!
Statistically speaking, the fact that there's an intersection at some point between violent crimes and these types of media is just a proof that both exist in a random selection of people!
ash
PS, I find it entertaingly co-incidental (aka, an alanis-morriset style ironicism) that i was asked to reproduce the word 'gunned' to verify my humanity.
ESA's reasoning. (Score:3, Insightful)
"It's illogical that video games would be treated more harshly than R-rated movies or music CDs with parental warning labels, both of which can be legally viewed and sold to minors. We should be treated the same way as those industries." - Douglas Lowenstein, president of the ESA
It is NOT illegal to sell rated R movies to kids. Most retailers have methods to prevent this from happening. The video game companies aren't trying to get special treatment but rather semi-equal treatment.
Re:What a shame (Score:2, Insightful)
As a real Christian parent you should be more involved in your child's rearing, instead of relying on lawmakers. And if you aren't being sarcastic about this, you should know that you are generalizing all video games as violent. There are many non-violent video games and some are even educational.
How would you feel if you were a teenager ? (Score:3, Insightful)
Remember when you were a teenager & you wanted to buy Mortal Kombat for your Sega Genesis/SNES? Imagine if the guy behind the counter would tell you that you can't: "you're too young". You're 16, you're allowed to drive in some places, but you can't play Mortal Kombat... I know I have played ultra-violent games, I grew up playing them, I enjoyed them. But I also played games like Civ, Transport Tycoon, Populous etc... I graduated from high school and university with the highest honors. Yet I enjoy blood in games.
For all of you above 20 who probably did play these games just as much as me, remember, you were a teenager once too, and I don't think you would've appreciated it if a law would ban you from playing such games. It's so ironic that parents do the dumbest things when they are young (i.e smoke pot, play lame games with no educational value whatsoever) and grow up to become uptight pricks. "We don't want them to do the same mistakes we did...". I'm not condoning the "everything goes" attitude of some parents today, but focus on the things that are actually IMPORTANT, like pushing him to excel in school, grow up to be a respectable and responsible adult, not to avoid "the fruits of the devil" or whatever you feel like calling these things...
Besides, if you're THAT concerned about your child's safety, by him a Ninendo :D [yes I know, flamebait].
Re:Uh, kinda sane (Score:5, Insightful)
But this is how it always starts. The cry of We have to protect the children by politicians looking for re-election (and Gov Rod has several investigations into his administration to distract people from right now) leads to LOTS of bad law. And this one is no different. You know the next step - banning sales to kids didn't work, they are still getting their hands on them. So we have to make the law tougher. And the cycle continues.
Fundamentally, the responsibility lies with the parents, not the state, to monitor what their kids do. This goes for all manner of things, not just buying video games. My kids know the rules that we have, and I know they know them. But my rules should not limit what OTHER parents or kids do! This is just another 'nanny-state' law - the kind I'm really getting tired of.
I am reminded of the entire Tipper Gore vs. Frank Zappa music censorship battle. To quote Zappa (from the Joe's Garage liner notes:
Frank knew what he was talking about! Here's an excerpt from his congressional testimony that speaks volumes
To bad Zappa died of cancer in 1993.
The law is the law (Score:3, Insightful)
These laws (all of them) are merely instruments of governments in order to tell people "We're doing something!" What are they doing? They're replacing parents' responsibility.
Should a 12 year old be able to buy beer? Honestly, leave it up to individual cities (or better yet, the parents) to decide. Should a 12 year old be able to buy porn? Again, it is for the cities (and individuals) to decide. A State is too all-encompassing to allow the trials and tests that a free market offers. In Europe last I went, preteens were able to pick up beer and cigarettes for their parents. Retailers weren't held responsible for carding or anything as rights-infringing as we have in the States.
I live in Illinois and I hope we continue to see these laws shut down. It is just a political ploy to increase government's power while reporting it as positive for the citizen base. Citizens today are too irresponsible and too mentally restricted to understand that we all have responsibilities, parents especially, to monitor what is used in our households. It is not government's problem.
Who decides? (Score:5, Insightful)
The answer, of course, is the parents. An outright ban on the sale of violent or "filthy" materials to children ignores the fact that different parents have differing levels of comfort with what their children are exposed to. As long as the material in question isn't going to harm the child (i.e. showing real snuff videos to kindergartners or some such) then the parents should be allowed to make that decision.
The question is, do you ban everything and require specific parental consent for exceptions, or do you permit everything and rely on the parents to keep track of what their kids are doing? Personally, I'm in favor of the latter, and for that to work, children must have access to materials that some parents find offensive.
