Please create an account to participate in the Slashdot moderation system

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
Games Entertainment

Courts Block Washington Violent Game Law 286

Posted by simoniker from the battle-over-but-not-war dept.
Thanks to Reuters/Yahoo for their report that the enforcement of a Washington state law, designed to restrict the sale of violent video games to minors, has been postponed. U.S. District Judge Robert Lasnik blocked enforcement of the law, set to start July 27th, and to impose fines on anyone selling games to minors depicting violence against 'law enforcement officers', saying: "Plaintiffs have raised serious questions regarding the constitutionality of House Bill 1009 and the balance of hardships tips in their favor." Doug Lowenstein of the IDSA praised the move, praising "..the judge's finding that games are a form of protected speech like music and movies", but the Washington Democrat politician sponsoring the bill suggested that "..any injunction would only be preliminary and that.. the case [will] go to trial." The saga continues..
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Courts Block Washington Violent Game Law More

Courts Block Washington Violent Game Law

Comments Filter:

  • The future? (Score:4, Insightful)

    by Endareth ( 684446 ) on Thursday July 10, 2003 @09:52PM (#6411781) Journal
    But how many more times can these types of bills be defeated? It'll only take one to get through, and we head down the slippery slope...

    • Re:The future? (Score:4, Interesting)

      by w.p.richardson ( 218394 ) on Thursday July 10, 2003 @09:56PM (#6411806) Homepage
      You can have my violent games when you pry them from my cold, dead hands, you godless commie!

      Seriously, if you want them to stick around, be active. Form your own version of the NRA for violent games. The NRA has successfully thwarted scads of anti-gun legislation over the years, and they are simply an organization of individuals who cherish the right to own guns.

      • Re:The future? (Score:3, Insightful)

        by tarius8105 ( 683929 )
        Too many people are looking to blame others then to accept responsiblity for their own actions. Games dont make people violent, it is their nature to be violent. I mean hell I grew up with violent cartoons, watching violent films, and even in high school I played Quake like a religion, I have not killed anyone.

        Although I wish I did have a rocket launcher or the grappling hook from CTF.

        • Re:The future? (Score:4, Insightful)

          by usotsuki ( 530037 ) on Thursday July 10, 2003 @10:17PM (#6411911) Homepage
          Wolfenstein came out, I played it.

          Mortal Kombat II came out, I played it.

          Samurai Shodown came out, I played it.

          All of these games feature blood and gore and involve killing people. Have I become more violent as a result?

          I think I have become less violent, because I can take out my anger at a computer instead of going at someone's throat.

          And I have a pretty damn short fuse.

          -uso.
          • Yeah, but I am a success story for what games can do. I became a nerd because of games! Now I operate a quarter of a billion dollars in hardware and I'm a guru at work! All started with a FreeBSD box and Quake!
          • Wolfenstein came out, I played it then I ate some dog food, legally changed my name to Max Power, and began hunting Nazis - only to find out that World War II ended like 45 years ago.

            Mortal Kombat I came out, I played it and wondered why everyone was sweating gray liquid. I pondered this for awhile, realized that my sweat was clear, became depressed, sold my Super Nintendo, and cried a little.

            Samurai Shodown came out, I played it and became a samurai and scheduled a showdown with Little Bobby from down th

      • Re:The future? (Score:4, Insightful)

        by Osty ( 16825 ) on Thursday July 10, 2003 @10:21PM (#6411936)

        Seriously, if you want them to stick around, be active. Form your own version of the NRA for violent games. The NRA has successfully thwarted scads of anti-gun legislation over the years, and they are simply an organization of individuals who cherish the right to own guns.

        The difference being the precedent set by the Constitution allowing the possession of firearms (obstensibly for militia purposes, but if you read closely it's also to protect the citizenry from the government), while it says nothing about owning violent video games. As well, guns can be useful tools (hunting) as well as entertainment (recreational shooting) and protection (duh). Video games are just entertainment, though in some cases they can be educational (and sometimes subliminal, like America's Army ... jointhearmy). You could maybe make a case for video games under free speech, but it's not as clear-cut as the right to bear arms.


        I'm not saying that violent video games should be prohibited to minors. In fact, I believe the opposite. However, I just wanted to make the point that the NRA has some fairly potent legal backing while a violent video game version of the NRA would not.

        • Re:The future? (Score:5, Interesting)

          by ncc74656 ( 45571 ) <scott@alfter.us> on Thursday July 10, 2003 @11:30PM (#6412252) Homepage Journal
          The difference being the precedent set by the Constitution allowing the possession of firearms

          Your right to keep and bear arms is not granted by the Constitution. Like the right to speak your mind, gather with whoever you like, etc., the right to keep guns is a natural right...it's part of being human. More generally, the Bill of Rights is not an enumeration of your rights. It is a guarantee (one that's not always been followed, unfortunately) that the government will not encroach on your rights. Notice that the amendments are not of the form "The people have the right to X;" instead, they are generally of the form "The right of the people to X shall not be infringed."

