Want to read Slashdot from your mobile device? Point it at m.slashdot.org and keep reading!

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
Censorship Government The Courts Entertainment Games News

Indiana Tries to Pass Game Law Again 267

Posted by Zonk from the fail-some-more-why-doncha dept.
phaedo00 writes "Ars Technica has posted their take on Indiana's newest attempt at passing a game law that seeks to restrict the sale of violent video games. This, despite that fact that similar legislation has a track record of failing in every state it has been proposed in. From the article: 'The state capitol, Indianapolis, was one of the first cities in the nation to try and strike out at violent video games, first going after arcades and other entertainment vendors back in 2000. The quest ended up where they all do: in front of a judge, and left for dead. Now that California, Illinois, and Michigan have all suffered astounding defeats in their attempts to address PC and console game sales, Indiana wants to join the ranks of the failures.'"
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Indiana Tries to Pass Game Law Again More

Indiana Tries to Pass Game Law Again

Comments Filter:

  • It's cheap for politicians to pass an invalid law (Score:5, Insightful)

    by isdnip ( 49656 ) on Friday December 30, 2005 @05:44PM (#14367534)
    It's a very good thing that the United States has a system of judicial review, wherein legislative folly can be overturned by courts. HOWEVER, there's a downside. Legislators know that they can pass anything they want, since their mistakes are subject to being overturned anyway. This lets them legislate recklessly. It's a free pass to allow them to pander to the religious right, for instance, by passing laws that will sound good to the party "base", and getting a double benefit by being able to rail against "activist judges" who are predictably bound by law and precedent.

    • Re:It's cheap for politicians to pass an invalid l (Score:5, Insightful)

      by nharmon ( 97591 ) on Friday December 30, 2005 @05:49PM (#14367559)
      Pandering to their "base" is their job. If they didn't represent their constituents, they wouldn't have a job any more. Judicial review exists as a system of checks so ensure the majority does not violate the rights of the minority.

      But I do agree with you, it would be nice if legislators could be impeached for introducing laws that violate people's rights.

      • Re:It's cheap for politicians to pass an invalid l (Score:5, Insightful)

        by sexybomber ( 740588 ) on Friday December 30, 2005 @06:17PM (#14367711)
        Quoth the replyee: Pandering to their "base" is their job.

        No, representing their constituents is a politician's job. Their party base (which I assume is the "base" you refer to) represents only a tiny portion of said constituents.

        So by pandering to their "base", they are NOT doing their jobs, they are serving the interests of a very small minority. Ergo, in this case, judicial review serves to protect the interests of the MAJORITY. The special interest groups don't like that, because then they don't get what they want. So they whine and moan about the "activist judges".

        I could go on, but this s*** irritates me, and I don't like being irritated.
        • What if the vast majority of a politician's constituents DO want to suppress the rights of a minority group (of any kind; ethnic, religious, hobby etc.) Then the elected individual WOULD be fairly respesenting the wishes of his/her constituents. It's only the Constitution and Bill of Rights that protect such a minority from the "mob" - majority rule is rightly limited.

      • They can be impeached; they're violating their oath to the Federal Constitution, and often to their respective State Constitution as well.

        The problem is, impeachment is done by the legislature. They're not going to pass a law and then vote themselves out of office for passing the law.

      • "Pandering to their "base" is their job. If they didn't represent their constituents, they wouldn't have a job any more."

        Not really. Why pander to voters when you can instead choose who votes for you? The joys of gerrymandering!
      • Pandering to their "base" is their job.

        I wish they pandered to thier base, but in reality its special interest groups and lobbiests with money to burn.

      • Re:It's cheap for politicians to pass an invalid l (Score:4, Insightful)

        by leereyno ( 32197 ) on Friday December 30, 2005 @07:04PM (#14367941) Homepage Journal
        "It would be nice if legislators could be impeached for introducing laws that violate people's rights."

        They can, its called election day.

        Unfortunately there are far too many people in this country who are all too willing to violate the rights of others. They don't care if some "other" gets stepped on as long as they avoid the boot. When individuals and groups fight for their rights, and enjoy adequate political representation to ensure that their rights are protected, then everything is fine. The problem is that those groups that do lack adequate political representation will subsequently suffer from a lack of legal protection. It doesn't matter if you're talking about young people, black people, American Indians, or any other group. Jim crow laws existed specifically because blacks in the south lacked the political power to prevent and overturn them. Likewise the legal drinking age is 21 in every state except Louisianna because 18 year olds lacked the political representation to prevent MADD from usurping their rights as adults. Jim Crow ended not because some white liberals from the north decided they wanted to change things. Jim Crow came to an end when blacks in the south decided that things had to change and began working to secure and defend their rights as citizens of this country.

