Follow Slashdot stories on Twitter

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
Games Entertainment

Washington State Restricts Anti-Cop Videogames 547

Posted by simoniker from the tony-hawk-restricted-too? dept.
Thanks to an anonymous reader for pointing to this CNN report mentioning that Washington state is the first in the US to regulate the sale of videogames to minors. The bill, passed Monday, "..forbids selling minors any video or computer game depicting violence against law enforcement officials.". Interestingly, the law (as mentioned at Slashdot a while back) seems to ignore the fairly well-respected voluntary ESRB ratings for games, with the article suggesting that Enter The Matrix might be banned for purchase by those under 17, due to the player battling cops, despite EtM only being rated 'Teen' by the ESRB.
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Washington State Restricts Anti-Cop Videogames More

Washington State Restricts Anti-Cop Videogames

Comments Filter:

  • If you outlaw games (Score:5, Funny)

    by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday May 21, 2003 @01:16AM (#6005082)
    If you games where kids can play outlaws, then only outlaw kids will play games where they can play outlaws.

  • Call it flamebait if you must... (Score:5, Insightful)

    by OwnerOfWhinyCat ( 654476 ) * on Wednesday May 21, 2003 @01:16AM (#6005086)
    What I find so annoying, about this is not that its another "we know what's best for you" kind of law, but that its one based on the assumption that the lives of normal citizens are less valuable than that of the policefolk. Apparently, if you were just mowing down innocent bystanders the game would be fine for minors that would otherwise be damaged by simulated combat with the police.

    Thankfully I live in Washington state and can sign the petition for the repeal of this stupidity.

    If they made it against the law to sell a game that depicted shooting white people, but it was OK to sell the game where people are shooting African-Americans, I think it would be slightly more obvious who they thought the second class citizens were, but it is no less offensive.

    • Re:Call it flamebait if you must... (Score:5, Insightful)

      by critter_hunter ( 568942 ) <critter_hunter&hotmail,com> on Wednesday May 21, 2003 @01:28AM (#6005150)

      I'm pretty sure that they're not quite as interested in the lives of policemen than they are at games depicting assault on figures of authority.

      My personal question is: doesn't this favor piracy? "Well, that sucks, I can't buy the game I wanted. Guess I'll download it off Kazaa instead". Sure, it's not any more legal, but for a twelve years old, it may be much easier to pull off

    • Re:Call it flamebait if you must... (Score:4, Interesting)

      by tankdilla ( 652987 ) on Wednesday May 21, 2003 @01:32AM (#6005166) Homepage Journal
      You should check out Grand Theft Auto 3. You can walk down the street and beat a regular person to a bloody pulp, and nothing happens. But once you beat up a cop, your 'wanted level' rises, all hell breaks loose and they're on your ass.
      • Beat up a cop? Hell, all you have to do is dent their car...

      • Re:Call it flamebait if you must... (Score:5, Insightful)

        by Kombat ( 93720 ) <kevin@swanweddingphotography.com> on Wednesday May 21, 2003 @07:51AM (#6006422)
        Kind of like real life?

        In reality, the legal penalties for acts of violence against police are dramatically more severe than identical acts on non-police. For example, if during a car chase, you happen to hit a bystander's car, but continue to flee, you've just earned a charge of felony hit and run. However, if the cops try to box your car in, and you smash your way out (i.e., you hit a cop car), then you're looking at a charge of "aggravated assault on a peace officer," which is very, very bad news for you. At this point, you better pray you get away, because if they catch you, you'll be locked up for an extremely long time.
    • Being only 16, if this actually affects any games I wish to puchase you can sure as hell bet I'll be getting them off kazaa. And It'll be a lot easier than the classic five finger discount ;).
    • While I agree this is basically reverse discrimination, what I find MORE disturbing is the fact that they wasted so much time (and let's not forget thousands of dollars of taxpayer money) considering this law when there are about a million other much more important things they could have been working on.

    • What I find so annoying, about this is not that its another "we know what's best for you" kind of law, but that its one based on the assumption that the lives of normal citizens are less valuable than that of the policefolk.

      Some states only apply a death penalty to instances where a police officer/state trooper/correctional officer was harmed. As I understand, the logic is generally that these individuals are in high risk positions where it is unacceptable to antagonize the issue any further, as one p

    • One more way for the laws to tell you that you are inferior to those that are a part of the system. Kind of like how a citizen is punished more severely for assaulting a police officer, yet a police officer is not punished more severely for assaulting a citizen (that is if he is punished at all...)
      • Are you kidding? Cops face more scrutiny in these situations. If a cop lets his emotions get the better of him (during the course of an extremely emotional job) for even an instant, he faces the loss of his job, or even faces jail time. See the case of Julie Cayer in Ottawa [www.cbc.ca]. A cop arrests a belligerent, abusive, resisting suspect, and in one brief moment while subduing her, bangs her head onto his car, and bang, he's guilty of assault.

        Cops have to be extremely careful in everything they do. The benefi

    • Re:Call it flamebait if you must... (Score:5, Interesting)

      by letxa2000 ( 215841 ) on Wednesday May 21, 2003 @02:10AM (#6005318)
      Apparently, if you were just mowing down innocent bystanders the game would be fine for minors that would otherwise be damaged by simulated combat with the police.

      I'm not a fan of "we know what's best for you" and this kind of thing borders on silly. On the other hand, I doubt a video game where the goal was to hijack a plane and crash it into a building would be well-received even if the targets weren't police, so I don't think it's really a question of police being more valuable. The fact is, they're easier to identify targets on the street and promoting that targetting of police is no different than a game targetting blacks, whites, or garbage collectors. It's all sick.

      Almost as alarming as the law is the fact that the designers of video games are so completely out of creativity that they have to resort to something as disgusting as shooting law enforcement officers. Is there truly nothing more interesting or fun that they can come up with for new video games?

