Illinois Video Game Law Ruled Unconstitutional

[Onea]

Gamepolitics.com (http://www.gamepolitics.com/) is reporting that the U.S. District Court Judge Matthew Kennelly has ruled in favor of the video game industry in its suit against the Safe Games Illinois Act.

In reading his ruling, Judge Kennelly obviously grasped what games are about:

"Video games are one of the newest and most popular forms of artistic expression. They most resemble films and television shows by telling stories through pictures, text, and sound, but they also parallel popular books, such as the Choose Your Own Adventure series, which enable readers to make decisions about how the plot and characters will develop. Video games are generally designed to entertain players and viewers, but they can also inform and advocate viewpoints. They are therefore considered protected expression under the First Amendment. See Am. Amusement Machine Ass'n v. Kendrick, 244 F.3d 572, 579 (7th Cir. 2001)."
Link (http://www.livejournal.com/users/gamepolitics/148962.html#cutid1) for more details.

Edit: CNN (http://www.cnn.com/2005/TECH/fun.games/12/02/game.ban.ap/index.html) is now reporting this as well.

[Reanimated]

Another win for the good guys.

[B_Money]

I for one am glad our Judical system occasionally protects us from legistrators' inflicthing crazy laws on us. Although it would be nice of the elected officials were smart enough to make thier laws constitutional, but really, why would I expect congress to be smart?

[JazGalaxy]

Another win for the good guys.

Yeah, because exploitave game manufacturers are the good guys...

[AspectVoid]

Yeah, because exploitave game manufacturers are the good guys...

Hey, good guys don't always wear white, you know. It doesn't really matter who advocated the cause, the fact is that an issue I feel is important (freedom of speach) was upheld. I am for any decision that protects it. The fact is when 1 item gets banned, it begins a long, slippery sloap to where all of our rights of free speach can be removed.

[F3nyx]

Yeah, because exploitave game manufacturers are the good guys...Firstly, what makes game manufacturers so "exploitative"? And secondly, I think that Reanimated was referring more to gamers in general, as well as anybody concerned about 1st Amendment rights.

This is great news. The judge's statement shows that he has a solid understanding of games... I wish I'd thought of the "Choose Your Own Adventure" analogy myself. However, I'm afraid his understanding his games is probably exceptional among judges... if federal game regulations ever go to the Supreme Court, who knows what'll happen.

[Citizen Philip]

Firstly, what makes game manufacturers so "exploitative"?

Games made him fail school, lose his job and family. It wasn't his fault he had a personality prone to addiction, it was the game.

[homunculus]

...if federal game regulations ever go to the Supreme Court, who knows what'll happen.
Easy, they'll ban abortions!

Err... wrong thread.

But in all seriousness, this is quite an exceptional ruling. He obviously did his homework about the subject. Hooray!

[Murat]

damn thats going out on a limb compared to decisions that have been made in the past via video gaming

[JazGalaxy]

Firstly, what makes game manufacturers so "exploitative"? And secondly, I think that Reanimated was referring more to gamers in general, as well as anybody concerned about 1st Amendment rights.


Most if not all of the developers putting out the games that the groups are upset about are exploitive. Frankly, I think the fact the law was overturned on the grounds of being unconsitutional is ridiculous, and from my admittedly unschooled understanding of law, misguided. How is banning the sales of games rated for those above the age of 17 to those under seventeen even approaching encroaching upon a game manufacturers freedom of speech? And the law has established that the constituion does not apply to children, so how in the world does keeping them from buying materials deemed unsuitable for them violate their constitutional rights? They can't buy pornography either, which is also protected under the freedom of speech guidelines.

The whole thing is exploitive because game manufacturers are intentionally targeting audiances too young for the games they make, and are having their "right" to do so upheld in court.

The first time I really started to get upset about it back in the mid ninties when the Sega Saturn was about to come out. I remember, in Gamepro magazine, they had an advertisement with a woman who was naked except for tiny little blurry boxes of saturn games covering her genetalia. In text on the advert it said "Believe it or not there's actually a naked woman on this page", the conept being, I suppose, that gamers were so transfixed by the tiny sega saturn boxes that they were missing the naked woman. This is Gamepro magazine, a magazine who states that thier readership demographic is elementary school and jr highschool kids. That's just sick.

I think people have grown far to accepting of capitalism and it's attempts to sell us things, and trick us into buying things. Corporations have strived for so long to convince us that they're on our side, but in actuality they don't care about us at all, and they will do anything to take our money. The fact that people will actually allow corporations around their children, and fight for their right to prey on children, boggles my mind.