        The only way that your civil rights are ensured is through political power and the political action that creates and reaffirms that power. So if some politician tries to strip you of your rights and freedom, the answer is not to expect some external agency to hold him or her to account. The answer is to organize against this politician and work to have them thrown out of office.

        Remember, freedom isn't free. If you're not willing to fight for it, then you've already thrown it away.

        As for actual impeachment, what you're talking about is possible. If a politician supports a bill that violates the rights of his or her constituents, then he or she is violating his oath of office. Now convincing people that this politician should be impeached is of course a different story. But calling for impeachment, and screaming loud and clear exactly why you want them impeached, is a very good way of ensuring that even if they do manage to get re-elected they won't try to pull that kind of crap again.

        Lee

        • "They can, its called election day."

          Even when successful, they are free to mingle in society, and able to run for office again. What about the concept that a violation of the peoples' rights by a lawmaker or official would make that official risk death, life in prison, forfeiture of assets, that sort of thing?
          • The problem with that idea is that it would shut down the government. We elect our legislators because we WANT them to pass GOOD laws. If passing a law meant risking the gallows, then not only would congress sit on its hands and do nothing, but no one would want to run for office in the first place.

    • What you're saying is very true. But it is also true that legislators from left-wing areas do the exact same thing.

      The laws that the lefties try to pass that violate our gun rights get struck down just as readily as the right-wing laws that violate our 1st amendment rights, and often by the same judges.

      Lee
  • Indiana, ya know what? You can bite my fleshy white ass. I just bought gta: Liberty City Stories for psp and am enjoying every fucking sicko minute of it. Woohoo, there goes another pedestrian! *smush!*
  • You can't outrun them. You can't destroy them. If you damage them, the essence of what they are remains -- they regenerate and keep coming... eventually you will weaken -- your reserves will be gone... they are relentless.

  • bah! video game voilence agan! (Score:5, Funny)

    by Jugalator ( 259273 ) on Friday December 30, 2005 @05:51PM (#14367582) Journal
    look! ive play all teh quake and gta gamez and im not stupider than any1 else i kno... and if u belive it amkes ppl crazy or sumthin i just hav 1 thing to say u... im gonna fucking eat ur children!! yea u heard me right... im gonna do that and then eat ur fuckin ears like mike tyson and kill hookers like they do in gta... omg thats awesome lol dont u think

    so u fuckin losers get a life video gamez dont affect u!!!

  • Everybody has their pet law (Score:4, Insightful)

    by Anonymous Coward on Friday December 30, 2005 @05:52PM (#14367585)

    This, despite that fact that similar legislation has a track record of failing in every state it has been proposed in.

    This will certainly get modded into oblivion. But the fact that gay marraige laws and gay marraige amendents were defeated in all 11 states which had them on the 2004 ballot has not stopped people from trying to get those laws passed. Everyone has something near and dear to his (or her) heart that he (or she) would really like to see change.

    • This will certainly get modded into oblivion.

      Why? Your comment was a rather bland observation of fact.

      I'll never understand why people consistently preface their comments with this caveat when their comments are almost invariably either repetitions of typical slashdot groupthink or simply entirely non-controversial. I used to think maybe the ones that said it appropriately were actually getting modded down, but in years of browsing at -1 while modding, I haven't seen it.

      • Slashdot is a funny old place. Some days you can scream heresy and get modded 5+ for it. The next day you can say exactly what the group think says and you'll get modded troll. In the past I've had some really insightful comments modded to 5 then down to -1 before being modded to 1-2ish. It's really quite queer..
  • This law would pass at just the time that porn is made illegal, which I think we realize will be never.

    But I've always had a more direct question: Why does anyone even try to pass such laws? What problem does it prevent?
    • Don't you understand? Somebody has to think of the children!

    • It only takes a few true believers or shameless panderers to bring a bill like this to a vote, and once they do so, nobody wants to be on record opposing it, since it makes excellent fodder for an opponent at your next reelection campaign (Senator X is pro drugs and killing hookers! Vote Y for Senate!). So, people vote for the ban confident that the courts will overturn it and everybody saves face. Kind of a waste of time and money, but I have much bigger gripes about the legislature. The cynic in me sa
  • How hard can it be? Video stores (at least here in Australia) have managed it for years: X and R rated videos on separate shelves, video clerks manage to not lease videos to minors because the rating is clearly marked. Games are just another medium.

    Incompetent implimentation in the past doesn't mean that game rating is a bad idea, just that it needs a national censorship regime to clearly impliment a standard that can be applied across all states.

