Court of Appeals Overturns Indiana Video Game Ordinance

hayfever writes: "Catch the scoop. The Indianapolis Star is reporting here that the US 7th Circuit Court of appeals has overturned the Indianapolis ordinance banning violent video games from arcades (see previous Slashdot article here)." Findlaw has the decision, and there are some really good lines in there: "To shield children right up to the age of 18 from exposure to violent descriptions and images would not only be quixotic, but deforming; it would leave them unequipped to cope with the world as we know it." Update: 03/24 10 AM EST by J : The contrast is striking. The same day, our new Attorney General John Ashcroft released a statement: "Ashcroft on school shootings: Video games are part of the problem." Gun control? He prefers thought control: "We have to exhibit responsibility in other ways, so that the culture inhibits or restrains this impulse."

More important news

More important was this story [dailyradar.com] I submitted a few days ago and was rejected (as are most of my better stories. Sigh).

New Hampshire is considering taxing video games and movies, and using the money to help sex crime victims. Says proponents: "both forms of entertainment often feature sexual violence or portray woman as objects of sexual gratification".

Does anybody think the connection being made her is a little tenuous?

Re:And what world is it that you live in?

I think they meant that shielding youth from any depiction of sex, violence, "mature" content, or simulated acts of crime is simply foolish.

It's quite a bit like a 3 year old playing peek-a-boo. The child thinks that by covering the eyes the person goes away. Society looks at many social problems the same way. If we just cover the problem up, it goes away. Its not true, and its down right silly.

Covering up violence is not the same as stopping it. "Shielding" youth from video games for a few more years does not eliminate the violence in those video games, which is what is really the goal here. The thing is, if someone proposed legislation to ban violent video games, it would never fly. This is a side step measure. If they can't ban them outright, they figure they can at least play peek-a-boo a bit longer.

I oppose this type of silly ban. If you people want to change the Constitution to ban this type of stuff, at least have the balls to propose the amendment and fight for it. Doing it through the subversive "save the children" technique is crap, dishonest, and mentally feeble. Most of us value the freedom we enjoy, and its important that this court affirmed that the government ought to stay out of this silly regulating content business. I personally hope to live to see the day when any kid of any age with enough money can buy a book on bomb-making, sex positions, the Pam and Tommy Lee sex video, or a copy of a PBS special.

The onus of regulating the content intake of "our" children is not on any form of government. It is also not on the 19 yr old clerk in the video arcade. That onus belongs on the parents, and only the parents.

It's too bad...

If this was a Supreme Court decision, we might have a hope of overturning library filtering-for-funding and indecency laws. I'm of the opinion that children should have access to whatever they're actually searching for.

Possible BS alert.

What a LOAD! If you are under 21 the only way you can have alcohol is in church (and that little thimble of wine is all you'll get there) or your parent's home (with their permission of course).

Unless there is some extension specific to Indiana or Fort Wayne that I don't know about, this sounds like a dad making excuses (or perhaps there are extenuating circumstances). Alcohol laws are vary state by state. Here the MN State Law [state.mn.us] that very clearly states that persons under 21 are allowed to drink in their parents' homes.

The government has been very loathe over the years (and you can thank the Republicans and their ideological type for this) to interfere with families, for better or worse. It's Democrats with their Nanny State that won't let parents be parents, but are all too willing to sue everyone in sight, including parents, when something goes wrong with kids whose parents were basically hog-tied.

Now obviously this does not extend to giving children large and dangerous doses of alcohol. That would be reckless and dangerous. But a glass of wine or beer with a meal? I've known parents who would cringe at the thought, but I think healthy families with normal chemical use patterns would see nothing amiss here (this is not intended to be a statement about you and your family in particular, please don't take offense).

To stay on topic, this law against certain video games sounds dumb as hell to begin with. Video games are a popular target right now since they have "arrived" as a mass media. But parents have every right in this case to forbid their minor children from even entering the arcade if they have a problem with the games. If an arcade owner can make a "clean" arcade which is profitable, this is surely a niche market worth tapping-- assuming that parents whose children spend enough time in arcades to be affected by the games there give enough of a shit about their child's well-being to begin with.

Good start

Now maybe they can start overturning other limited-by-age laws, like the drinking age. I don't know anyone who has wanted to drink before they were 21 who has not been able to get their hands on alcohol. I've also seen many people make the decision when attending clubs or parties where they can't get alcohol (since they're getting intoxicated illegally anyway) to go for harder drugs... because they last the whole night without having to drink yourself close to death at the start of the night. At my school we have a school-wide party early in the year and then again at the end (on the last day of classes) and a lot of the alcohol problems are early on due to people trying to come drunk enough to make their buzz last the entire time, and overestimating. And one line I hear constantly from people who really are on the verge of poisoning themselves is they don't want medical help because they don't want to be caught. Fortunately my school has a (student) medical service that doesn't report to the police for those types of cases, but many places don't, and I worry.

And for those of you who might think "kids" aren't responsible enough to handle alcohol, maybe they aren't. However, artificially imposing that only adults are responsible enough to drink alcohol just makes kids who want to grow up faster (blame the media) more prone to drink, so they fit the adult image that they present. I could continue, but I'm really trying not to troll.

Kurdt

Oh PLEASE!

So, it's either-or, huh? Come on, don't be so ridiculous. Look up the word "dichotomy."

There are two options, then, according to you: we can (1) train our children to be able to cope with life with Quake, Doom, and Unreal Tournament, or we can (2) give them Barney and Mr. Rogers. No in between at all, right?

I understand the fact that we shouldn't shelter our children in a bubble, leaving them unequipped to handle the real world. But you know, I know so many people that didn't play any Mortal Kombat growing up -- and (shock, gasp, horror) they are normal, productive members of society!

I play my share of violent games (Quake 2, Unreal, Q3A) etc., and I know for a fact that I will not go out and shoot someone because of the game. You have no argument from me there. But to imply that we'd be warping our kids by not allowing them to play violent video games is probably the funniest thing I've read today.

--

The Judge Is Friendly With His Thesaurus

"an amusement machine that predominantly appeals to minors' morbid interest in violence or minors' prurient interest in sex, is patently offensive to prevailing standards in the adult community as a whole with respect to what is suitable material for persons under the age of eighteen (18) years, lacks serious literary, artistic, political or scientific value as a whole for persons under..."

All I can say is wow. All that just to mean "video game." I suggest we start using the above statement in our everyday speach.
Something like:

"Hey Kevin, care to pop out the amusement machine that predominantly appeals to minors' morbid interest in violence or minors' prurient interest in sex, is patently offensive to prevailing standards in the adult community as a whole with respect to what is suitable material for persons under the age of eighteen (18) years, lacks serious literary, artistic, political or scientific value and play some Final Fantasy on it?"