My dad was a tax lawyer for Shell Oil for a very long time. One of his managers once told him "To tell me what the law is? Heck, that's a C. Anybody can tell me what the law is. Now you tell me how to avoid PAYING what the law tells me to pay? That's an A." I don't for a second think game manufacturers are going to court to preserve everyones civil rights. They could easily do the same via a civil group and save their own money. No, they are fighting in court to sell M games to children, and we cheer when they win.

[Expugnare]

Most if not all of the developers putting out the games that the groups are upset about are exploitive. Frankly, I think the fact the law was overturned on the grounds of being unconsitutional is ridiculous, and from my admittedly unschooled understanding of law, misguided. How is banning the sales of games rated for those above the age of 17 to those under seventeen even approaching encroaching upon a game manufacturers freedom of speech? And the law has established that the constituion does not apply to children, so how in the world does keeping them from buying materials deemed unsuitable for them violate their constitutional rights? They can't buy pornography either, which is also protected under the freedom of speech guidelines.

The whole thing is exploitive because game manufacturers are intentionally targeting audiances too young for the games they make, and are having their "right" to do so upheld in court.

The first time I really started to get upset about it back in the mid ninties when the Sega Saturn was about to come out. I remember, in Gamepro magazine, they had an advertisement with a woman who was naked except for tiny little blurry boxes of saturn games covering her genetalia. In text on the advert it said "Believe it or not there's actually a naked woman on this page", the conept being, I suppose, that gamers were so transfixed by the tiny sega saturn boxes that they were missing the naked woman. This is Gamepro magazine, a magazine who states that thier readership demographic is elementary school and jr highschool kids. That's just sick.

I think people have grown far to accepting of capitalism and it's attempts to sell us things, and trick us into buying things. Corporations have strived for so long to convince us that they're on our side, but in actuality they don't care about us at all, and they will do anything to take our money. The fact that people will actually allow corporations around their children, and fight for their right to prey on children, boggles my mind.

My dad was a tax lawyer for Shell Oil for a very long time. One of his managers once told him "To tell me what the law is? Heck, that's a C. Anybody can tell me what the law is. Now you tell me how to avoid PAYING what the law tells me to pay? That's an A." I don't for a second think game manufacturers are going to court to preserve everyones civil rights. They could easily do the same via a civil group and save their own money. No, they are fighting in court to sell M games to children, and we cheer when they win.
So you want all violent videogames to stop being made? For one thing people under 17 can't buy M rated games at most places. One of the popular magazines that I get (either GameInformer, CGW, or OXM) had an underage kid go into various stores and try to buy an M rated game. The employees at all of the stores would not let him buy them.
Yes I agree that such an ad shouldn't have been in a magazine, but I'm pretty sure that not too many elementary kids read gaming magazines. Well I did but I was weird :p I was one of the few early gamers at my school. And I played some M rated games :eek: but I did not turn out to be excessivly violent even while I played GTA. Actually I think playing these games made me less prone to violence because it was a way to vent anger. If I've had a rough day I'll fire up GTA and go kill some things. And playing these games led farther down the path to maturity. While friends were still cracking fart jokes I was going, "That's retarded."
Yes now everyone come on tell me what hoorors I have just written.

[JazGalaxy]

I don't think all violent games should cease being made. As I tend to write every single time I write one of these things.. I really like GTA. Some of my favorite comic books are Powers and 100 Bullets, if you read comic books, and those are both very violent and very graphic. But, they're also both very intelligent and very artfully done.

I just don't feel as though the general attitude of the gaming community about these protection laws make any sense. I think I actually read that same article in Computer Gaming World that you did. Was it the one with the full page shot of those kids hoisting two copies of SOldier of Fortune II above their heads outside of the Best Buy like the Best Buy ads? (That shot was hilarious) If so, I got a very different read out of the arcticle. They were basically saying that is was overly EASY for young people to get a hold of the games.

I feel very much as though a number of these games, and when I say these games I'm mostly talking about the BMX XXX, Leisure Suit Larry, and Outlaw Volleyball type games, are the... and I hate to use this phrase... "dirty little secret" of the game industry. I say this because in most reviews in most magazines they will mention lines like "the game is clearly targeted torward pre pubescent boys" and "the charachters are a preteen boys fantasy", make numerous allusions to the fact that the only people who will really enjoy the game are adolecent boys, and then out of the other side of their mouth, pretend that the ESRB does a good job and the industry is fine.