Re:Why is everyone so gung-ho (Score:3, Insightful)
Straw man. Access by children is not the issue for me, the issue is state legislatures trying to take away my access, as a legal, tax-paying citizen who reached the age of majority a while ago, to "violent and/or filthy materials," especially in the name of "think of the children!" Any burden on selling these games "for the children" is a burden in general, one more reason for stores not to stock such games to begin with. And while this would keep the children safe from these games, it would also keep me "safe" because I'd be unable to find anybody to sell the stuff.
Why, instead of fining game stores, don't we instead fine the parents who allowed it to happen?
Why is this even a problem? (Score:3, Insightful)
Its illegal to sell porn to minors. Video game content should be treated no differently.
Until you are an adult, your rights *are* limited. ( as they should be ).
Sure, the concept of 'adult' is arbitrary, but you have to draw a line somewhere, its the law of averages that is used. ( anyone remember the bell curve? )
Re:What a shame (Score:4, Insightful)
As a good Christian parent I say fine - don't buy them for your kids. And teach your kids why you don't think they are appropriate. That's what *I* have done with regard to games like GTA: San Andreas. It is absolutely, positively NOT the government's job to determine what my kids can and can't see, read, etc. That's MY job. The First Amandment says they can't pass laws limiting freedom of speech. And I agree. The one exception is providing obscene material to children, and I have no problem with that restriction.
The limits you want to set for YOUR kids are between you, your kids, your church (possibly) and God. Period. I will set the limits for MY children, thank you very much.
Just so we're clear, my church is very conservative, and I'm an ordained minister. But I believe in the First Amemdment and that it's the parents' duty to monitor and control their kids - not the government's.
Re:Hang On A Minute (Score:3, Insightful)
It "abridges the freedom of speech."
Personally, however, I think Article I, Section 4 of the Illinois Constitution better applies here:Penalizing stores for carrying such games infringes on a person's ability to publish such games.
"games are rated in the same way that movies, alcohol, tobacco etc are in that if you are caught supplying them to anyone underage you can get prosecuted."
Alcohol and tobacco are age-limited by most states. Alcohol and tobacco aren't speech.
Movies are voluntarily rated, but to my knowledge (IANAL) there is no criminal prosecution if you let a child see a movie rated "R" by the MPAA. The entire system is voluntary and, to my knowledge, no state has even attempted such legislation, probably because of the (IMO unjustified) esteem that motion pictures are held in because of the age of the artistic medium, and maybe because of the money the MPAA throws around. But because video games are "t3h evi1," state legislatures seem to be of the opinion that they aren't really speech, and that it's OK to abridge it.
"I'm against censorship in that an adult should not be censored from what they wish to see/do, but ratings are a good thing IMO."
- Stores are fined $1000 for selling AO games to minors
- Stores can't always be 100% sure the person they're selling to is above the age of 18 (it's Christmas, the game stores are packed, cashiers are overworked)
- If you carry AO games, there is always a chance a copy will find its way into the hands of a minor, and you will get fined
- The only way to make sure not to get fined is not to carry AO games to begin with
- If stores don't carry AO games, where will adults buy them?
It's not a question about ratings, it's a question about giving those ratings the weight of law."Does this ruling mean that a child can go to an adult rated film, and if they get denied entry claim it breaches their First Amendment rights?"
Most adult movie stores don't also stock offerings from Disney. I'd argue that it's less burdensome on the adult film industry because those movies are expressly made for spank material. With video games, however, the line isn't as clear cut, defining what a game is made for.
Instead of using adult films as a comparison, what about a movie that's simply rated R? Should I have to go to an "adult film store" to buy Saving Private Ryan?
Re:Uh, kinda sane (Score:5, Insightful)
Come on, we can't have it both ways. What about the grandmother who sued everybody and their brother after purchasing an 'M' rated game (GTA San Andreas, IIRC) for her young grandson?
One way or another a precedent has to be set. Does the state protect the children, or is it the parent/guardians' responsibility?
Let's face it, the world we live in today is different than the world of yesterday. Kids don't grow up as quickly because they're not put to work to support their families at 13 years of age. Therefore it was decided by society that there should be a reasonable(?) age limit set forth to determine when children become capable, decision making adults. This determines when you're allowed to vote, purchase and consume alcohol and tobacco products, sign your name to a binding contract, purchase / consume violent and/or pornographic materials, etc.
To play devil's advocate for a minute here; the problem with abolishing all 'nanny-state laws' is a partial reflection of our current state of society. We have children with one or no living/remaining parents, children of parents who work long hours to make ends meet, and this leaves kids by and large to manage their own lives. In one circle of thought, this leaves kids to watch violence and porn while smoking, getting drunk and high while cleaning their firearms. Moral degredation of those less fortunate and all that.