          • Nice sig [OT] (Score:5, Insightful)

            by optikSmoke ( 264261 ) on Friday July 11, 2003 @01:08AM (#6412683)
            I'd just like to say, your sig amused me. I can only hope you meant it as a joke, but in any case it made me laugh (as well as make me glad I live in Canada.... but that's another story). In any case, I don't mean to say "right-wing is always wrong" or "left-wing is always right", it just amuses me when "right-wing" pundits or "left-wing" pundits start spouting things off in an undisguisedly biased manner -- the only people they will possible "sway" are the people who already agree with them, so it all boils down to a pointless exercise in ego, or more likely intra-community self-assurance. One of the reviewers on Amazon commented that it's also amusing to read Micheal Moore, but he wouldn't take historical lessons from Moore or the author of the book you are promoting.

            On another note, your use of the ultra-capitalized uber-patriotic "Real Americans" also made me chuckle. Kill the COMMIES! RAH RAH RAH!

            Goodday, and may everyone feel free to mod me into oblivion.

    • Re:The future? (Score:5, Insightful)

      by NanoGator ( 522640 ) on Thursday July 10, 2003 @09:58PM (#6411818) Homepage Journal
      "But how many more times can these types of bills be defeated? It'll only take one to get through, and we head down the slippery slope... "

      Yeah but each time it gets defeated, it gets harder and harder to pass it.

      I find it amusing they're trying to 'violence against officers' angle when TV and movies have been able to portray it for years. I don't think they're going to get anything like this through until they find something unique yet common to games. Maybe they should try to make 'violence against fungus based life forms' illegal to sell to anybody under 18.

      • Re:The future? (Score:5, Interesting)

        by shadowbearer ( 554144 ) on Thursday July 10, 2003 @10:06PM (#6411862) Homepage Journal
        Yup. Precedent counts for some in US courts.

        What annoys me is that there never seems to be any really serious precedent until it gets to the Supreme Court. Then it becomes ipso facto law.

        I think our whole system has become so complicated that nothing can really be decided anymore. Look at the 9th circuit and the (sometimes obviously politically motivated) decisions that have been passed there, then overturned.

        It's a mess. Is this any way to run a civilized country? I don't know. I do know that it's not working; what I mean by that is that laws change so much, and are becoming so convaluted(sp?) that the average citizen can't figure them out; and if they do, then the laws change, again.

        Anyone who says that democracy/republicanism/imperialism (pick your favorite) is not still an experiment is ignorant.

        More ontopic, Nano, is how about "Violence against Avatars"? Eeeks.

        Somebody sooner or later will come up with that. "My son's avatar was violently killed online!! I'll sue!!"

        Jebsus!!

        SB
        Pardon me, I'm drinking tonite.

      • Re:The future? (Score:5, Funny)

        by canajin56 ( 660655 ) on Friday July 11, 2003 @12:03AM (#6412435)
        Kinda like those kids caught with the trenchcoats and guns, led by a guy who called himself "Neo" and said he was "fighting to free mankind." Yup, it was GRAND THEFT AUTO that was behind that one. Although he MAY have gotten his name from that GAME called Enter the Matrix. But definatly NOT the movie. I mean, EVERYBODY knows that movies arn't real, right? Not like those games made of BLOCKY POLYGONS AND PIXILATED SPRITES! Too close to reality, they are!

        • Re:The future? (Score:3, Informative)

          by hether ( 101201 )
          Ahhh. You are referring to this [philly.com] story. GTA was behind having swords as weapons. Warriors of Freedom online is responsible for the rest. :-)

          His dad is blaming movies instead of games. In further stories I've seen his dad comment that his son was just acting on what he's seen in some movie. It's Jack Thompson (the lawyer from Miami) who's blaming games, and he's notorious for it.

    • Re:The future? (Score:5, Interesting)

      by Izago909 ( 637084 ) <tauisgod@[ ]il.com ['gma' in gap]> on Thursday July 10, 2003 @10:33PM (#6411998)
      I live in Indianapolis. For the lucky half of you who live on a coast, the bible-belt really, really sucks. A few years ago our mayor (Bart) was trying to make a high profile to get himself re-elected with. He chose to ban violent video games within city limits. The area, once being Klan central, and still being non-christians-are-to-blame-for-it-all, allowed it to pass. The first day it want active it started to be enforced.
      In short time, arcade operators and video game vendors got the help of the ICLU and ACLU (thank god they considered this high profile enough) and sued the city. All the courts up to the state supreme court had no problem with this and let the law stand. Finally, the Supreme Court in D.C. decided to hear the case. A unanimous decision stuck it down as unconstitutional. That little media fiasco cost the city over a million dollars in legal services. Coincidentally, the legal firm that collected most of those billable hours was the same one the mayor used to work for. He made his golf buddies over $400,000 richer. He did manage to get re-elected though, thanks to selective media choosing to give most of the air time to the righteous fight and next to none for the legal loss and absoutely none to the tax money and who got it.
      His next re-election campaign was right out of the movies. Anyone remember Footloose? It is now illegal to dance in the city without a permit. One of those will cost you thousands of dollars, unless you run a large music venue or club, in which case selective enforcement ignores you. It's a good thing all of the 'legal' venues play top 40 stuff, because that's quality music. The argument "Dancing and music causes kids to do drugs" just won't seem to die. Unfortunately nobody with money to spare gives a damn about this one.