In fact, most american gaming magazines spend most of their tiem glorifying mature content, and when they can't find any mature content to glorify, trying to pretend there is mature content in games that don't have it, (I have a game informer from last month where one of the reviewers says some pretty downright creepy things about Princess Toadstool...) yet they will have letters in their letter colums that say things like "HI! I'm 12 and I love your magazine! I'm writing to ask if the next GTA is going to let me rape hookers! I want to rape hookers!!!"

Okay, exaggeration, but you know what I mean. They know teens and preteens read their magazines. They know teens and preteens play those games. To, then, try and act like they don't gives me the vibe that they are saying there is no problem because they are trying to gloss over the bottom line which is that they don't care.

Saying "the ESRB is doing a good job" is entirely different from saying "I really don't care if the ESRB is doing a good job or not. I just don't want the government to take away my pervert games."

And frankly, as a gamer these games upset me because each poor yet titalting game that is made and sells well means that's one less quality game that could be made and actually enjoyed.

[EternalGamer]

So you want all violent videogames to stop being made?

What in the hell is a matter with you? You managed to completely and totally miss everything the guy was saying. Apparently either a) you did not even bother to take the time to read what he said before replying or b) you are an idiot who cannot read. Neither option puts you in a very good light.

Dan

[Citizen Philip]

I heard you can gawdurn lookit nekkid women on der intarweb, en' if you can e'fferd cable TV you can gawdun see people get shooted up and see dem tiddys too!

[EternalGamer]

Yes, I'm sure many poor defenseless children grew up to be axe-murderer serial rapists because of that advertisement. What is this world coming too?

Or maybe they grew up to be gamers with attention deficit disorder who have no idea how to respond to an argument with any degree of subtly to it? The point is that the product is "supposedly" not designed for children. Why is it then, that everyone gets up in arms when that is simply trying to be enforced? If you think Doug Lowenstein, the ESA, or anyone else on the publishing side of things is really concerned with preserving "free speech" for minors, well, I don't even know how to respond to that level of naivety.

Dan

[koopy]

Great decision and explanation.

If this was passed, why stop or even start at video games? There are more violent or sexual content in movies than games available for sale. Lets make it against the law to sell R-rated movies to kids under 18. But, its okay by federal law to enlist in the army at 17 and kill people on the battlefield for real. Your kids can even download the American Army game for free and learn how to accurately kill people in multiplayer from a game created by the government. They even hard set the birthdate years dropdown list range from 1971 to 1987 so anyone can download it.

Sure, there are games, movies, magazines, books, etc that I wouldn't buy my kids and I try to teach my kids not to be mindless consumers. But, why would video games deserve special treatment from the government to ban selling to minors? I'm sure most teenage boys already know what beer tastes like and how to download porn.

[Reanimated]

Christians... can't live with 'em... can't go GTA on 'em.

[JazGalaxy]

you can't prove that pornography is dangerous either, and yet children are not allowed to buy it. You are not allowed to sell it to them. If you give it to them to view, you can go to jail. Etc.

Are all M rated games the same as pornography? Of course not. Are some? I'd say potentially yes, if we are to take the tack that pornography is illegal to minors because it potentially psychologically harmful.

[DeadlyDonkey]

you can't prove that pornography is dangerous either, and yet children are not allowed to buy it. You are not allowed to sell it to them. If you give it to them to view, you can go to jail. Etc.

Are all M rated games the same as pornography? Of course not. Are some? I'd say potentially yes, if we are to take the tack that pornography is illegal to minors because it potentially psychologically harmful.

If you're going down that route, then what about movies? And TV?

There's some pretty heavy violence and sexual content in some movies, yet they aren't restricted to sell to minors.

Not that I'm trying to change the subject, but if you were for movie restriction as well then your viewpoint would make a lot more sense.

Oh, and I live in England. Over here we have the voluntary rating system, which isn't legally binding (e.g 11+ game, but this is just advisory, anybody of any age can still buy it), then for almost all games that get the higher ratings on the voluntary system also get rated by the BBFC, the same group who do our age certifications for movies, tv shows etc. These are legally binding, so games like GTA and Leisure Suit Larry (which isn't as purile as many people make it, it's a game version of American Pie really) get rated 18, so only people aged 18 and over can buy these games.

Problem is, parents still buy the games for their kids, which is why age classification systems never work totally.