On the other side of the coin, it's also believed that if you don't allow children to make their own decisions and face consequences of same they'll never learn to be responsible. It's a tough sell, though, with cigarettes generalling taking years to take their toll on health, pedophiles and other sexual deviants coming out of the woodwork around every corner, violent crime spreading like untamed wildfire, ...
Politicians, stemming largely from the rallying cries of concerned citizens' groups, have long determined that we can't take care of ourselves so the long arm of the law must step in and do it for us. Whether you agree with it or not, it seems to be a cost of our present level of society. Let's face it; technology advances faster than even the most educated lawmakers can comprehend and brings with it new methods of delivering sin that they feel must be dealt with. Naturally, if you're not satisfied with how your congresscritter is representing you send them some information and clarify it for them. There's always some sense of naive hope that it'll make a difference. ;)
Re:Forbidding what is bad (Score:3, Insightful)
Do you really think it's better to let your child(ren) learn morality while picking up hookers and shooting cops than to have open, frank discussions with them? Violent video games aren't a neccesity of life, nor are they a teaching tool. They're entertainment.
Under the guise of "protecting children"... (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Why is everyone so gung-ho (Score:2, Insightful)
As one parent to another I do understand what you are saying. But it's *our* job to make sure *our* kids do the right thing. Once we let lawmakers do it we as parents will begin to absolve ourselves of all responsibility and before you know it anything remotely upsetting to people will be illegal, all because we've convinced ourselves that parents can't be trusted to do the right thing. The government will have to do it for us.
Re:Uh, kinda sane (Score:1, Insightful)
"The difference between republicans and democrats. A Democrat sucks, a republican blows."
Hardcore republicans want to hand the country over to corporations and hardcore democrats want the state to regulate everything. Both are horrid ideas. Where's a moderate when you need one.
Re:Parent supervision is junk, parents avoid gallo (Score:2, Insightful)
Interesting, considering youth violence is at the lowest point it has been in decades. In fact, it has been going down as video game consumption has increased. Maybe that correlation needs to be studied.
Re:Why is everyone so gung-ho (Score:2, Insightful)
"Kids these days are extremely disrespectful of their elders and of the wishes of their parents."
You know, whilst kids these days may well be disrespectful etc, that doesn't actually mean that they're any different to the kids of previous generations. The two quotations that I rather like here are:
"The children now love luxury. They have bad manners, contempt for authority, they show disrespect to their elders.... They no longer rise when elders enter the room. They contradict their parents, chatter before company, gobble up dainties at the table, cross their legs, and are tyrants over their teachers." - Socrates
"I see no hope for the future of our people if they are dependent on frivolous youth of today, for certainly all youth are reckless beyond words... When I was young, we were taught to be discreet and respectful of elders, but the present youth are exceedingly wise [disrespectful] and impatient of restraint" - Hesiod, 8th century BC
Re:Not really that sane. (Score:3, Insightful)
If it violates free speech rights to ban some video game sales to minors, then doesn't it also violate those same rights to ban some magazine and video sales to minors?
Re:Laws are no substitute for Parental Control (Score:3, Insightful)
Is outlawing stuff ineffective? Not fully, most normal guys like me do things against their will because the law forces them to do it. But I still see murder and whatnot happening.
My argument is that there is no such thing more important than the individual, so society comes second. And actually, I believe in behaving responsibly. At least, that's what I do. But it is me who sets the rules. You set yours. And so on. Why? Because to me, I come first. To you, you do. Etc.
About "such things as morals and ethics and agreed standards of behaviour", if such things were agreed upon, there would be no contrasts at all, which does not seem to be the case. "I have no problem with saying that I want those I agree with enforced, and I want the right to request those I don't agree with put to a vote", you say: well that does not make any sense, so I will not comment on it. Your mention of democracy shows where this is leading, so I'm not surprised you're beginning to speak nonsense.
Besides, mentioning that some things only happen in my head is an insult. Weren't you the one advocating responsible behaviour? Nowhere in my post did I insult you. I guess this is to be expected by someone who believes in nonsense.
"China has never officially done that" already contains the answer to the riddle. Unofficially, there have been killings. Most infanticide in poor countries is done by parents themselves? True. But some of it was done by the state, in the past. If you don't believe it, well, go and read up.
Re:Why is everyone so gung-ho (Score:5, Insightful)
I'm 30 years old but I was a minor once (we all were) and I was a responsible person and I have never been in trouble with the law. Yet I have played "violent" games before while a minor, such as Doom and Quake and games like them, because they were what I wanted to play and I enjoyed playing them. These games involve shooting things and the use of firearms. I have also watched films that involve a lot of gun battles and the like (Terminator, Terminator 2 etc) and enjoyed them.