      I might be showing my age, but Space Invaders, Asteriods, Pole Position... They were all fun and didn't involve killing humans. I know things change and evolve and I'm not suggesting we bring back Space Invaders, but I have to believe that fun games can still be sold that don't require the killing of other humans, police or not...

      • Re:Call it flamebait if you must... (Score:5, Insightful)

        by Babbster ( 107076 ) <aaronbabb@@@gmail...com> on Wednesday May 21, 2003 @03:36AM (#6005594) Homepage
        Almost as alarming as the law is the fact that the designers of video games are so completely out of creativity that they have to resort to something as disgusting as shooting law enforcement officers. Is there truly nothing more interesting or fun that they can come up with for new video games?

        You're implying that there's some kind of glut of games tjat jave anti-police content when it's not even nearly the case. I just took a look at my console game collection (+/= 30 games at the moment including some out on loan) and only THREE (GTA3, GTA:VC and Splinter Cell) include violence against police officers. Splinter Cell barely counts since the police you might kill during the game (you don't always have to) are corrupt and are more criminal than cop.

        This law is an over-reaction to NOTHING. I can't think of a single incident of a police officer getting shot that was subsequently blamed (with reason) on the fact that the shooter played video games that included cop-killing. That being the case, where is the justification? The answer of course, is that it's a form of Orwellian mind control attempting to discourage people from even thinking about violence against police officers. If I did a painting depicting Rodney King taking a baton and beating the hell out of one of his assailants, would THAT be illegal to sell or show to a minor?

        I vote for more shocking games (appropriately rated) as long as they're fun. On the other hand, I also have no problems with laws officially restricting minor access to M-rated video games. But singling out one particular activity in a game, and more importantly one particular activity aimed at one particular group, is asinine.

        • Why do you consider violence against police officers a sacred right of free expression? If you attack anyone, police officer or not, you're guilty of various forms of assault, whether or not it was inspired by a video game.
      • Almost as alarming as the law is the fact that the designers of video games are so completely out of creativity that they have to resort to something as disgusting as shooting law enforcement officers. Is there truly nothing more interesting or fun that they can come up with for new video games?

        You know, I read your comment and it led me thinking on another skew: What does that say about the image of law enforcement officers in America as a whole? Are they the enemy,and if so, why? Is killing them "cool"?

    • It's not about class (Score:5, Insightful)

      by The Tyro ( 247333 ) on Wednesday May 21, 2003 @02:22AM (#6005372)
      *Sigh* as someone who has engaged in the law enforcement profession in the past, I find this offensive.

      The reason there are tougher legal sanctions on people who assault/kill a law enforcement officer is because those persons are felt to be a greater threat to society.

      Just as a person who coldly plans the death of another (ie. malice aforethought) is guilty of first degree murder and garners a stiffer sentence than a second-degree murderer, so a person who is willing to assault/kill a police officer is considered a great danger to society. The greater the threat to society, the harsher the sentence. It has nothing to do with cops being first or second class citizens.

      Cops come third all the time... their lives rank just above that of a bad guy's, and below everyone else. The order goes like this... victims (or hostages), then bystanders, then cops, and finally, perpetrators.

      That's not to say I agree with this law; I don't. I disagree with this law from a civil liberties standpoint. This is a parenting issue... If a parent wants their child to listen to Ice-T and play cop-killer video games all day long, then fine. But I expect them to STFU and hang their head in shame if some police officer has to kill their gang-banger-wannabe kid in self-defense some day, simply because he's conditioned himself to the idea that it's OK to kill a cop.

      Actions. Consequences. Bad parenting has its own rewards... and punishments. While I wouldn't wish it on anyone, can you conceive a worse punishment than outliving your own children and knowing it was because of your own parental neglect? Talk about crushing guilt... As a parent, I can't imagine much worse.

      • Re:It's not about class (Score:5, Insightful)

        by Babbster ( 107076 ) <aaronbabb@@@gmail...com> on Wednesday May 21, 2003 @03:48AM (#6005625) Homepage
        That's not to say I agree with this law; I don't. I disagree with this law from a civil liberties standpoint. This is a parenting issue... If a parent wants their child to listen to Ice-T and play cop-killer video games all day long, then fine. But I expect them to STFU and hang their head in shame if some police officer has to kill their gang-banger-wannabe kid in self-defense some day, simply because he's conditioned himself to the idea that it's OK to kill a cop.

        I call bullshit. There's no evidence that "anti-police" rap songs or video games "condition" kids to think it's okay to kill a police officer. That kind of conditioning comes from actual people they are exposed to and/or bad experiences with police officers - or just good ole sociopathy.

        I would ask how much "crushing guilt" police officers feel when someone dies needlessly in a "bad" (read poor) neighborhood because it took 30 minutes after a 9-1-1 call for police to arrive? Or how much guilt they feel when they pull over a completely innocent citizen because they're the "wrong" color to drive in a particular neighborhood (or even down the Interstate in the "wrong" county)?

        I respect the fact that police officers are exposed to a lot of dangerous situations and that they protect others before they protect themselves. There's no doubt that it's heroism in the true sense of the word. But trying to relate the danger police officers are in to media influences is stupid. Worse, it shows a lack of understanding of the criminal mind which, in the long run, could be even more dangerous.

        • Re:It's not about class (Score:5, Interesting)

          by The Tyro ( 247333 ) on Wednesday May 21, 2003 @04:26AM (#6005713)
          I respect your disagreement, but I think simulated violence DOES have an effect on the susceptible mind. Some people are not born killers and others are frank sociopaths... but that vast continuum inbetween holds people who can be drawn to one extreme or the other by their environment and/or experiences.