      This one is for all of those politicians who fight the symptoms instead of the disease: I hope you burn in the hell that you create here on earth. Screw your children, Darwinism will see that they get what they deserve comming. I want to shoot some simulated cops before I go out dancing to government approved music tonight.

      • Re:The future? (Score:3, Informative)

        by DeepRedux ( 601768 )
        This is not unique to the bible belt. New York City has required expensive cabaret licenses [legalizedancingnyc.com] for dancing. This has been the law for many years.

        • Re:The future? (Score:2, Interesting)

          by Izago909 ( 637084 )
          I didn't know that they still enforced that arcane law with such vigor. The last I heard of it was when it was used to shut down most of the sex and fetish stores around Times Square (among other places). I haven't been to NY for several years now, but the last trip I made was because of a visit to its' booming underground music scene. Do you know anything about its' health now? I have to drive out of state now to hear any live music that isn't on the top 100 or 200 charts. Hell, even Chicago forces its ven
    • Not true. Each time a bill is defeated, the case-law against it grows and the more easily a similar bill will be defeated next time barring a major shift in judicial wisdom.

      <offtopic>I don't read many stories on games.slashdotdot, but WTF is going on with the color scheme here...

      Got to go. My eyes are starting to bleed...</offtopic>

    • Problems with the new legislation (Score:5, Insightful)

      by Dukeofshadows ( 607689 ) on Friday July 11, 2003 @12:25AM (#6412547) Journal
      I find two glaring problems with this bill.

      One, parents should be in charge of their kids, not the government. With more parents off to work, there is less time to ensure that kids have proper guidance and development. This same problem arose during WWII when Dad was at the front or in the factory and Mom was often in the factory too. Latchkey kids spwaning gangs (Zoot Suit Riot, 1943 or 44 in Los Angeles), elevated teen pregnancy rates, runaways, etc. These reports sound familiar to anyone who studies modern urban youth would find the same problems back then. Lack of parenting, whether due to necessity or greed of the parents or whatever else, is the main cause behind the "moral decay" in this country as well as the vast majority of school shootings.

      Two, solving the problems by attempting to legislate morality is both ineffective and dangerous. It is ineffective because the dealers are not going to police themselves if demand is high enough and the stores that sell copies under the table or without ID will prosper, potentially putting the rest out of business or causing them to discontinue the product in question altogether. It is dangerous because it sets precedent for allowing a faction of society to dictate its morality on the people who believe that good intentions will result. Remember, one mildly conservative in the Washington State Senate tried to prevent the teaching of evolution on the basis that it conflicted with Declaration of Independence. (http://www.ncseweb.org/resources/news/2002/WA/978 _new_antievolution_legislation_1_23_2002.asp)

      Thus the potential exists of such a group not only legislating its morality on the rest of the country (Christian Conservatives are trying to do this piece at a time in several states on abortion, science education, etc.) but also to enforce their views in a legal sense*. Note recent laws proposed or passed by AG Ashcroft, Senators Santorum and Representative DeLay et al.

      *Democrats are not innocent of this either, but the tend to use "security" and "equality" as their preferred excuses for violating civil liberties.
      • I don't want to get into a big debate over this because I agree with many of your points. But having said that, there is one particular aspect of what you said that I disagree with vehemently.

        Here's the phrase: solving the problems by attempting to legislate morality is both ineffective and dangerous.

        It may be that our definition of morality differs, but here's the one I'm using: A system of ideas of right and wrong conduct

        With that definition, all laws legislate someone's morality. Someone believes t

  • don't think this changes anything (Score:3, Funny)

    by bongobongo ( 608275 ) on Thursday July 10, 2003 @09:55PM (#6411799)
    from the article: "It has very little bearing on the final outcome of the case," Dickerson said.

    so there you go. just a bump on the road to a world of games where cops are invincible juggernauts.

  • Yay! Boo! (Score:4, Interesting)

    by twiztidlojik ( 522383 ) <dapplemac@m[ ]com ['ac.' in gap]> on Thursday July 10, 2003 @09:57PM (#6411812) Homepage
    I'd like to say hooray as this isn't a good law to keep on the books.

    I'd also like to slap all the idiots who helped this pass.

    And, I'd like to make a comparison: What happened when the movie rating system came out, and was this treated the same way as the video game rating system is now at first, then becoming law?
    • What happened when the movie rating system came out, and was this treated the same way as the video game rating system is now at first, then becoming law?
      When did the movie rating system become law? Movies are submitted to the ratings board voluntarily and theaters voluntarily enforce them. However, everybody "volunteers" in this manner. The government sees that the movie industry is regulating itself well, and sees no need to interfere.

  • Evil is defeated once more! (Score:5, Funny)

    by SD-VI ( 688382 ) on Thursday July 10, 2003 @09:58PM (#6411817)
    Seriously, can we go back to using TV as a scapegoat for the results of bad parenting? It's not like there's anything good on.
    • Seriously, can we go back to using TV as a scapegoat for the results of bad parenting? It's not like there's anything good on.

      Watch the women networks. Their purpose is to promote how guys are usually killers, rapist, wife beaters, or pansies.