Yet my experience with guns so far is limited to safe use, under supervision, on a firing range; I wore safety goggles and followed all gun safety rules and before I consider purchasing a gun (what kind I do not yet know -- a shotgun might be best for home defense) for home defense or concealed carry, I will enroll in a safety course as required by local law and will be sure to wear safety goggles and ear protection during training.
In short, I am a responsible individual who enjoys some things you might ban because you feel they're unsuitable without knowing a thing about me. I know how to be safe and I take steps to ensure that I am.
The best way to handle such things is to ensure that people are educated about the subject material at hand. My parents never restricted me from drinking alcohol (the alcohol is actually kept at floor level in their house and always has been) and never monitored what games I played (admittedly largely flight sims; I'm an aviation geek, but they never nitpicked what I brought home) or the books I read. They trusted me to know what I was doing.
And it worked. To this day I play flight sims, Civilization-type strategy games, read all sorts of sci-fi and science books
Now, would you say it was bad for me to be able to access the food, movies, games, and books that I did? Did I turn out to be a bad person? No. Because my family knew I was responsible, a smart person, and unlikely to do anything stupid. They didn't need government nannies to do their job for them. They taught me the wisdom of educating yourself and to do the smart thing.
You have no right to say what is "trash" and "garbage" for anyone other than yourself. If someone not you wants to watch that stuff, that's not your judgment call to make. And if you make it, you just get people angry at you for intruding in on their lives. That's the problem the goverment faces when they start whining about what's on TV (people see a lot more sex elsewhere than they do on TV, and a lot more swearing), when they ban drinking (kids don't wait til 21 to take their first drink, believe me, no matter what you or the government wants to believe) or sex (same).
If the government would relax and try to educate people on how to live safely instead of arbitrarily banning sex, drugs, alcohol, etc. till some magic "wow, they'll be careful after this day but not before it" age (or in the case of drugs, NEVER allow them) they'd probably find that people have a hell of a lot more common sense than they think, and the "it's forbidden, I must defy authority by partaking in it because they have no right to tell me what not to do" protesting would die down. After all, the drinking age is a lot lower in Europe and you don't hear as many insane "drunk college kids" stories from over there
They Aren't Using The Porn Argument (Score:4, Insightful)
They have tried to compare video games to porn in the past, but it didn't pass the ethical/moral muster to be classified as such
Essentially video games are a form of expression and therefore free speech. Instituting potential financial harm on people who might sell these games causes market pressure to make less risky game. Hence, a violation of free speech.
So they aren't framing this as a free speech issue, or at least they are trying not to frame it as such. They are framing it as a public health issue. In recent interview with old Rob B, he directly compared video games to cigarretes and alcohol (as well as pornography). So basically, having failed the porn test
No kidding. The argument is that violent video games will make violent children who will turn to violent crime, so that it is in the society's best interest to curtail this at the source.
The fact that there is no scientific basis for that argument hasn't stopped the supporters from saying there is. This is equivalent of banning cell phones for kids because they might get brain damage when they are thirty. It makes perfect sense, except it's completely wrong.
Not to mention that this is a solution for a problem that does not exist. There is no epidemic of children buying violent games. There is a trend of parents buying violent games for their kids. So even if this law had logic and facts on it's side, which it doesn't, it would do no good at to solving the problem.
The only thing this law does is pay some lawyers and get some politicians some press to indicate that they care about kids.
Re:Laws are no substitute for Parental Control (Score:2, Insightful)
Now I am surprised you even know what "responsibility" means. Obviously I was wasting my time, trying to debate with someone who only wants to scream louder.
My bad. You go on having fun.
Re:What a shame (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:What a shame (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:So 12 y/o kids should get playboy? (Score:3, Insightful)
And what are these "children" you speak of, anyway? The young people I've met have always seemed filled with intelligence, but with layers and layers of cultural and social norms and conditioning layed down by school and parents cutting them off from this intelligence until they become the sick creatures we see in our schoolyards.
Re:Who decides? (Score:3, Insightful)
There is a clear difference between leaving access restrictions up to parents (i.e. letting parents handle whether or not Jimmy or Jessie buy GTA at the store with the money their parents give them) and openly displaying that material without restriction (i.e. having GTA out to be played by little children in a kindergarten). One provides control to parents, while the other deprives those parents of control.
Thus I dub thee troll.
Re:Not really that sane. (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Why is everyone so gung-ho (Score:3, Insightful)
It's hard to imagine an act of greater self-indulgence than telling other people what they can write, speak, or draw.