          How does the military train soldiers to kill? By having them simulate the act hundreds of times. Most people have great difficulty killing others; most cops that are forced to take a life in the line of duty leave the profession shortly thereafter... it's truly a life-changing experience, and not for the better. For most people, killing another human being is tough, and it requires practice. I've known police officers who couldn't pull the trigger... I know one who lost their life because of it.

          I think you are blaming the victim when you excuse a cop killer's behavior as being due to their "bad experiences" with police officers. If you break the law, the police are required to gift you with some bad experiences. It's people who refuse to obey the law that are the problem, not the cop who is oath and duty-bound to intercede.

          Most cops I've known try very hard to catch the bad guys; it can be a real thrill to lay hands on a serious felon... it makes you feel good, like you're making a difference. I think, however, that you're kicking the little guy when you blame the urban cop who's running from call to call for the department's poor response time. Most urban police officers are as busy on their shifts as a one-legged man in an ass-kicking contest; they are not Barney Fife hanging out at the station all day, waiting for something to happen. In big cities, the hanging-out-at-the-doughnut-shop cop myth is exactly that. Generally speaking, those departments tend to be understaffed, underfunded, and have to deal with a lot of crap, including things like 911 abuse (people who call the police to discipline their child, for instance).

          I agree that video game violence is a probably a small factor, but it does encourage a certain sociopathic bent. I would equate it to mullahs in Saudi Arabia and Iran exhorting their flocks to kill americans and jews... not everybody will listen, but a significant few will...

          All that said, I still disagree with the law... this should really be left to the parents.

          • Re:It's not about class (Score:5, Insightful)

            by sstamps ( 39313 ) on Wednesday May 21, 2003 @08:45AM (#6006794) Homepage
            I respect your disagreement, but I think simulated violence DOES have an effect on the susceptible mind.

            You have the freedom to believe whatever you want; it doesn't change the FACT that there are absolutely ZERO credible studies which support your "belief", and a plethora of ones which demonstrate that it is fallacious. First, it was books that incited people to violence, then TV/movies, and now video games. In over 50 years of examining the problem from as many angles as possible, no credible study has ever characterized the effect of media's supposed "influence" to be above that of statistical noise. ("Credible", meaning one using truly scientifically-sound methodologies to sample and analyze the data.)

            By your own words, most people have great difficulty killing others, and most people have been exposed to a steady diet of violence from American media for many years. Thus, it stands to reason that anyone who is willing and capable to kill was (most likely) pre-conditioned or pre-disposed to such a mindset OUTSIDE of any "media influence" to begin with. It doesn't matter if they were trained to be that way, or are mentally impaired enough to not know the difference between right and wrong, the absolute, abject worst media can only truly serve as a catalyst, no more.

            "Oh, but that's the issue, see, if someone who is mentally unstable gets ahold of violent media, it will cause them to go on a killing spree! A catalyst!". OK, so burn all the books, shred all the celluloid, smash all of the TVs, nuke Hollywood and Broadway, and then use EMP guns to fry all of the computers. Guess what? Those same mentally unstable people will still run into some catalyst in their lives which will set them off and go onto that dreaded "killing spree". Worse, there may even be more of them, as then there will be no creative fictional outlet for their urges that curbs a need to go through the motions in the non-fiction realm.

            Most cops I've known try very hard to catch the bad guys; it can be a real thrill to lay hands on a serious felon... it makes you feel good, like you're making a difference. I think, however, that you're kicking the little guy when you blame the urban cop who's running from call to call for the department's poor response time. Most urban police officers are as busy on their shifts as a one-legged man in an ass-kicking contest; they are not Barney Fife hanging out at the station all day, waiting for something to happen.

            Maybe that's part of the problem with police; they're too busy getting their jollies with adrenaline rushes in car chases (and killing innocent bystanders as a result) to actually MAKE a positive difference at times. Harassing inncocent citizens, because they are looking too hard for that next "big bust". Don't give me that "it's the department's/dispatcher's fault" crapola, either. I've consulted with the local authorities before, working in the local E911 center, so I know what they are doing.

            The thing that REALLY boils my blood is getting stopped by those "too busy to do real calls because they are busy harassing innocent citizens" urban cops, who then tell BALD-FACED LIES about why they stopped you (because they were OBVIOUSLY fishing). "Uh, you were going over the white line". Bollocks. My mother (who is in her late 50s) has been stopped THREE TIMES in the last 6 months and told lies as to why she was stopped EACH TIME, because she just "fit the profile" of some teenage kid, as she drives an older model Nissan 300ZX that just so happens to be RED. Each time, she rolls down the window to an officer who dons a surprised look on his face when he sees some fifty-something chick sitting behind the wheel, instead of some high-schooler/college brat whom he could bully around.

            If the police want to command respect (which I think that they ultimately should) they NEED to stop doing stupid bullshit which causes them to lose it in the eyes of the public. It is to the point where I am planning to rig up my vehicle completely for "cop-avoi

            • Re:It's not about class (Score:4, Insightful)

              by The Tyro ( 247333 ) on Wednesday May 21, 2003 @12:34PM (#6008678)
              Nobody in this discussion has quoted a study yet... so I'm going to throw down the gauntlet here and present a website devoted to this very topic. This link is to the "publications" page, which may yield some references to digest. Start here. [killology.com]

              I believe most people are not killers, and will never be. However, by your argument, propaganda and brainwashing are myths, fallacy, can't happen. The diet that your mind digests DOES affect you, I firmly believe that.... the question becomes "how much?"

              Heheheh... I'm really laughing at the next part of your post. I'm not laughing at you, or minimizing your beef, but it's so stereotypical; tell someone you're a cop, and they always want to tell you about the last traffic tickets they got, and why they didn't deserve them. I'm sorry, but it happens so often... it's just funny.