  • Why "law enforcement"? (Score:5, Interesting)

    by grub ( 11606 ) <slashdot@grub.net> on Thursday July 10, 2003 @09:59PM (#6411819) Homepage Journal

    to impose fines on anyone selling games to minors depicting violence against 'law enforcement officers'

    So it's legal to sell games where you blow away Ma and Pa Kettle but don't dare kill a cop in a game or it's illegal? Since when did law enforcement become some sort of sacred cow? Hmmm... I wonder if 3D Realms will have to re-do Duke Nukem 3D, recall that you could kill pigs in cop outfits in that game.
    • Well we no longer have equal protection, what with "aggravating factors" -- look at the DC sniper of last autumn. Strictly by chance one of his victims happened to be some FBI employee. (They) had no clue who they were shooting; it was blind chance (if I recall correctly, the female FBI person and her husband were leaving a Home Depot) and were the unfortunate victims of random, insane violence

      Now the sniper is eligible for the death penalty, because the "public servants" are "better" than everyone else. Or

      • Wait. So if he hadn't killed an FBI employee, he wouldn't be up for the death penalty? Even though he killed quite a few other people? Silly Americans, if you're going to have a death penalty, at least be consistent.

    • Re:Why "law enforcement"? (Score:3, Funny)

      by Anonymous Coward
      The only way violence might carry over into real life is if this law delays the release of Half Life 2.
    • You can kill as many pig-cops as you want, but aliens warp in and punish you when you kill the hot chicks.

      Best. Game. Ever.
    • Law enforcement officers are more important than normal people. What else could you possibly infer from it? Every single person working in law enforcement became an American Hero on the 9th of September 2001, and they always will be. What are you, some form of terrorist sympathiser?

  • I'm sure i'll be modded down but.. (Score:5, Insightful)

    by NightWulf ( 672561 ) on Thursday July 10, 2003 @09:59PM (#6411826)
    Is keeping violent games out of the hands of minors really a bad thing? I don't believe violent games make people any more or less violent than they already are, but some games go to the extreme, and I really don't think putting in an age restriction is a bad thing. If the kid really wants the game, he can gladly go into the store with a parent, and they can buy it for them if they think their child is mature enough for said game. Think of it like pornography, sure kids can get it online for free, but legally there is an age restriction. Now I don't think some 13 year old boys checking out a penthouse will become raving serial rapists but there are age laws put in place, and for a good reason.

    • Re:I'm sure i'll be modded down but.. (Score:5, Insightful)

      by MaverickUW ( 177871 ) on Thursday July 10, 2003 @10:20PM (#6411927)
      This isn't so much about keeping violent videogames out of the hands of minors. The principle behind this, and why the ISDA has been so against this law, is it renders their ratings useless.

      The premise is that any game that featured any violence against cops would automatically be treated like a rated M game. This means games like Enter the Matrix, which is rated Teen, would not be able to be sold to teens.

      If a game rated for everyone (let's say for this example something like Super Smash Brother's Melee) had a cop in it, even if it wasn't realistic and that cop was fighting, it would be ILLEGAL to sell it to anyone under 17. This is where the problem lies.

      Think of it this way. If there was an equivilant law for movies, the disney animated "Robin Hood", which is rated G of course, would end up with an NC-17 rating due to the fact that there is violence against the Sherrif of Nottingham.

      In the end, you have to look at how this would affect other genres if they had the same laws. The ISDA fought this because they've been trying to get universal recognition of their ratings system (since certain Senators don't recognize there is one), and a law like this hurts that.
      • MOD PARENT UP

        Sanity! Context makes a difference! The authority figures in The Matrix (like the Sheriff of Nottingham) were the bad guys.

        Kids need to learn to judge people by their behavior, and not just blindly to assume "uniform: must be good". The vast majority of cops are good people doing a difficult and often thankless job. That doesn't mean the (hopefully few) bad apples among them get a free pass. If I saw a uniformed cop obviously engaged in attempted murder and my only method of stopping him was to

        • One point to make about the "bad-guy" cops in "Enter the Matrix". As noted in the movies, those cops (with the exception of the agents, of course) are not "bad guys" in the strictest sense. They are unaware of the reality of machines oppressing and enslaving humanity, and so have no idea they are fighting the "good guys" that compose the resistance. As such, these are men who have done nothing wrong, and are utterly unaware of (and have no reason to suspect) the nature of their superiors.

          As such, fran
    • If they actually gave a damn about children being exposed to violence they would have gone after network television first. But I guess Disney(ABC)Viacom(CBS)GeneralElectric(NBC)NewsCorp (FOX) have the money to avoid that type of legislation. How many murders, rapes, stabbings, shootings are aired on network television during primetime every year?

    • This question is raised nearly every time this issue comes up.
      My answer why it is bad for laws like this is that
      there are no laws against selling violent movies to children
      There are no laws against selling music with violent lyrics to children
      There are no laws against selling violent magazines to children
      There are no laws against selling violent books to children
      There are no laws against selling tickets to violent sporting events to children
      There are no laws against children participation in violent sportin
      • Because it's a form of entertainment generally associated with the younger generation? Adults are supposed to "grow out of" violent games and stick to watch violent movies... that or just enjoy the old atari classics.