    • needs a national censorship regime to clearly impliment a standard that can be applied across all states.

      And here lies the problem (or one of them, anyway). States Rights are a must bigger issue in the USA than Australia. Their states are smaller too, which encourages people to shop around in adjacent states. Look at the problems they have with gun laws.

      The best example here would be the ACT porn loophole. I assume it still exists, or did until the internet came along in a big way.

  • They should sue Indiana for wasting their tax dollars on a proven failure in legislation. It is a tremedous waste of tax dollars and it has been shown to fail on constitutional grounds over and over again. Why then do they keep trying it? To me it demonstrates legislators' ineptitude and shows waste.
    • They should sue Indiana for wasting their tax dollars on a proven failure in legislation.

      None of these cases, so far as I know, have moved beyond the district court level. That doesn't count for much in the federal system.

    • They should sue Indiana for wasting their tax dollars on a proven failure in legislation. It is a tremedous waste of tax dollars and it has been shown to fail on constitutional grounds over and over again. Why then do they keep trying it? To me it demonstrates legislators' ineptitude and shows waste.

      So your solution to wasting tax dollars is to waste more tax dollars. Excellent.
    • The legislature here in Oregon has tried to pass a sales tax NINE times. You'd think they'd get the hint after the first three or four, wouldn't you? But no: any special interest group with enough money (in this case, transplanted Californians who think the lack of a sales tax is a sign of barbarism) can get this sort of shit sponsored over and over and over again.

      It's non-stop. They think they'll eventually be able to wear you down enough to vote for them, or at the very least not vote against them. T
  • Miserable Failure still links to Bush. I guess there haven't been enough states trying to ban violent video games yet.

  • Economics will prevent this (Score:3, Insightful)

    by moore.dustin ( 942289 ) on Friday December 30, 2005 @06:19PM (#14367722) Homepage
    If a law like this were to pass, the state would be hurt in the bank account for it. Pair that with the fact that you arent protecting kids from these games, you are only forcing them to get them through other means.

    The state will lose a decent amount just from sales tax from these games and all the while kids are still buying the games online and givin money to out of state companies.

    Nothing really helps these motions along, the more you look at it, the more you laugh at the proposition.

  • hitler (Score:2, Interesting)

    by hostingreviews ( 941757 )
    What violent games did Hitler play? What awesome game did Ghandi play? What's in Kim Jong ils PS2 right now you think?

    • Re:hitler (Score:3, Funny)

      by Guppy06 ( 410832 )
      "What's in Kim Jong ils PS2 right now you think?"

      He doesn't know either. He's trying to build a nuclear power plant so he has enough electricity to turn the thing on.
    • What violent games did Hitler play?

      Tetris.

      Or, as known locally, "OH- mein Gott! Das fallende Spiel des Blockes. Es zerquetscht!"

  • why is it so hard just to (Score:3, Insightful)

    by Rooked_One ( 591287 ) on Friday December 30, 2005 @06:23PM (#14367735) Journal
    get cashiers to ID people buying video games? Where I live, if a cashier doesn't id you (unless you look like you are 80) they can loose their job and there are TONS of fines.... Do the same thing to the cashiers....

    What is the big deal here? Is Indiana a liberal or conservative state also?? (no flaming please, I just want to know)

  • The New Porn (Score:3, Insightful)

    by blueZhift ( 652272 ) on Friday December 30, 2005 @06:25PM (#14367746) Homepage Journal
    I guess violent video games have become the new porn. I recall that years ago it seemed that someone in Indiana was always proposing or passing laws to restrict the sale of pornography. These laws were regularly struck down as unconstitutional just as the laws restricting violent video game sales have been. Oh well, I guess porn is just out of style!

    • Nah, they are still trying to outlaw porn too. They are just being more sneaky about it now. Like changing zoning laws so adult book stores can't be within 900 miles of a populated area.

      They can still sell what ever porn they want. Just have to be in, oh say, Chicago to do it.

      • I don't think that porn shops have that much of a future. The zoning and such has put them into quite undesirable locations (ie, I often wouldn't feel safe standing outside of one after dark - and that's with me having a concealed carry permit and carrying a Glock 26 everywhere I'm allowed to).