              It sounds to me like you've had some bad experiences with your local police... sorry about that. However, we have only your account of these incidents. Also, were you present with your mother each time she was stopped? Were you hanging your head out the window the entire drive, to make SURE she didn't cross over the white line, even once? On what do you base your profiling charge that your mom was mistaken for "some teenage kid" based on her car? You're making lots of accusations, with little to back them up. It's obvious you're angry... you should consider whether that angst is coloring your perception of these incidents.

              Think about what you wrote... do you REALLY want cops that are NOT working hard for that next big bust? Cops that are lazy and don't give a shit? What would you rather have them do instead, traffic enforcement? You attacked cops for doing too much minor traffic enforcement... which is it? Sheesh, guy... what do you want? Looks like the police can do no right in your world.

              By the way, you can spend your money on the cameras, but it's legal for cops to lie during investigation... but it's very ILLEGAL for them to do so under oath, and you may not be able to submit your tape for evidence, based on local laws regarding consent for taping; better check it out before you spend the money. Also, smugly advising them that you are "taping them" is going to get you tagged as a troublemaker.

              Your attitude about this is all wrong. WHY would you attempt to confront a "bad cop" when you're at his mercy (ie. at the traffic stop)? Why would you confront your enemy where he is strong, and you are weak (to paraphrase Sun-Tzu)? If you think you're being faced with a bad cop, be polite... do whatever he asks... cooperate... don't be a ass. If you get smart, you are giving him an excuse to do what he wants to do anyway... Why oh why would you play into his hands? You've gotta be smarter about it than that.

              I have been in that position, and I did exactly as I'm advising you; I got my pound of flesh later after I talked to his sergeant and chief (he pulled me over and took my license for an expired tag that wasn't). Greater satisfaction can be had by filing a citizen complaint, and embarassing the officer in front of his peers later. It frames you as a responsible, reasonable citizen, and builds cred if you happen to run into problems later. NOTHING will get you written off faster than being a disgruntled "cop hater."

              The last paragraphs of your post worry me though... are you really advocating a violent uprising against the police because of a few "unjustified" traffic stops?

        • Re:It's not about class (Score:4, Insightful)

          by Badmovies ( 182275 ) on Wednesday May 21, 2003 @08:42AM (#6006767) Homepage
          I would ask how much "crushing guilt" police officers feel when someone dies needlessly in a "bad" (read poor) neighborhood because it took 30 minutes after a 9-1-1 call for police to arrive? Or how much guilt they feel when they pull over a completely innocent citizen because they're the "wrong" color to drive in a particular neighborhood (or even down the Interstate in the "wrong" county)?

          Odd, the last time I checked, police officers were human beings. They are not one broad swathe of emotionless robots. They are drawn from the citizens, which is the usual mire of good and bad. We put them through tests to hopefully weed out the bad ones, but some slip through.

          My sister served on the police force in a small city for a while. Want to know why it takes them longer to arrive in a bad neighborhood, compared to a good neighborhood? Because they have to put on extra protective gear and get backup. One night they went into a "bad" neighborhood in response to a rape (in progress I think). They could not immediately get to the scene because their vehicle was pelted with bricks and bottles. Her and her partner were injured. On the other hand, if the police were to come to the street where I live, I am certain we would either stay out of the way or tell them what was going on.

          The "wrong color in the wrong county" bit is annoying. Does it happen? Sure, but not as anywhere near as often (in my experience) as people seem to say. Is it right? Heck no. I would like to think that we are slowly evolving past that sort of thing.

          Here is a question though: if a group of bald white men were slowly cruising around predominately African-American neighborhoods, wouldn't you want the police to make sure it was not a bunch of skinheads looking for a target? Listen to the heart of what I am saying: it is out of the ordinary. A professional officer checking in to see if the driver is lost, looking for a specific house, or looking for trouble, seems like common sense. If a bunch of guys in a big truck were to start cruising around my neighborhood, I would probably ask them if they needed assistance. If they are lost, I can help them get to where they are going. If they are looking for a house to empty while the owners are out, they know someone has taken an interest in them.

          Humans can choose to be animals or they can choose to be people. If you act like a beast, you reap the rewards.
    • Yeah, you should just go get Tim Eyman to team up with you on this one. Distract him from ruining our state anymore.

      Seriously, though. Are you keeping kids out of R rated movies unless a parent goes with them? I know that kids get around it, but killing cops? There is just too much violence out there. Unfortunately, we have so many guns available that shouldn't there, we should at least try to limit the exposure that underage kids have to this stuff.

      John Locke and Rousseau both agree that children

    • What I find so annoying, about this is not that its another "we know what's best for you" kind of law, but that its one based on the assumption that the lives of normal citizens are less valuable than that of the policefolk.

      In the same way that violence against police officers is often considered more serious that violence against regular people. Let alone that violence by police officers may even be considered to be less serious that violence by regular people.

  • But what if the cop is standing behind (Score:5, Funny)

    by jkauzlar ( 596349 ) * on Wednesday May 21, 2003 @01:18AM (#6005096) Homepage
    a criminal, you shoot at the criminal, and the criminal ducks?

  • Bill of Rights? (Score:4, Insightful)

    by insecuritiez ( 606865 ) on Wednesday May 21, 2003 @01:19AM (#6005099)
    I may not agree with violent games in general but what happend to free speach? Gun ownership is not banned. How can you ban something very similar? Surly someone will take this to court and it will be struck down.

    • Re:Bill of Rights? (Score:5, Insightful)

      by KrispyKringle ( 672903 ) on Wednesday May 21, 2003 @01:26AM (#6005133)
      I don't think the comparison to gun ownership is at all accurate. While gun ownership is also, to some (hotly debated) degree defended in the Constitution, free speech is giving much higher priority and much greater accross-the-board protection.