[Lutheran]

Please , some commercials even show way way worse then that girl in the magazine article..that girl had more of her covered by those games then if she was wearing a bikini. And most game mags do cater to young teen to adult but if you think most boys who are 13 years old don't already look at girls and drool then you don't remember your childhood. Do I want underage kids having access to pr0n , no. But there isn't a game out there in the market place that they shouldn't be allowed to play. By the time they are 10 they have seen wayyyy worse on tv or in the movies or in school. A normal kid can tell the difference between reality and fantasy , between real life and a gaming enviornment. For the kids that can't well letting them play games is the least of our worries.

[TKO]

What in the hell is a matter with you? You managed to completely and totally miss everything the guy was saying. Apparently either a) you did not even bother to take the time to read what he said before replying or b) you are an idiot who cannot read. Neither option puts you in a very good light.
Hehe .. agreed. They totally missed the point of the post. And though I did disagree with some of the points of the original, rather long, post ..damn, it was a well-reasoned bit of text. I wanted to write some counterpoints, but he justified his stuff too well! Dammit. ..a well-reasoned forum post. What's the internet comming to?

[AspectVoid]

Most if not all of the developers putting out the games that the groups are upset about are exploitive. Frankly, I think the fact the law was overturned on the grounds of being unconsitutional is ridiculous, and from my admittedly unschooled understanding of law, misguided. How is banning the sales of games rated for those above the age of 17 to those under seventeen even approaching encroaching upon a game manufacturers freedom of speech? And the law has established that the constituion does not apply to children, so how in the world does keeping them from buying materials deemed unsuitable for them violate their constitutional rights? They can't buy pornography either, which is also protected under the freedom of speech guidelines.

It IS a free speach issue, though. What the judge said is that videogames are a form of entertainment that is in line with movies, music, and television. Because all of these other similar forms of entertainment are alright to sell to children, it is illegal for the government to restrict one of the voices of entertainment, video games. Now, if the government passed a law that said any store that sells M rated games or R rated move, CDs with Parental Warning stickers on them, or publicly shows television shows rated M to minors, they will be fined, it would be okay.

And as for Porn, that's why there is an AO category for videogames. You never see them in stores because stores don't carry them.


The whole thing is exploitive because game manufacturers are intentionally targeting audiances too young for the games they make, and are having their "right" to do so upheld in court.


So does the movie industry with R rated movies, and the music industry with music that's listed with Parental Warnings. Why should you get pissed that the video game industry does the same, but ignore those two industries?


The first time I really started to get upset about it back in the mid ninties when the Sega Saturn was about to come out. I remember, in Gamepro magazine, they had an advertisement with a woman who was naked except for tiny little blurry boxes of saturn games covering her genetalia. In text on the advert it said "Believe it or not there's actually a naked woman on this page", the conept being, I suppose, that gamers were so transfixed by the tiny sega saturn boxes that they were missing the naked woman. This is Gamepro magazine, a magazine who states that thier readership demographic is elementary school and jr highschool kids. That's just sick.


No sicker then back in the 80s when Calvin Kline dressed up some 13 year old girl in their jeans and had her pose in sexually suggestive ways. Actually, its a hell of a lot less sick then that. Its also no worse then those comercials for Overstock where they have a woman who they infer is naked talking about the store. Or the beer comercials where the two women rip off each others clothes in a cat fat in a public fountain. Or that shampoo comercial that suggests that women who use their shampoo get an orgasm.


I think people have grown far to accepting of capitalism and it's attempts to sell us things, and trick us into buying things. Corporations have strived for so long to convince us that they're on our side, but in actuality they don't care about us at all, and they will do anything to take our money. The fact that people will actually allow corporations around their children, and fight for their right to prey on children, boggles my mind.


Actually, I believe its the parent's responsibility to decide what their children should see and do, and its their responsibility to punish their children when they break the rules. What I see these laws doing, not just restricting a right, but removing from parents the responsibility to be just that, Parents.


My dad was a tax lawyer for Shell Oil for a very long time. One of his managers once told him "To tell me what the law is? Heck, that's a C. Anybody can tell me what the law is. Now you tell me how to avoid PAYING what the law tells me to pay? That's an A." I don't for a second think game manufacturers are going to court to preserve everyones civil rights. They could easily do the same via a civil group and save their own money. No, they are fighting in court to sell M games to children, and we cheer when they win.

Of COURSE they're not going to court to preserve everyone's civil rights. The fact is, though, that that is exactly what they do. Just because its a side effect doesn't mean its a bad thing.[/quote]

Oh, and once more, I think your opinion is removing responsibility from the parents. I have friends who were allowed to watch R rated movies when they were 8 if their parents were there. I was allowed to watch R rated movies when I was 11 if my folks were there. Its a parent's responsibility to take care of their kids and what they view. Not the governments.