        It's BS of course, but a common attitude - even amongst the kids themselves. I remember being laughed at by a bunch of teens on battle.net 'cause I'm 22 and still play warcraft. They quiet down when I inform them that I can still game while holding a job and enjoy the enjoyment of getting lai
    • Should we put age restrictions on people over 60 driving or not, too? If the old person really wants to get transported, let's make a law requiring the elderly have a younger relative be present in the car whenever they drive. After all, old people lose their vision and hearing.

      Restricting someone because of their AGE is just as vague and discriminatory as a person's gender, sexual preference, race, or handicap. Age is and should be a protected civil right, for the young and old.

    • >I don't believe violent games make people any more or less violent than they already are, but some games go to the extreme, and I really don't think putting in an age restriction is a bad thing

      Is there an alternative universe in which that statement is in any way consistent? Let's leave mealy mouthed dissembling to the political class. If you believe that violent games are harmful, then say so. Don't open with a populist preface then contradict it immediately.

  • Preliminary.. (Score:5, Interesting)

    by wfberg ( 24378 ) on Thursday July 10, 2003 @10:00PM (#6411830)

    the Washington Democrat politician sponsoring the bill suggested that "..any injunction would only be preliminary and that.. the case [will] go to trial."


    What is the likelihood that the final verdict overturns a preliminary injunction? Are there statistics on this?

    If I had to guess I'd say they're slim. Already the judge has determined that the 'balance of hardships' tips in favor of the plaintiffs, in other words, even if the state had the right to prohibit the games, the judge thinks prohibition hurts society more than it helps.

    Think about the children!
    • IANAL, but I think the 'balance of hardships' is about whether to grant a preliminary injunction, pending a ruling on the actual legal question. In other words, the judge is saying because of the balance of hardships, it's better to suspend enforcement of the bill pending a decision. If he'd thought the balance of hardships was the other way, he'd have ruled to keep the bill pending a decision. I don't think it necessarily reflects on what the final decision about the legality of the bill will be.
    • Can I just take a moment to say that "Balance of Hardships" sounds like some kind of lame attempt at a lawyer-themed RPG, possibly made by SSI around 1985 for the Commodore 64?

  • Forget about prohibiting video game sales . . . (Score:5, Funny)

    by Mikey-San ( 582838 ) on Thursday July 10, 2003 @10:01PM (#6411840) Homepage Journal
    What? Screw preventing people from selling video games to minors--what about banning saled of Windows to minors? Surely that's far more damaging than Halo or Half-Life.

  • The IDSA Paradox (Score:5, Interesting)

    by cliffy2000 ( 185461 ) on Thursday July 10, 2003 @10:05PM (#6411859) Journal
    IDSA: We don't like piracy!
    Slashdot: Boooo!
    IDSA: We like violent video games!
    Slashdot: Yay!
    So... do we like IDSA?

    • Re:The IDSA Paradox (Score:2, Interesting)

      by SD-VI ( 688382 )
      IDSA: We don't like piracy!
      Slashdot: Boooo!
      IDSA: We like violent video games!
      Slashdot: Yay!
      So... do we like IDSA?
      The IDSA is only defending their own interests with hating piracy, whereas the RIAA attacks piracy because they're horrible people who sacrifice cute, furry animals with big, sad eyes to Satan. So yes, we like the IDSA, because the alternative is much worse.
    • Do we have to like every stance an organization takes to agree with them once?

      -rant-
      That comment reminds me of all the friends I have who are [democrats|republicans] and can't admit a [republican|democrat] is right about a single goddamn thing, lest their whole belief structure founded on their party always being right crumble to the ground.
      -/rant-

      We can all support organizations when we agree with them, and work against them when we don't. That is not a paradox.

  • You yanks are strange ... (Score:5, Interesting)

    by Anonymous Coward on Thursday July 10, 2003 @10:08PM (#6411872)
    You hear over and over about how bad these video games are, yet any loser can go and buy a gun. Such a gun culture seems to be at the heart of the problem.

    After all, I doubt the British are likely to return after all these years..
    • The more often you have laws against guns, the more often the criminals you encounter will have them and the less likely the innocents will not! Criminals, by definition, are those who break (gun) laws after all...

      Read the sig...
      • The more often you have laws against guns, the more often the criminals you encounter will have them

        What? Banning something means criminals are automatically more likely to have them? Shit, we'd better legalise nukes now, or someone might jump me with a ten megaton device on my way home!

        • It works like this. Pretend that you have an assault rifle. Suddenly, legislation is passed that bans them. Are you likely to just turn over the expensive rifle to the nice government? No, you're going to try to find a way to sell it to someone who doesn't care about the legality of owning an assault rifle. And that someone who doens't care about how legal it is to own a rifle of that type is more likely to use it.

          Let me put it another way. A law abiding citizen won't own a banned gun, even though h

  • It starts with the family. (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Agent R ( 684654 ) on Thursday July 10, 2003 @10:08PM (#6411876)
    Aren't there enough screwy laws already? Do we really need another one for the books? (And exactly how will this be enforced? Kids still manage to get cigarettes.)

    I don't think it is the games that need to be looked at as opposed to how much interaction the kids get at home from the parents. It appears that quite a number of these kids that go off the deep end tend to have parents who didn't check up on them enough to make sure everything is fine.