      More to the point, guns, be they a fundamental American right or not, kill vastly greater numbers of innocents each year than video games. Conversely, guns are hardly any remote form of artistic expression, while the nature of video games implies that they should enjoy the same protections as art and individual expression as a whole.

      I'm not in fact a big video gamer, and I'm not really into violence (except against stupid people--you know who you are) but I think that considering it obviously not protected speech simply because its a newer medium unfamiliar to many is ridiculous. Sure, pac-man may not have much culteral value as protected speech, but extending that view is ignorant and short sighted.

    • I may not agree with violent games in general but what happend to free speach?

      IAMNAL, but, AFAIK, there have been no precedents of any note establishing that games are "speech," and one minor instance I can think of to the contrary (the game, "Mortal Combat," only exists in public record :) ). Until this is changed, there's little stopping regulation of most any sort.

      Anyone care to cite some precedent?

  • Obligatory Reservoir Dogs quote (Score:5, Funny)

    by IvyMike ( 178408 ) on Wednesday May 21, 2003 @01:20AM (#6005102)

    Mr. Pink: You kill anybody?
    Mr. White: A few cops.
    Mr. Pink: No real people?
    Mr. White: Just cops.

  • ... is the first game I can remember playing in ages that gives you no penalty for blowing away (or chokeholding, as I prefer) civilians (as in, in the mailrooms).

    Having said that, I just want to make clear I ONLY started chokeholding the civilians because I was afraid they'd turn into Agents if I left them behind me (now I realise your first introduction to an Agent is made blatantly obvious... I'll be toning down the more anti-social behaviour in my ETM playing now...).
  • I'm glad that they make the distininction that it is alright to kill people, as long as they aren't cops.
    -saiha
    • Its the same way with hate crimes.

      If you're white and you beat up a black person, its a hate crime.
      If you're white and beat up another white, its just assault and battery.

      Stuff like this is stupid. All violent crimes are a crime of hate. It shouldn't matter if they're black, gay or a cop. However I'm glad they can make a distinction that a cop's life is more valuable than someone elses *rolls eyes*.
      • All violent crimes are a crime of hate. It shouldn't matter if they're black, gay or a cop.

        It most definitly should matter if the perpetrator is a cop. There is the concept of "high crimes", where someone in a position of authority can do more damage and more easily cover up evidence, should he or she be a criminal.

        However I'm glad they can make a distinction that a cop's life is more valuable than someone elses *rolls eyes*.

        IIRC there are even places where a police dog's life can be considered more v

  • Don't wanna give them the wrong idea (Score:5, Insightful)

    by tankdilla ( 652987 ) on Wednesday May 21, 2003 @01:27AM (#6005141) Homepage Journal
    Ok, so a video game is the complex program written by a lot of programmers, that ultimately starts with a thought or idea. Much like a book or a paper, except video games are much more popular. Following the logic of this new law in Washington, I guess we can expect the sale of books and such that depict violence against authority to be restricted as well, just to be sure kids don't get any wrong ideas. And just to be safe, we should probably just keep kids locked up with no TV or any worldly influence until they are 18. That's the safest way to make sure they don't get any wrong ideas in their heads.

    But I guess we gotta start somewhere, and apparently they think video games is a good place to start

  • RTCW (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday May 21, 2003 @01:27AM (#6005143)


    Urm, this would effectively restrict the sale of Return to Castle Wolfenstien. After all, the SS are law enforcement officials too... ;-)

    • Re:RTCW (Score:4, Insightful)

      by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday May 21, 2003 @01:37AM (#6005187)

      As are Imperial Storm Troopers.

    • I guess that would not be the case, first of all the SS is considered evil, as they were a part of an evil regime. Secondly soldiers, which they basically are in the game, aren't really law enforcers.

      Anyway, I agree that if there was a game called Iraqi Virtua Citizen, where you shoot Iraqi policemen, it won't be restricted, but perhaps I am just jaded ;)

    • Re:RTCW (Score:2, Insightful)

      by AnglerG ( 674848 )
      This law also covers: Sierra's SWAT games Tom Clancy's Rainbow Six Games Freedom Force's police bystanders Counter Strike's anti-terrorist forces Half Life's Barneys Need for Speed's police persuit vehicles Virtua Cop Resident Evil's RCPD Midtown Madness Sim City (natural disasters vs. police stations) Midnight Club and... The SIMs (I could create a family of cops)

    • Robin Hood (Score:3, Insightful)

      by Anonymous Coward
      Not to mention any Robin Hood game.

      Robin Hood was directly in conflict with the law enforcement, not soldiers.

    • Re:RTCW (Score:4, Insightful)

      by LittleGuy ( 267282 ) on Wednesday May 21, 2003 @05:42AM (#6005949)
      Heck, anyone with a old 8-bit "Dukes of Hazzard" video game is in trouble. And it's a good thing they never made "Les Miz" into an action adventure game.

      So, this law sidesteps any degrees of corruption on the depiction of the law enforcement official. Wonderful.

  • Movie Industry (Score:5, Insightful)

    by mrpuffypants ( 444598 ) <mrpuffypants@@@gmail...com> on Wednesday May 21, 2003 @01:27AM (#6005147)
    Lest we all forget about the movie industry, which has successfully managed to implement a ratings system that many people can agree on and has become common practice, while at the same time there is absolutely no legal involvement in the process. If a 6 year old sees Terminator 3 then no law was broken.

    It's a good thing that the movie industry has such a powerful lobby to protect themselves against retarted legislation like this. The video game companies need a similar legislative body.
    • It's a good thing that the movie industry has such a powerful lobby to protect themselves against retarted legislation like this. The video game companies need a similar legislative body.

      Um, the powerful lobby you're referring to is the MPAA. You know, the MPAA that thinks printing the code to DeCSS on a t-shirt should be illegal.

      And please be careful about throwing around phrases like "legislative body".