[GunnyMo]

"With these limited findings, it is impossible to know which way the causal relationship runs: it may be that aggressive children may also be attracted to violent video games."

That has to be one of the most intelligent statements I've read in this whole controversy yet. It goes soley to the fact that these moral groups are trying to blame an end result instead of the root cause.

I find it incredibly ignorant that all of these politicians and moral groups still have not done this one thing: actually talked to retailers to find out how kids are getting these games. I would venture to say that 95% of the time it is the parents who approve each and everyone of these sales. It almost makes me wish they did make it illegal to sell these to minors so that when a parent does buy it for their child they are the ones who are responsible as it should be.

[TrackZero]

So you want all violent videogames to stop being made? For one thing people under 17 can't buy M rated games at most places. One of the popular magazines that I get (either GameInformer, CGW, or OXM) had an underage kid go into various stores and try to buy an M rated game. The employees at all of the stores would not let him buy them.
Yes I agree that such an ad shouldn't have been in a magazine, but I'm pretty sure that not too many elementary kids read gaming magazines. Well I did but I was weird :p I was one of the few early gamers at my school. And I played some M rated games :eek: but I did not turn out to be excessivly violent even while I played GTA. Actually I think playing these games made me less prone to violence because it was a way to vent anger. If I've had a rough day I'll fire up GTA and go kill some things. And playing these games led farther down the path to maturity. While friends were still cracking fart jokes I was going, "That's retarded."
Yes now everyone come on tell me what hoorors I have just written.

Not to mention the fact that this law would have nothing to do with an advertisement in a magazine, whether it passed or not.

[Quaestor]

Say what you will of the intentions of game companies, but you can't deny that this law, and others like it, are nothing but moral protectionism on the part of the government. It is, or is at least uncomfortably close to, a gross violation of civil rights and everything the Constitution was written for. It doesn't matter what corporations want, or whether selling violent media to children is "immoral", what matters is that legislation, on any level, on what is essentially a moral issue comes perilously close to violating the First Amendment in all sorts of ways.

[Lint of Death]

So, I guess video games are an art form. :)

[JazGalaxy]

Well, just because I don't specifically mention movies or music doesn't mean I don't feel the same way about them. Personally I'm a really big adversary of the " You say X is wrong, but Y is also wrong, and we're not talking about that, so... X must be right" line of reasoning. For example, "Why are we talking about building a stop sign at the corner where all the wrecks happen when we SHOULD be concerned about fighting a way in Iraq!" or "Movies like The Faces of Death are worse than videogames, so why don't you care about that?"

I do care about those too, but this is currently about videogames. Personally I think it's the whole industry which is the issue, and as I mentioned before, capitalism in general. I remember when Emenem released his first album, he did so with a completly inocuous video where he dressed up in colorful costumes and spoofed current events and pop culture. A little young blond smart alec kid singing about what his name is. The video resonated with preteen and teen kids, and then they got the album and... total bait and switch. Purely coincidence, possibly, but the next album proves that it wasn't. Apparently Eminem submitted a full album to Dr. Dre without one of those inocuous pre teen friendly songs, and Dr. Dre basically made him go back and write one, which turned out to be that "will the real slim shady please stand up" song. Again with a colorful fun video. He didi it again with his next album and that song about it feeling "so empty without me". Lots of costumes, color and things generally attractive to children. I think those "kids bop" or whatever they call those albums, even covered all three of those songs.

So, yeah, I do think there's enough blame to go around, and I think it really goes back to how you can't trust corporations with your children. They think personal responsibility means "cover your @$$". If what they're doing can't be punishable by a court of law, they think they're okay. They give a few dollars to build a park and they think theyr'e downright charitable. But they're still stealing bundles of money, exploiting workers (see Electronic Arts), and dumping toxic barrels of mutagen ooze in the sewer systems (also see Electronic Arts).

I'm not saying I personally agree with this particular Illonois law, but I am saying that I feel that there is a problem that is not being addressed. people say that it's up to the parent to parent their children, I say yes it Is. I fully agree. But they don't, so now what? Do you just write those children off? They don't matter because their parents never wanted to have children anyways?

I agree completely that most "normal" children can tell right and wrong, but I also believe that most normal children are the ones who's parents took an active role in keeping this kind of content away from their children. If child grows up being told nothing but moral ambiguity from videogames movies and television, why is there any reason to think their morals also won't be ambiguous? Is there something inherent to humanity that makes everyone inherently good regardless of what they grow up doing, watching, listening to? (Believe it or not, I had someone recently trying to argue that every human genetically knows right from wrong.)