  • mixed feelings (Score:3, Insightful)

    by forgetmenot ( 467513 ) <atsjewell.gmail@com> on Thursday July 10, 2003 @10:08PM (#6411877) Homepage
    As the offspring of a law enforcement officer myself, I have mixed feelings about this. I find any kind of game which involves flaunting a disrespect for the law somewhat disturbing. On the other hand, a lot of laws don't deserve our respect and a lot of cops shouldn't be issued the badge. But... I myself will not play these kinds of games. I prefer games RPGs where you go out and slaughter demi-human races and accept without question that they every "thing" you are killing is evil and where the ends justify the means. Yay NWN!

  • rampage! (Score:5, Insightful)

    by DJ Rubbie ( 621940 ) on Thursday July 10, 2003 @10:08PM (#6411878) Homepage Journal
    The saga continues

    I actually read it as, The rampage continues...

    Yeah, I am going to hook myself up with hookers, slash people's head off, steal drugs, carjack, and take out the Mafia as I steal my way up the ladder in Vice City.

    Seriously though, it is good to have a judge (or judges) that respects freedom of speech, because as the most people other thread have suggested, games of this nature does not promote violence, in general, if there is good parenting and all. Lawmakers should not be restricting games, parents should educate their children on things of this nature (much like sex, and everything)... unfortunately, I don't see too much of that happening..

    Parents, please educate your children, be responsible and so they will learn to be responsible, and use your good example when they grow up.
    • Parents, please educate your children, be responsible and so they will learn to be responsible, and use your good example when they grow up.

      A-MEN BRUTHAH!!!!!!!!

      Of course because you know this, murphy's law dictates that not only are you single, you're also sterile.

      Sad, isn't it?

  • Pfffft, what a load of crap law. (Score:3, Interesting)

    by incinerator3 ( 688554 ) on Thursday July 10, 2003 @10:10PM (#6411886)
    Restricting the sale of games with a very specific kind of violence like this? Only against law enforcement officers? Sounds to me like cops are just afraid of 14 year olds playing Grand Theft Auto grabbing some guns and blowing them away. That Doug Lowenstein guy is right; games ARE free speech, and to be restricted in such a specific manner is ridiculous. It's just the narrow definition of the law that bothers me. Violence against pregnant women? Sure, beat the hell out of them with a baseball bat. Punch a cop? Uh-uh, we're not gonna let you do that, son.

  • Can we electrocute them? (Score:5, Funny)

    by Anonymous Coward on Thursday July 10, 2003 @10:13PM (#6411898)

    to impose fines on anyone selling games to minors depicting violence against 'law enforcement officers'

    What if that law enforcement officer was tried and convicted of a capital crime?

  • America's Army (Score:5, Interesting)

    by CrazyJim0 ( 324487 ) on Thursday July 10, 2003 @10:14PM (#6411903)
    Since the game wouldn't let me advance, I shot my seargent.

    They sent me to the brig.

    Would the United States fine itself for allowing me to kill an army personel?

    After all, the Army could be used as law enforcement in a police state.

    STILL....

    Let me get this right.

    Violence, where we invade a country and kill its patriots is alright.

    Yet its not ok to vent violence on a video game?

    Oh I get it, the government wants people willing to join the Armed Forces.

    If we had FDR style work programs researching cures for AIDS and cancer, we'd solve unemployment... But we'd allow skilled people a work option outside of the Marines. Yes I know CMU grads who enlisted out of suicidal depression at getting no job.

    I love America, and I respect the armed forces, but theres some major shit going wrong in our nation. We need to stand up against liability lawyers, insurance/credit agencies, banks and all forms of corruption.
    • We need to stand up against liability lawyers

      There is a bill in the House and Senate right now that would do just that.

      Patient and Physician Safety and Protection Act of 2003 [gpo.gov]

      "It would cap "non-economic damages" at $250,000 "

      And here is the reason it will never get a vote on the floor: Analysis: Tort reform or defunding Dems? [upi.com]
      • Doctors vs Lawyers... been watching this for some time.

        Liability NEEDS capped at a low figure. It impacts more of our lives than just entertainment.

        I'm from PA, theres many problems past this, but its good at least one is being worked on.

  • Straight Outta Compton/F the Police (Score:4, Insightful)

    by felonious ( 636719 ) on Thursday July 10, 2003 @10:23PM (#6411941) Journal
    Although having a game where you shoot cops can leave a bad taste in some peoples mouth, along with brown nose induced halitosis, we have these freedoms guaranteed in the constitution. Okay maybe not killing cops in games but freedom of expression and the pursuit of happiness.

    Some have fun acting out in games and/or some don't even differentiate between the skin on an in game model. This world is becoming so overly protective of things that were trivial in the past. No there weren't cop killing games back in the day but we did parade dead criminals around for public viewing back in the day. (John Dillinger).

    We are a violent society and so our games reflect that. If someone becomes so influenced by a game that it makes them want to kill an authority figure then it was bound to happen anyway. All these people need is an excuse. This is the day and age of no personal responsibility. If I spill McDonalds coffee on myself and get burned then it's their fault and my ass it getting paid...CHA-CHING!

