Politicians Wising up on Game Legislation?

Blackjack writes "Ars Technica looks at recent failures to pass laws regulating the sales of violent video games. They ask whether politicians are finally wising up to First Amendment issues and the costs associated with lawsuits resulting from the laws. Recent attempts to pass video game legislation in Mississippi, Utah, and Indiana have either failed or been put on indefinite hold. 'Now, state lawmakers are more cognizant of the constitutionality issues at stake. The judicial landscape is littered with the charred husks of laws passed by Illinois, Washington, Michigan, California, Louisiana, and others. All of them tried in some way or another to regulate the sale of violent video games to children, and all of them were struck down on First Amendment grounds.'"

Re:I don't get it???

[Zephyros]

Beer is a product. I won't argue that good beer can indeed be considered an art form, but not in the same way that media (books, music, movies, games) are. Beer expresses hops, malts, etc. Media can express ideas, and that's what the first amendment protects.

Re:I don't get it???

[paeanblack]

I consider my home brewed beer to be an artistic expression of brewing abilities. Does this mean I can sell it to minors and be covered under the first amendment?

Minors can't buy any beer from any brewer. If only your beer was specifically regulated due to its artistic content, you might have a point.

Re:I am relieved

[Jerf]

Maybe politicians are figuring out that you need evidence to prove their points.

What politicians need, if they want to pass a feel-good law like this, is a law that passes First Amendment muster. It can be based on a theory of Evil Fairies penetrating the minds of unsuspecting young teens and corrupting their precious bodily fluids, and it'll hold up, as long as it passes First Amendment muster, and all other relevant criteria. No amount of scientific studies demonstrating the evils of video games will help with that, because we have no criteria about laws being scientifically sound. (For better or worse, probably mostly better, but that's a separate argument.)

You are confusing your desires with reality.

No, because I don't read, listen, or interpret....

[Fallen Kell]

...you beer. The primary use of beer is to consume as in, drink, the product. It is not an idea or thought that is passed through a written, or visual media. Thus, your "free speech" rights do not apply to this product.

Re:I don't get it???

[thebdj]

The first problem is that most of these laws have totally ignored the rating system currently in place. They use vaguely defined terms that could be interpretted in a variety of ways. It could actually result in T games being considered too inappropriate and result in stores being fined for selling a game that was rated to the purchasers level anyway.

Another problem is that even if they do not ignore the ratings system, most judges are still going to argue that you are preventing the expression of ideas. Stores may stop selling certains games in state because it becomes too difficult to control the sell of games. This is, of course, more likely with stores where video games are not their primary business. I wouldn't be surprised if a few judges also see the self-regulated movie industry and say, "They can do it, and so can video game retailers."

There is also this confusing idea that since the law, "only protects the children", then it is fair game. First, it is not the job of the federal government or states to raise your children. Second, kids have as much right to free expression and to open ideas as the 40 yr old. Does this mean your kid should see every R-rated movie or play M or AO rated games? No, but it also means they should be allowed to explore them with proper PARENTAL supervision, not GOVERNMENTAL supervision.

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

I won't use any "chilling effect" and I even avoid the "slippery slope," but at least my argument isn't an Ignoratio elenchi. (God, I love some of these terms.)

Re:Laws in action, minus the laws

[Rob T Firefly]

It doesn't solve the problem when adults buy it and turn around and give it to a kid

But it can sent that one last necessary jolt to the addled brain of Clueless Joe Sixpack, who is about to buy "Manhunt" for his eight-year-old because one time in his youth he played "Pac-Man" and that's what all video games are, right?

It seems stupid to anyone on /., but this is an accurate representation of the sort of braindead masses that overregulation or censorship would actually serve. If we can cause the necessary brain-attacks in these people by having the cashier gently suggest that the M-rated game a parent is about to buy their kid isn't happy friendly "Super Mario" stuff, in the accepted manner of other comparable age-restricted purchases like R-rated movie tickets, then the ultimate responsibility is once again reverted to the parent where it belongs, and said parent is hopefully forced to become educated enough to properly make the decision on what to buy their kids.

Re:I am relieved

[king-manic]

The argument that video games make kids into little killing machines, that's a different kind of claim altogether. There is no such study, doing one would be completely unethical.

Child soldier all over africa could be used. A control group that gets just a regular upbringing, a test group that gets brain washing, physical abuse and violent video games, a test group that just get violent video games, and maybe a group that just gets the brain washing and abuse. I'm sure if mercenary corps get big enough they'd try it.

psychology is a very slim science. Large scale studies might have strong science behind them but far too often you have sample sizes of 1 and psychologists drawing conclusions from that. Those "case studies" are what make the rest of science think very lightly of psychology. I think this psychiatrists study seems better. psychiatrist tends to be closer to real science. But I'd like a few more studies before I'd change my mind about the effects of violence on people.

Re:I don't get it???

[ChaosWeevil]

"The right to swing my fist ends where the other man's nose begins." --Oliver Wendell Holmes, Jr.