        That being said, most of it has moved online and has done VERY well. The porn industry is simply amazing on generating business. Not just because "it's porn", but these people seem to understand customers more. X

  • Capital, not Capitol (Score:5, Funny)

    by ickoonite ( 639305 ) on Friday December 30, 2005 @06:54PM (#14367895) Homepage

    Far be it from me to instruct you guys - as Americans - on the use of American English, for I am a Brit and as such there are sure to be others better qualified to make the observation I am about to make, but in the absence of such, I humbly submit as follows:

    It's "capital", not "capitol". Go. Check now. Go on. I am fortunate enough to have a copy of the Oxford American Dictionary only a keypress away, which defines "capitol", or rather "Capitol" as:

    Capitol |?kapitl| (usu. the Capitol)
    1 the seat of the U.S. Congress in Washington, DC. ( capitol) a building housing a legislative assembly : 50,000 people marched on New Jersey's state capitol.
    2 the temple of Jupiter on the Capitoline Hill in ancient Rome.

    Thus the usage in the submitter's blurb - "the state capitol, Indianapolis" - is incorrect, as, unless I am very much mistaken, the building implied by the term "capitol" is not named "Indianapolis". I presume the submitter intended the wording "state capital", and only namedropped Indianapolis after a comma for the benefit of international readers like myself who, unlike Americans, are sometimes unfamiliar with certain of the state capitals. Otherwise, if "capitol" was intended, might I suggest "the state capitol, (in|located in|situated in) Indianapolis". Incidentally, it is worth noting that the word "capitol" does not really exist in British English.

    The British are wont to decry the ill effect America has had on the English language. At least try to prove them wrong in matters concerning your own coinages. This is the second time this has happened this week, if memory serves!

    iqu :)

    (N.B. The tone of this post is playful. It is not intended to invite lengthy flames. If you do not understand British humour, think twice before replying.)

    • Thanks. You saved me the trouble of writing an explanation about the words. Of course, since this is Slashdot, you might be flamed for caring about word usage. :-)

      David
    • Hmm, Karl Marx also didn't write Das Kapitol either - though a nice book about all the Kapitols of the world may have been more useful as a late 19th century Koffee table book, than the series he did write... No, this is not a blurb for KDE.
      • ...and saved the world an awful lot of bother!

        *sigh* Oh to have been there to convince him otherwise:

        Marx: Ja, I am writing dis new book, ja, about zer oppressif kapitalists, und how ze proletariat will...
        Visionary: Dude that is, like, so passé. Like, you know, so boring. You should write a book about the capitals of the world. You could call it...Das Kapital...
        Marx: You relly sink zey vill like zis? Zis buch of kapitals?
        Visionary: Yeah, yeah, totally. You know, for coffee tables and stuff. S
    • Odd thing is that the submitter was simply quoting the original article, yet the article had the correct spelling. I can excuse a submitter for not being able to read and not being able to spell - I don't expect such skills on slashdot. But not being able to handle a simple copy and paste? Come on!

  • 5-year-olds Register to Vote (Score:5, Funny)

    by nagora ( 177841 ) on Friday December 30, 2005 @07:03PM (#14367932)
    Having established that children are competant to make decisions and understand the issues about extreme sex and violence in the media, Ars Technica has started action to get "any child who can make a mark" signed up for voting.

    A spokesperson said "It is a basic fact that any adult who says someone under the age of 17 can't do something is a fucking fascist bastard and should be hunted down like a dog."

    They added that a more reasonable way of handling any problems parents might have about what material their children are viewing is to follow them around 24 hours a day and engage in random searches of their rooms and clothing. "That's taking your responsibilities seriously and not just handing them over to the Police State", he said.

    Next week Ars Technica will be reviewing conversion kits which allow children to operate up to compact-sized cars and discussing plans to "get The Man out of kids' faces" when it comes to driving licencing.

    TWW

    • A spokesperson said "It is a basic fact that any adult who says someone under the age of 17 can't do something is a fucking fascist bastard and should be hunted down like a dog."

      You were being satirical, of course, but you've hit upon a grain of truth: most of the restrictions placed upon young people have no basis in fact. There is no evidence, for example, that choosing to play violent video games or view pornography are harmful to minors - a lot of people have the gut feeling that they are, but go ahead,

  • Geez, upon reading it the whole thing is dumb (Score:3, Insightful)

    by hurfy ( 735314 ) on Friday December 30, 2005 @07:26PM (#14368041)
    It is really only gonna be M and AO which is very few. Everything else appears to be exempted.

    So if it is so bad to sell a game for 18 year-olds to a 17 year-old, why is it ok to sell a game for 13 year-olds to 12 year-olds or 9 year-olds ??

    Love the sexual definitions using community standards. It seems to include: "patently offensive to minors" Hell, there ain't no sexual content that most minors would find offensive ;)

    Anyways, it won;t go far nor would it stay there long if it does.