    I don't practice that shit because I believe I am responsible for my own actions no matter how stupid or utterly sexy they may be:D The point is you cannot legislate personal responsibilty and you cannot prevent the other guy from seeing what you see as offensive or disgusting. The people who pursue these laws are an amalgamation of fear and self loathing epitomized. Just because your kids a total fuck up don't tell me how I'd raise mine if I had access to see them...you drink a case a day and sing show tunes in the front yard naked and you aren't allowed to see your kids...wtf is that shit?

    In closing this is all a loosely related DRM package. Pretty soon we'll have no choices, no freedom, no music (unless it's on a public kiosk only access by submitting a DNA sample and $100 per sample), sex in a petri dish, and nothing but customized infomercials.

    FUCK THAT!

  • Soon kids will not be allowed to ... (Score:4, Funny)

    by BlueTrin ( 683373 ) on Thursday July 10, 2003 @10:30PM (#6411980) Homepage Journal

    play "cop and robbers" anymore, ...

    well maybe not ... but "robbers" will not be allowed to run (unless players are 14+ y. old).

  • We shouldn't have laws forbidding bad taste (Score:5, Insightful)

    by FearUncertaintyDoubt ( 578295 ) on Thursday July 10, 2003 @10:39PM (#6412028)
    I think it is poor form to have a video game depict the killing of law enforcement officers. I think it is bad taste to have a video game depict the killing of innocent bystanders. Or even criminals. Generally speaking, I don't think it's healthy for one's soul to engage in killing, fantasy or otherwise.

    But neither do I say that people do not have the right to depict such things, or make them into video games. And everyone has the right to buy such things, if they want them, and to sell them, if they desire. We cannot legislate morality, because it loses the virtue of being voluntary, and ceases to be morality.

    I intend to teach my children that violence is always a terrible thing, even when it is necessary (I am not saying that it is not necessary). I hope that they will choose not to partake of such things, but I do not wish for a law to make that so.

  • Magic Talismans (Score:5, Insightful)

    by russotto ( 537200 ) on Thursday July 10, 2003 @10:59PM (#6412111) Journal
    They're trying to use the "minor" word to ward off the First Amendment; as every censor knows, the courts will give lots of latitude in restricting what minors hear and see.

    But they inadvertantly invoked an opposite talisman, that of political speech. A restriction against violent games can be argued to be one of those permissable "time, place, and manner" restrictions, particularly when applied to minors. But a restriction against games with violence _against police officers_ is viewpoint restriction; the viewpoint that cops and other authority figures are scum who ought to be shot is obviously not one most people would want minors exposed to, but it IS a political viewpoint, and thus should be subject to full protection, even for minors.

  • cop killa? (Score:3, Insightful)

    by resignator ( 670173 ) on Thursday July 10, 2003 @11:05PM (#6412142)
    If they can ban a video game that depicts killing a cop shouldnt they ban it from all entertainment? Does anyone actually believe this could save a cops life? I know, lets ask a few cop killers and see if a video game was the deciding factor.

  • The basic point of this bill... (Score:4, Insightful)

    by diabolus_in_america ( 159981 ) on Thursday July 10, 2003 @11:05PM (#6412143) Journal
    is that "our kids are bad, and something is to blame." Violent video games are just the something du jour. It boils down to the fact that parents, legislators and teachers are trying to deny the fact that they are clueless when it comes to the rash of violent incidents involving teenagers. They must rally to some cause, else they would be forced to look to themselves for answers and solutions. Introspection and awareness are anathema for most politicians and many teachers and parents. It is so much easier to find something to blame. Better even when they find something to blame, like the video game industry, which doesn't have a well-established lobbying effort in Congress and the state legislatures.
    This bill, or one akin to it, will eventually be passed. First, in a state legislature, and then, when the shootings and spree killings continue, by Congress. There's too much momemtum to it from those in power.
    The intriguing (and possibly scary) question is this: when this bill is made law, and the killings don't stop, what are these cowards going to blame next?

  • Regardless of the Laws... (Score:4, Insightful)

    by under_score ( 65824 ) <mishkin@be[ ]ig.com ['rte' in gap]> on Thursday July 10, 2003 @11:19PM (#6412186) Homepage

    I know from my own anecdotal evidence that children are adversely affected by violence they are exposed to. Violence can be as innocuous as name-calling in family-rated cartoons. Or it can be as brutal as sexual abuse by a parent. Either way, a child learns the violence will act it out. My own two young children are only exposed to a tiny amount of violence compared to most children (we do not have a TV, and we very carefully select their movies and games), but still they both play with guns and swords. My wife and I try our best both through example and through our words to teach them to be gentle and loving... and at the same time not to shelter them completely, but it is a real struggle. Seeing their personalities and behavior change as a result of environmental violence is a real tragedy.

    Regardless of any laws, either rational or irrational, parents have the first responsibility to their children. However, being a parent in a society which does not support parenting makes the job almost impossible to do properly. Laws might be able to help...

    • Re:Regardless of the Laws... (Score:4, Insightful)

      by AvengerXP ( 660081 ) <jeanfrancois,beaulieu&mckesson,ca> on Thursday July 10, 2003 @11:23PM (#6412205)
      Violence is in all of us, and its a basic instinct. I duke it out in Street Fighter or other equivalents, and i have never been in a real "fight". You cant say that because kids play with wooden sticks like guns that they are violent. I played with water guns when i was little, and i havent killed anyone or done anything wrong in my life. Your arguments are dubious. I'm sure you mean well, but you're overprotective.