    • Re:Movie Industry (Score:4, Informative)

      by fordgj ( 522469 ) on Wednesday May 21, 2003 @02:39AM (#6005427)
      I listened to an interview of the legislator sponsoring this legislation. One of the factors in a need for a law is that the game industry is not enforcing the ratings system. The government did a sting and they found that only KB Toys checked the kids' ages.

  • bad precedence (Score:5, Insightful)

    by v_1_r_u_5 ( 462399 ) on Wednesday May 21, 2003 @01:29AM (#6005155)
    I don't like the direction some of the video games are going these days, but this is a bad precedence. When selling games is strictly forbidden for attribute 'A', pretty soon games will be forbidden for attributes 'B' through 'Z' (religion, race, nationality, etc.). Congress should support and enforce the ESRB rating system (more funding, etc) instead of taking direct action themselves - the ESRB is more properly equipped to research ratings and make intelligent, UNBIASED decisions.

  • A Perfect Example of Wrong-Headed Censorship (Score:5, Insightful)

    by ewhac ( 5844 ) on Wednesday May 21, 2003 @01:30AM (#6005161) Homepage Journal

    The following is an excerpt from a post I made to a mailing list, where this very subject came up for discussion:

    ...The moment you declare content of a particular type or nature as verboten is when you enter the realm of censorship. You must then analyze the motives of the censors very, very closely to try and find what their actual goals are.

    In this case, it's ostensibly to, "protect children." (From what, is rarely made clear.) To that end, they propose to shield children from viewing violence against law enforcement officers. This would preclude a minor from buying a copy of Deus Ex [eidosinteractive.com], which I think would be an unacceptable side-effect. Deus Ex is almost eerily important and relevant today, and I feel would be a good game for a teenager to play, despite the fact that the player is expected to subdue UNATCO personnel who are, in the context of the game, law enforcement. [ ... ]

    Schwab

  • What constitutes a "law enforcement official"? (Score:4, Interesting)

    by Samir Gupta ( 623651 ) on Wednesday May 21, 2003 @01:31AM (#6005165) Homepage
    It could be argued in many video games, the enemy is "enforcing" some law for a corrupt or evil government or organization... whether it be the Hammer Brothers in Super Mario Brothers, the Imperial Stormtroopers in Star Wars, to the Republican Guard in a hypothetical Gulf War shoot-em-up. Absurd -- where do you draw the line?

  • What about books, movies? (Score:5, Insightful)

    by tinrobot ( 314936 ) on Wednesday May 21, 2003 @01:32AM (#6005169)
    So, you can let the kid watch cop-killer movies and read cop-killer books, but he can't play cop-killer video games. Not fair to the cop-killer videogame makers is it?

    So, what about playing 'cops and robbers' is that restricted too? Can the kid playing the robber shoot at the cop, or does he just have to lay down and get frisked and cuffed? /sarcasm.

  • Do not be confused! (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Lord Bitman ( 95493 ) on Wednesday May 21, 2003 @01:35AM (#6005179)
    "Protecting" minors _IS_ a violation of free-speech. Some people are fool enough to think that as long as the law doesnt apply to all age-groups, it doesnt count as going against free speech. Remember that your speech is not free unless you can choose who you are speaking to!
    "You can say that, as long as certain people aren't listening." Is NOT good enough.
    If you're a parent, don't depend on the law to do your job for you! "I can't watch my kid every second of the day" is no excuse, because raising a child is about what you kid does when you aren't watching.
    • I thought this post was typical Slashdot "blah blah blah" until the last line: "'I can't watch my kid every second of the day' is no excuse, because raising a child is about what you(r) kid does when you aren't watching."

      Very good quote, and true on many levels. Not only is "I can't watch my kid every second" usually an excuse for parental laziness, but this also applies to the parents of the kids that are absolute angels with their parents, but little hellions when they're away from the parents (and the

  • why draw the line at law enforcement oficials? (Score:4, Insightful)

    by bigbigbison ( 104532 ) * on Wednesday May 21, 2003 @01:35AM (#6005181) Homepage
    Laws of this kind that have started showing up since 9-11 make me sick. You want to make a law preventing children from buying violent contnet, fine. I don't agree with it. It is just another case of the government making up my parenting decisions for me. But WHY is the law only restricted to violence against law enforcement officials? So assuming that one buys into the idea that videogmaes make people do violent acts, it is ok for a minor to buy a gmes that is, for example, Teacher Killer 2K4, but not Cop Killer 2004 Season? What logic is that?
    In my opinion, it makes just as much sence as making a law that applies to videogmaes but not movies, books music or any other form of popular entertainment...

    • Re:why draw the line at law enforcement oficials? (Score:5, Funny)

      by IvyMike ( 178408 ) on Wednesday May 21, 2003 @01:47AM (#6005223)

      Teacher Killer 2K4, Cop Killer 2004 Season

      Those games sound freakin' sweet. Where can I buy them?

      Kidding aside (somewhat) I always sort of secretly hoped that all these violent video games would turn me into an unstoppable killing machine, like Rambo or Charlton Heston. But the unfortunate reality is that the thousands of hours spent playing games really just improved my mousing skills.

      Need something clicked on, in a rapid and ultra-violent manner? I'm definitely your man. Need someone offed in real life? You probably wouldn't call me.

      I guess what I'm saying is: If video games are supposed to cause violent behaviour, I think I got ripped off.

  • Not so scary (Score:5, Insightful)

    by swifticus ( 191301 ) on Wednesday May 21, 2003 @01:40AM (#6005198)
    I think Washington State will just provide an example of how censorship doesn't really statistically improve anything. With any luck, other states will notice and not follow suit.

    Also, who will be fining retail employees $500 for selling games like this to minors? It's not serious enough to put a cop in every corner of compUSA.