I feel that if we do not hold parents responsible for raising children, and we're saying "it's none of the governments business what happens to children" then we're leaving it to the corporations to do, and corporations will raise them to be consumers and nothing else. They don't care if they're smart, well adjusted, or productive, all they care about is whether they have enough money to buy the products, and in most cases whether they feel badly enough about themselves to constantly need to buy things to improve themselves. And if they can get them addicted to things? So much the better. Beer, cigarettes, pornography... whatever it takes.

Are these the guys we want to be cheering for when they win in court?

[TrackZero]

Well, just because I don't specifically mention movies or music doesn't mean I don't feel the same way about them. Personally I'm a really big adversary of the " You say X is wrong, but Y is also wrong, and we're not talking about that, so... X must be right" line of reasoning. For example, "Why are we talking about building a stop sign at the corner where all the wrecks happen when we SHOULD be concerned about fighting a way in Iraq!" or "Movies like The Faces of Death are worse than videogames, so why don't you care about that?"

Now that's just quite the jump, discussing mandatory rating/selling systems across video games, movies and music is a parallel. A stop sign and Iraq? You're just grasping at straws to fill out your argument.


I do care about those too, but this is currently about videogames. Personally I think it's the whole industry which is the issue, and as I mentioned before, capitalism in general. I remember when Emenem released his first album, he did so with a completly inocuous video where he dressed up in colorful costumes and spoofed current events and pop culture. A little young blond smart alec kid singing about what his name is. The video resonated with preteen and teen kids, and then they got the album and... total bait and switch. Purely coincidence, possibly, but the next album proves that it wasn't. Apparently Eminem submitted a full album to Dr. Dre without one of those inocuous pre teen friendly songs, and Dr. Dre basically made him go back and write one, which turned out to be that "will the real slim shady please stand up" song. Again with a colorful fun video. He didi it again with his next album and that song about it feeling "so empty without me". Lots of costumes, color and things generally attractive to children. I think those "kids bop" or whatever they call those albums, even covered all three of those songs.

So, yeah, I do think there's enough blame to go around, and I think it really goes back to how you can't trust corporations with your children. They think personal responsibility means "cover your @$$". If what they're doing can't be punishable by a court of law, they think they're okay. They give a few dollars to build a park and they think theyr'e downright charitable. But they're still stealing bundles of money, exploiting workers (see Electronic Arts), and dumping toxic barrels of mutagen ooze in the sewer systems (also see Electronic Arts).

Apparently you're under the impression that children are completely defenseless with regards to the media. That:

a) Their parents aren't doing a damn thing to control what they interact with or explain/discuss issues with them in context.

b) The kids are too stupid themselves to see through the hype (even though they're exposed to it continually, and are well versed on how the "system" works, moreso than any kids in previous generations).

c) That interaction with said media will turn the kids into mindless zombies who are then under the lure of their capitalist masters.

You're also then pulling in a new issue from left field regarding your feelings towards corporations moral standings. Anyone with experience working for corporations can tell you they vary widely across the board (just like people, how's about that?). But the fact of the matter is, a company is nothing more than a group of people and I certainly wouldn't be trusting a literal "mob" of people to educate my kids. Noone should expect them to.

By and large in the entertainment industry, they do just that, entertain. Not every story needs a moral lesson, sometimes the tale itself is just what's important, and how the story is told. Or just a connection with some elements of the characters involved. That doesn't mean people take literal interpretation of what they see to be a proper code of conduct. When I see a junkie in a movie shoot up, it doesn't mean I'm going to want to do that too. Even firing guns. I LOVE guns in movies. However, I've never even picked one up in real life, nor do I ever intend to. It's virtual. If you can't see that, maybe you're the one with the problem, because the majority of society has been getting along just fine for the last 50 years without going crazy. In fact, violent crime is at an all time low in North America, which, funnily enough, it's decrease corresponds with the introduction of video games to the public.


I'm not saying I personally agree with this particular Illonois law, but I am saying that I feel that there is a problem that is not being addressed. people say that it's up to the parent to parent their children, I say yes it Is. I fully agree. But they don't, so now what? Do you just write those children off? They don't matter because their parents never wanted to have children anyways?