  • I think we're missing the point... (Score:4, Insightful)

    by tallguy81 ( 902570 ) on Friday December 30, 2005 @08:25PM (#14368293)
    Yes, we *could* keep M and AO video games out of the hands of minors, at the request of the government. But think about that for a moment. Government would then be deciding what's best for our children, rather than parents. And if you agree with this law, then should government pass a similar law involving books?

    One of my favorite books is Slaughterhouse Five. It's violent, sexual, but has a strong message. And I read it when I was fifteen. If Slaughterhouse Five were a video game, this law would prevent minors from buying it.

    If we can restrict video games from minors, we can restrict movies, books, and other forms of entertainment and culture from minors. And then, we can control what the future generation thinks, and how it acts. If you hate Big Government, you should hate this law. If you love freedom, you should hate this law.
  • "Indiana wants to join the ranks of the failures"

    -- Actually, it's more of a solidifying of our position in that grouping.

    If you examine the state rankings in various categories (education, income, employment), you will consistently find The Hoosier State struggling to get off the bottom. Most of the major employers have departed the state over the past several decades, and the mindless politicians looted the budget surplus of a few years ago when nobody was keeping track of outgo vs remaining balance -- t
  • I tend to think that trying to legislate that video games are 'violent' is going to open up as much a "can of worms" as passing legislation that would make abortion 'murder'.

    Video games, from the days we were destroying 'aliens' in games like "Space Invaders", or enemy helicopters in old school games like "*M.A.S.H*", destroying living organisms in the game of "Centipede" or what have you, would be the kind of arguments that all lawyers would love to make money on contesting cases against the Plaintiffs w

  • Considering that we _were_ the ones who tried to set the value of pi.

    http://www.acc.umu.se/~olletg/pi/indiana.html [acc.umu.se]

    Us silly Hoosiers. :-)
  • Let me say that our state has a long and proud tradition of ME TOO laws, usually stemming from some stupid bullshit laws passed in either of the Costal meccas. Indiana sucks, if you're considering moving here it's probably because your lobotomy was successful or you like things so mundane they make eating lima beans look risque.

    rupert from Survivor is now a local celebrity.

    anyone want to donate to my paypal account so i can not only leave this morass of mediocrity but the country that spawned it?

  • As A Parent... (Score:3, Insightful)

    by TheZorch ( 925979 ) <thezorch&gmail,com> on Saturday December 31, 2005 @08:36AM (#14370051) Homepage
    I'm a Parent from the state of Michigan.

    My kids play games, some of them online. Mostly its E rated stuff on the Gamecube but they have some T rated stuff and they've played one or two M rated games on my PC like Unreal Tournament 2k3 and Doom 3. I've seen nothing to suggest they're learning violent behavior from it at all.

    A recent study that was done says that there is no connection whatsoever between violent videogames and violent behavior at all. My kids used to watch Power Rangers when they were little and it didn't do anything to them at all. Yes, children are impressionable and they tend to act out what they see but how much of what they see really does truly effect them on a long-term basis. So far from my own observations violent games have NO EFFECT at all.

    In fact, my kids learned their primary colors from the Power Rangers, learned how to manage money from playing Kal Online (a free MMORPG at www.ganengane.com), and are learning to be better readers from ANIMAL CROSSING (an E rated title and probably one of the best game titles ever made for the Gamecoube IMHO). They actually play very few M rated games because I myself have very few. I have Vice City, I caught them playing it one time when my back was turned, but they got bored with it really fast and moved onto Leggo StarWars which they played like crazy. Just goes to show that when they are given an M rated game to play doesn't mean its the only thing they'll like to the exclusion of all else. My oldest son used to play Unreal Tournament a lot before we got Animal Crossing. Now its the only thing he plays and I had nothing to do with this shift at all. He made the choice to switch to the less violent game HIMSELF. Parents have to trust in their children's own sense of judgment. They know what is good and what is bad better than some adults do. This is something I think a lot of us adults have forgotten. Just because the law says someone under the age of 18 is considered a minor doesn't automatically mean they don't understand what is and isn't in their own best interests. On the contrary, I know a lot of young people who know what's in their best interests very well.

  • Supervision (Score:3, Interesting)

    by Sv-Manowar ( 772313 ) on Saturday December 31, 2005 @10:22AM (#14370328) Homepage Journal
    They will fail again and the primary reason being for this is the fact that there is already ratings on the games, supervision of kids is the key to this, not banning kids from buying games. Why do parent's complain when their kids go looking for porn on the net and find some? why was the parent not supervising what they were doing. Why do parent's complain about kids watching violence on tv? same thing, why where they not supervise. It seems the parents are lazy and want the government to do their job for them.

Slashdot Top Deals

Dreams are free, but you get soaked on the connect time.

Close