    How will this law affect online buying of games though? If it makes it more difficult for people in other states, game companies might have better grounds for a lawsuit (business negatively impacted).

    • How will this law affect online buying of games though?

      The law applies to minors, who don't have credit cards and therefore can't buy online anyway.

      Not that that actually stops from from doing it, but that's the theory anyway.

  • Restricting sale of product ____ frequently amuses me. The assumption it seems, in this situation, is that the sole (or maybe "main" would be a better choice in wording) understanding is interactive content depicting violence against law enforcement persons is only acquired by purchase. I'm too lazy to look, atm, however I'm certian mods exist to accomplish just this. I think it highlights public perception reflected by the state legislative branch quite nicely. "Software is a thing which is purchased" - bu

  • Well, I guess killing the Redcoats is out of the q (Score:5, Insightful)

    by mandalayx ( 674042 ) * on Wednesday May 21, 2003 @01:45AM (#6005218) Journal
    Well, I guess killing the Redcoats in the Revolutionary War is out of the question, being that the British were the "legitimate authority" back in 1776.

    I'm feeling disapointed that when I hear about the law singling out violence against a group, I feel like it values one person's life over another one; as if the life of a cop is more valuable than that of a citizen. It's kind of like the hate crime thing.

  • I see this as a good step for video games, it shows that the legislators are starting to treat video games as a legitimate form of entertainement such as movies.

    Since video games core audience are males aged 18-34, there is a market for 'mature' content and should not be held up to different standards than other forms of entertainment (movies, TV, etc..). It will allow for developers to put whatever content they wish into their product providing they are willing to accept the rating it will be given.

    Mind

  • Washington State (Score:3, Funny)

    by MisterFancypants ( 615129 ) on Wednesday May 21, 2003 @01:50AM (#6005237)
    Washington State has already made their choice, now they just have to understand it.
  • It isn't really that such a law is being passed. There's nothing wrong with measures against youth playing violent games, etc... the problem is in making it a strict law. It's also a little odd to aim in particular against police-shooting games as opposed to violence against humans in general. That's why we have things like ESRB ratings. Really, it would be much more intelligent to make ratings mandatory, and require (as many stores do anyhow) parental permission before buying adult-rated games. In the end

  • Who cares? (Score:4, Interesting)

    by Zelph ( 628698 ) on Wednesday May 21, 2003 @01:59AM (#6005276) Homepage
    Just buy them online. Sure, fight it in court, buy in the meantime, just buy them online. You can get them cheaper and often faster by preordering them. Also, if they were to have a law like that, I would rather have it modified so that they required a parental signature or something. Complete bans suck.
  • if they were just Rubber bullets ?

    What if the cop is undercover and fails to ID himself in the game :)

    Lordy this is plain silly
  • Living in Washington State and having been through the public education system and made privy to the legislation which takes place here, this recent restriction of video games is another typical step. Washington state seems to be a test ground (along with California) for new Federal projects. If any of you readers have recently graduated highschool from anywhere in the northwest or greater western US, and you had (or if not, very soon) to complete a "Senior Project" you can thank Washington State. All bias
    • AS a parent with kids in public schools in Washington State, I can confirm that they are pushing the limits on what they can censor for children. Almost weekly I get handouts sent home with the children on what is acceptable and unacceptable behavior, dress, food, talk, music, holidays, etc. Its not just DARE, it's early as kindergarten and Pokemon...

      Hey! Where am I going?!? And what am I doing in this hand basket?

  • I am not an american so all my knowledge of its laws is based on tv so please forgive me if I am wrong.

    Doesn't the american constitution give its citizens the right to form a militia to combat an oppressive goverment? The whole bit about americans having the right to carry and bear arms.

    In the matrix there is an oppressive goverment, and the citizens are forming a militia to combat this. What is the problem?

    Only games that could be affected is stuff like vice-city and mafia where you shoot cops for crimi

  • ... "From my cold dead hand!"

    I'll accept a ban on violent video games... right after they ban child-accessible weapons and ammunition and not a moment before.

    Videogames don't kill people, people wielding weapons kill people.

    Who's willing to bet money that banning violent videogames may actually lead to a statistically significant RISE in actual violence?

    ---

    (I realise this is my second original post on the topic. I work tech support and my first post was written before I had to just deal with a client.
  • Seems to me they just managed to ban the most popular Internet game ever.

    After all, most of the CT skins are police. If memory serves, one or two of them even say "POLICE" in big letters.

    Do they seriously believe that banning depictions of violence against law enforcement will actually change anything? Perhaps we should ban books about people who shoot up schools - don't want to provide blueprints for future terrorists! While we're at it, we need to "sanitize" every reference to school shootings in t

  • Playing devil's advocate (Score:5, Interesting)

    by inkswamp ( 233692 ) on Wednesday May 21, 2003 @02:30AM (#6005400)
    I know I'm marking myself to be modded down into the lowest pits of Slashdot hell for doing this and will incur the wrath of hordes of indignant high school age geeks on this forum, but I can't say in all honesty that I'm against this. I've watched in the last few years as games have gotten far more realistic (shockingly so, in many cases) and borderline subversive. There have been reasonable complaints about this stuff and I've watched as those making a profit from it all have, for the most part, sat firmly on their thumb and blithely ignored the issue. With all that profit comes responsibility. If you disagree, clamp down on your next complaint about Microsoft, okay?

    I'm not immediately in favor of legislating this kind of thing, but the video game industry, on the whole, has been pretty unresponsive to this issue. What have they done to prevent legislators from moving in this direction? Precious friggin' little, from what I can see. While you're busy complaining to your representative, fire off a letter of complaint to your favorite video game publisher too. They bear just as much blame.

    Do I think people should have the right to play these games? Yes. Do I think keeping this stuff out of the hands of kids is an attack on free speech? No. I value free speech too much to allow some attorney for the video game industry to play emotional semantic games with that term. And that includes the term "censorship" too. It's not censorship, if it can be sold. It's not anti-free speech either.