I agree completely that most "normal" children can tell right and wrong, but I also believe that most normal children are the ones who's parents took an active role in keeping this kind of content away from their children. If child grows up being told nothing but moral ambiguity from videogames movies and television, why is there any reason to think their morals also won't be ambiguous? Is there something inherent to humanity that makes everyone inherently good regardless of what they grow up doing, watching, listening to? (Believe it or not, I had someone recently trying to argue that every human genetically knows right from wrong.)

I think you'll find the majority of nutballs out there come from families that were "fucked" in the first place (not with a lack of proper upbringing, so much as one with abuse and negativity in their childhood). Media content didn't do anything that change that. I would say that the only component of our entertainment system that does contribute to gross spectacles such as Columbine and the like is the infatuation with fame and the news media (which is completely seperate from the pre-generated entertainment that the movie, music and games studios put out). The fact of the matter is, if the news media across the board agreed not to show stories about shootings, you'd see a decrease, as many of these incidents are caused by people who are looking for attention in the first place. If the outlet didn't exist for them to become famous for their actions, it would likely never occur on the scale that it does (though I'm sure they'd still kill someone, just at a smaller venue).


I feel that if we do not hold parents responsible for raising children, and we're saying "it's none of the governments business what happens to children" then we're leaving it to the corporations to do, and corporations will raise them to be consumers and nothing else. They don't care if they're smart, well adjusted, or productive, all they care about is whether they have enough money to buy the products, and in most cases whether they feel badly enough about themselves to constantly need to buy things to improve themselves. And if they can get them addicted to things? So much the better. Beer, cigarettes, pornography... whatever it takes.

Are these the guys we want to be cheering for when they win in court?

The problem exists in the execution of responsibility. For example, if a parent is charged when the child commits a crime, you're immediately giving a child power over their guardian to be abused. If the child isn't getting what it wants, it can simply commit a crime on purpose to punish the parent, which is a warped mindset to give a child.

With regards to a child having simply no upbringing at all and being left the mercy of "the system", you're completely leaving out the public education system's role. There's no reason we couldn't have classes taught in school, letting kids know about how public relations works, how to analyze advertising and to take a role on themselves to decide their goals in life and how to acheieve them (guidance councellor anyone?). Aside from that though, kids are already taught how to properly interpret stories and the underlying content in English class (or Lit, whatever it's called at your school).

As a society, it's up to us to put some social programs in place to help the disadvantaged, this includes those who may be maljusted, not just the poor or needy. A pure capitalistic or socialist society never works, but North America suceeds because we try to strike a balance between these systems. It's not perfect, but it's pretty damn good. To put the responsibility for living one's life on a media company is just plain silly. They merely offer a entertainment service, nothing more. In the end, parents aside, it's just down to nature whether people will succeed or not in the world.

Parents can do what they can, society can help, but if someone's got a chemical imbalance in their head, they're going to go loco regardless if they played GTA or not. All these regulations are doing is screwing over every other kid out there who can handle their media properly.

Oh, and lastly, don't try to tie in chemical stimulants (beer, cigarettes) as an addictive parallel to a mental addiction to video games, we've already gone over that discussion here (http://www.evilavatar.com/forums/showthread.php?t=7169&page=1&pp=10) and it's widely agreed they are not the same thing.

Edit: Now that I'm sure I've wasted a whole whack of time typing that up (as I'm sure I won't change anyone's opinion), time for some shuteye...dang nightshifts.

[AspectVoid]

TrackZero, you kick ass. A lot of ass. Nice post.

[Heretic Machine]

It amazes me that the parents of this generation would not only ignore the strength of their children to reason, but would choose to crush it at every turn just so that they can reach down and pretend to coddle their offspring with feeble hands incapable of guiding them to anything greater.

[DigiWiz]

I suggest everyone who took the "This is stupid, what has banning sales of adult material to minors to do with free speech" position in this discussion to actually read the .pdf with the judges explaination for the ruling on gamepolitics.

Not only it is written in pretty straightforward english with minimal legalese, it explains very clearly why this law is indeed dangerous for free speech, why the judge thinks that the "but would somewone please think of the children" reason given by the governor is a blatant lie and why video games have first amendment protection.

Really, read it, it's a very good read and it helped me to understand many things about the first amendmend that I wasn't clear about earlier. It is indeed frightenting how limited the knowledge of most of us is about what the 1st amendment means and why it is important to us.

Politicians are gambling on the fact that people say "oh, of course it's reasonable to protect the children from violent media, why would anyone oppose" because they are using this snakeoil argument to distract from the real effects such laws would have.

If you used the "but porn is restricted too!" defense in this thread, go, read the ruling, it explains exactly how all this works.