      • Actually, that's a good point and I neglected to address it. I too played with pretend guns, played violent video games, etc. as a child and youth. And yet, I am an exceptionally non-violent person. I have never been in a real fight, and I can count the times I have yelled at someone out of anger.

        But that still leaves a question: if I learned about violence from my environment, how did I also learn to be peaceful, how did that choice happen if it was a choice? And then, what are my responsibilities as

    • Re:Regardless of the Laws... (Score:4, Funny)

      by ShieldW0lf ( 601553 ) on Thursday July 10, 2003 @11:50PM (#6412361) Journal
      Just remember, when my kid kicks your kids ass, it's gonna be YOUR fault.

    • Re:Regardless of the Laws... (Score:4, Insightful)

      by IthnkImParanoid ( 410494 ) on Friday July 11, 2003 @01:00AM (#6412659)
      What exactly is your anecdotal evidence? Children played with guns and swords before TV was invented. What I don't understand is why playing a video game is so fundamentally different than playing samurai or cops and robbers. The violence is there. Either the pixels fall over and "die" or your friend does, so the same feedback is given. Do a bunch of red pixels carry that much psychological impact?

      Regardless, anecdotal evidence is highly suspicious. I have a cousin who has played DOOM-like games since he was way too young to be playing them, and he started demonstrating serious violent tendencies, which made me think video games might affect that sort of thing after all. Turns out he is seriously bipolar (among other things) and demonstrated symptoms at a much earlier age, but no one paid attention.
  • Hey wouldn't it be better if there was a game that splattered gamers, hackers, junkies, and other politically correct targets. The only shooters were sneaky upwardly mobile polititions? Now that would be a killer game! The ultimate goal would be to gain enough voter brownie points to be elected to congress.

  • The real effect of the law (Score:3, Insightful)

    by compiler e rror ( 676349 ) on Thursday July 10, 2003 @11:30PM (#6412254)
    All the law's going to do is encourage piracy, since kids can't get violent games via legal means.

  • Singling out law enforcement officers (Score:4, Insightful)

    by mkweise ( 629582 ) on Friday July 11, 2003 @01:45AM (#6412786)
    ...makes no sense. If the proponents of this law believe - as they apparently do - that virtual violence causes real violence, why on earth would they stop at protecting law enforcement officers therefrom? In my day, it was women and children that we sought to protect from violence: In fact, I thought that's what we invented police for to begin with!

    Not to mention space aliens: imagine the war that might get started one day, if the first emissary of the Galactic Federation to land on Earth gets his head blown off in an FPS-inspired, xenophobic killing rampage.

  • I thank the Party for saving us from the evils of (Score:3, Insightful)

    by Rogerborg ( 306625 ) on Friday July 11, 2003 @04:53AM (#6413258) Homepage
    Thoughtcrime [newspeakdictionary.com]. Thinkmaking a Party member an unperson without upsub is plus ungood.

  • Why pick on retailers? (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Rogerborg ( 306625 ) on Friday July 11, 2003 @05:57AM (#6413405) Homepage

    The intent of this law is to stop kiddies getting their hands on CopHunter Xtreme, right? It's not to allow parents to decide, because the State has already a priori decided that CopHunter Xtreme is bad. So, put your legislative balls where your preaching mouth is. Ban all traffic to minors in these games.

    Yes, you heard me. Make it illegal to give a copy to, or allow a minor to play, CopHunter Xtreme. Ban it in the stores, ban it in the home. Give the SWAT teams a break from saving stoners from themselves, and have them kick down doors and drag Susie Homemaker screaming into the street for all to see. Bad Susie! Little Johnnie was sneaking into the basement to play his daddy's copy of CopHunter Xtreme, and you didn't stop him. Bad Susie!

    Remember how we sneered at the Soviet Union for making its citizens spy on and denounce each other? How we scoffed at their culture of denying personal freedom, personal choice, and even the opportunity to accept personal responsibility.

    Now we have retailers who are responsible for their customers going nutso after playing games. Tobacco companies are held accountable for the health effects of a product that the government still refuses to ban. Gun makers are sued for allowing people to uphold their Constitutionally protected rights. Bartenders are held responsible for their patrons' drunk driving. Stores are to blame for ice forming on their sidewalks. We make manufacturers pay (and pass on the bill) to the tune of $350 billion a year [awb.org] for not making their products idiot proof. What's next? Hey, let's go after librarians for not reporting when people take out seditious books. I mean, after USA PATRIOT we can find out anyway, so what are those spectacle wearing subversives doing trying to cover it up, huh? That's wasting valuable State resources, right there.

    ACLU, get with the program. When the state creates or allows laws that make anyone responsible for the actions or potential actions of another, that's a priori infringement of their liberties right there. Lower courts aren't dealing with this. Legislatures aren't dealing with this.

    Let's take it to the Supremes. Let's make it clear once and for all, that you and only you are responsible for your safety and your actions. Warranty not included, disclaimer not necessary.

Slashdot Top Deals

The use of money is all the advantage there is to having money. -- B. Franklin

Close