    Then there is the issue of public placement of violent video games. I called Regal Cinemas to complain once about some of the games they had on plain view in their lobby and the response was the typical, greedy corporate garbage I should have expected. To sum up, I was told that the games make good money and that my complaint was basically irrelevant. That is the kind of attitude that leads to stupid laws like this.

    And before anyone think they need to take the predictable path of attacking me personally, bear in mind that I play many games myself that would be considered shockingly violent, but I do that in the privacy of my own home. I'm a big fan of video games. But I'm not a mindless consumer who isn't annoyed by bad behavior on the part of the companies I patronize. What bothers me is the apparent lack of concern for what kind of games are put out as demos in places like Toys R Us and on full public display in various places. If any of you don't see the problem with having games like House of the Dead on display in places like theaters and malls then you need to re-think your position a bit. It's not unreasonable to expect those things to be placed in appropriate areas.

    I'd rather the video game industry had taken this up themselves and done something reaonable and responsible and respectable, but as they have consistently failed to acknowledge the issue, I guess it has to become a law. It's sad and could have been avoided.

    • Nice troll but... (Score:3, Informative)

      by yoshi_mon ( 172895 )
      You seem to have contently forgotten the ESRB [esrb.org] that is already in place to deal with this.

      So I'm not sure what you mean by such phrases as:

      ...but the video game industry, on the whole, has been pretty unresponsive to this issue.

      I'd rather the video game industry had taken this up themselves and done something reasonable and responsible and respectable, but as they have consistently failed to acknowledge the issue...

      I'm sure the industry tries to do as much as they can to try and make their produc
    • I've watched in the last few years as games have gotten far more realistic (shockingly so, in many cases) and borderline subversive.

      The video game makers should just use their free speech rights to make video games showing government abuse of the citizens, the laws, and the constitution.

      Oh yeah, that would be subversive.

      For each new law, the game should indicate which clauses of the constitution or amendments it violates.

      Your goal: get elected president by a razor-thin margin, and not by popu

  • Cop #1: It's working, sir.
    Cop #2: What's that?
    Cop #1: Here, listen.
    [Cop #2 takes off the headphones and allows Cop #2 to overhear the bad guys conversing somewhere else. The scene fades to the bad guys headquarters.]

    Bad Guy #1: What do you mean we have to turn ourselves in?
    Bad Guy #2: Well, we just don't have the budget to keep on with our life of crime. We used to train our people with those games that let us practice shooting cops. But now we can't buy them any more and we could never afford to develo

  • This is an example of what's WRONG in the USA!!!! (Score:4, Insightful)

    by Newer Guy ( 520108 ) on Wednesday May 21, 2003 @03:04AM (#6005512)
    See, well meaning but clueless lawmakers believe that you can pass a law covering every possible circumstance. You can't. Laws are supposed to do two things: 1. Prevent anarchy. 2. Set basic guidelines for life. Yes, there has to be a few rules (laws) when people live together in a community. NO, the law book should NOT be thousands and thousands of pages long! The problem is, that is exactly what has happened. There's dozens of new laws passed every day....which is more then the sum total of laws (commandments) GOD gave us (10).
    • which is more then the sum total of laws (commandments) GOD gave us (10).

      I think an orthodox jew would tell you that God gave out considerably more than 10 laws in the old testament. For example don't shave, or wear poly-cotton clothing. But few people observe the commandment to keep Saturday holy, so I'm not convinced people would follow even 10 rules.

  • ...it looks like we'll have to start writing these games ourselves and releasing them under and open-source licence.

    Let's see the bastards ban that.

  • You know, I work for [ MPAA | RIAA | spamming operation | other unpopular industry ] and I'm worried about people becoming violent towards me and my coworkers. Perhaps we should lobby congress to prohibit any video game depicting violence towards people in my industry?

    Now, once we do this, we can branch to other forms of media.

    Then, we can outlaw the depiction of non-violent resistance.

    This is really horrid. If I were American, I'd start writing little free cop-shooting games (browser, windows, whatever)

  • Piracy (Score:3, Interesting)

    by st0rmcold ( 614019 ) on Wednesday May 21, 2003 @07:12AM (#6006209) Homepage

    Great way to encourage piracy, tell the kids under 17 they can't buy their favorite games, the largest portion of the pirating world are 12-19 years old.

    I'm not condonning this, but this is a hard fact, you won't fix the problem by making laws, this is the parents job anyway.

    Like I said earlier, prevent a 16 years kid who is in love with Grand Theft Auto (If you haven't been a witness to this you don't get out much!) from buying the next version of the game, and the amount of burnt copies will spread worse than SARS in Asia.

  • America (Score:3, Insightful)

    by Kanasta ( 70274 ) on Wednesday May 21, 2003 @07:41AM (#6006363)
    The land of the free,and ppl who can't tell reality from fantasy.

    Heard the Matrix 2 was R rated over there? With no real nudity, no gory violence, didn't really think it was a threat to gun toting teens.

  • Bzzzt (Score:3, Funny)

    by salesgeek ( 263995 ) on Wednesday May 21, 2003 @08:39AM (#6006751) Homepage
    Here's a trash can law passed to show that politicians are tough on crime that will be chucked in the dumpster by the Supreme Court.

    Yawn

  • no more nethack! (Score:3, Funny)

    by brer_rabbit ( 195413 ) on Wednesday May 21, 2003 @12:54PM (#6008851) Journal
    Since nethack has Keystone Kops, I guess that rules out playing nethack in the state of Washington. Not a minute too soon either, whenever I see those K letters Ice-T's Cop Killer starts going through my head.

Slashdot Top Deals

This is now. Later is later.

Close