Finally, if you don't feel like reading the pdf, I would suggest to at least open it once and turn your attention to page 48, the discussion of why a naked breast in God of war and suggested sexual activity in there is not unlike similar content in many literature classics and other forms of media and that it would be unconstitutional to single out this particular form of expression with a law like the one proposed.

There are many other very very good statements in the judges explaination, including how shielding children from certain influcences that they will have do deal with when they are 18 is not protecting them, it's stupid and harming their ability to surive on their own later on.

After reading through this tread, I have come to the conclusion that none of the "this is a stupid ruling" posters have actually read the ruling at all. A shame. Please do so, it is a very well written piece that smashes down not only the arguments brought by the party that brought the law forward but also all the outraged posts on this forum.

The ESA statement about the ruling has some nice summary as well.

http://www.theesa.com/archives/2005/12/judge_halts_unc.php


It's kind of fun to see how people invoke Iraq and Terrorism! whenever their position is dismanted as uneducated these days. Talking about a new version of reductio ad Hitlerum (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reductio_ad_Hitlerum)

And yes, I know, it's kind of in fashion to claim that every non consenting opinion is partisan and to ignore it right away, even refuse to even read it - but people displaying this kind of behavior are already lost anyway, they have been conditioned to believe in what one party says and to accept nothing else beside it. "Thou shalt have no other opinion beside mine" and "it's bad to ever change your opinion, you are a flip flop!" seem to be the rule of the game these days. Hitler would be proud.

Uh, wait, did I invoke Godwin (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Godwin's_law). Dong. Game over. I lost. Freedom won.

[mister_slim]

Hey, can anyone tell me what happened to the Blu-Ray story on the front page?

[TrackZero]

Hey, can anyone tell me what happened to the Blu-Ray story on the front page?

blu-ray is so "yesterday", it's all about holographic discs now. ;)

[F3nyx]

The point is that the product is "supposedly" not designed for children. Why is it then, that everyone gets up in arms when that is simply trying to be enforced?Oh, you have got to be kidding me. Not being designed for children, and being completely inaccessible to children, are worlds apart.

You seem to be saying that the government should regulate products based on the manufacturer's opinion. This means, effectively, that the manufacturer makes the laws. So you'd be okay with children playing Grand Quake Tournament as long as the manufacturer claimed it was suitable for children?

Admittedly this is anecdotal, but I rather enjoyed being able to check out adult (i.e. non-juvenile) fiction from the library at age 12. I suppose you'd like to ban that too, just because it's got some vivid descriptions of violence and perky tittays?

And this doesn't even begin to go into the far more obvious constitutional issues, which I'm confident have been / will be explained.

[Paltry]

God this shouldnt even be a debate on any level of anything

Anyone who has ever played a video game in the past 15 years should be able to immediately recognize it as a form of media comparable to television or film or literature

Another 15 years down the line we wont be bothered by news posts like this... with any luck at least

[Eon]

I think the whole point of the case was that games were being treated differently from other mediums for artistic expression. It was absolutely right for the industry to fight the Illinois legislation, on the grounds that ALL protected works should be EQUALLY protected.

It has nothing to do with selling games to minors.

[OUX]

Hell yeah DigiWiz I just finished reading it because I figured that I would *ahem* educate myself on it before posting. Basically the whole thing comes do to the fact that they are trying to slide in two laws, the "Violent Video Game Law" and the "Sexually Explicit Video Game Law". After reading the report it is clear that while the "problem" is based mostly on sloppy research and slanted platforms, these laws wouldn't even do anything to fix it, even if it was a creditable concern. You really should rad it I enjoyed the Doctors' testimony and how they basically said that the other guys research was crap. Nusbaum 4 teh W1N!

[JazGalaxy]

For anyone still paying attention to this thread, I just came back from my local Gamestop where four employees stood behind the counter and sold Prince Of Persia: The Two Thones, which is rated "M" for violence and nudity, to a kid between the ages of 9-11.

Please don't tell me "all game stores check IDs!!!!" anymore. You're flat wrong.

[Eon]

At 31 there really isn't anything illegal that's likely to become legal just because of my age anymore... :(

[DigiWiz]

For anyone still paying attention to this thread, I just came back from my local Gamestop where four employees stood behind the counter and sold Prince Of Persia: The Two Thones, which is rated "M" for violence and nudity, to a kid between the ages of 9-11.

Please don't tell me "all game stores check IDs!!!!" anymore. You're flat wrong.

All people obey the law
All drivers obey the speed limit
All movie theaters enforce the age limit.

See a pattern?