New York Times: Most game-sale restricting laws get shut down

[J.theYellow]

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/08/21/arts/television/21vide.html

As seen on Slashdot Games. States make laws, and courts strike nearly all of them down as unconstitutional, at a uniformity that's rarely seen in law. Of note is the quote from Judge Richard A. Posner:

Violence has always been and remains a central interest of humankind and a recurrent, even obsessive theme of culture both high and low ... It engages the interest of children from an early age, as anyone familiar with the classic fairy tales collected by Grimm, Andersen, and Perrault are aware. To shield children right up to the age of 18 from exposure to violent descriptions and images would not only be quixotic, but deforming; it would leave them unequipped to cope with the world as we know it.

In other words, video games help prepare little children for the horrors of reality.

 

[Andrew Armstrong]

As good in America as any other medium, none of which have government restrictions as far as I know.

Nice to know, since it'd either have to be all, or nothing, regarding American ratings, and they already knock on everywhere in the world.

 

[Archon]

I love Judge Posner. His writing is always a blast.

 

[Andy Chalk]

This is stuff we've seen all along. Louisiana, Illinois, California and others; the laws are made, the laws are struck down. I was under the impression than state legislators typically had at least some experience with stuff like, you know, the law and the constitution and all that, so it bewilders me a bit to see it happening over and over again. California especially; the law was struck down, people from all over the place are telling him to drop it, and yet Schwarzenegger (last I heard) still intends to appeal. Isn't this a fairly black-and-white issue?

 

[Aquilon]

This is stuff we've seen all along. Louisiana, Illinois, California and others; the laws are made, the laws are struck down. I was under the impression than state legislators typically had at least some experience with stuff like, you know, the law and the constitution and all that, so it bewilders me a bit to see it happening over and over again. California especially; the law was struck down, people from all over the place are telling him to drop it, and yet Schwarzenegger (last I heard) still intends to appeal. Isn't this a fairly black-and-white issue?

Most of the legislators are probably very aware of the fact that this will never go through, and that it is a waste of both time and money. However, these same legislators are almost certainly aware of some other things as well.

Gaming, and games, is still viewed with a large amount of skepticism by many.

The age-group which gamers, who usually are the only ones offended by this, belongs to are also one of the (if not the) least likely to vote. As opposed to those who are most concerned about this evil phenomenon.

The legislator can portray himself as one of the few heroes in contemporary society who "thinks about the children", and can hardly be blamed when one of the evil liberal/conservative (take your pick) courts decides not to.

If a bill like this appears on the floor you'd better support it, or else you can easily be labeled a variety of not-so-nice-things in the next election. Expecting the voters to sit down and listen carefully to your explanation as to why you voted like you did (which includes difficult and boring things like first amendment-rights, precedence and correcting popular myths about gaming) and why you hate children and love violence and sex is a bit naive and politically unsound. It's much easier to simply vote yes, knowing that this won't really have any negative consequences for you, and scoring some easy political points at the same time. You can be quite certain that the local media isn't suddenly going to stand up as staunch defenders of video games either.

 

[J.theYellow]

The perception is, video gamers don't vote, or at least don't vote in accordance with what will further what most call "just a hobby."

 

[krysalist]

Even if gamers voted, whoever they were capable of voting in would still have to make concessions to moral watchdog groups, concessions that would include legislation without a chance in hell of surviving a first amendment checklist.

What really irks me is, the only reason these garbage bills ever go anywhere is that they're good PR for the pols pushing them. Not just moral/ethical PR, but more importantly, a sign that they're keeping track of technology, that their fingers on the pulse of the gaming community and they will work to prevent anything unwholesome from emerging unscathed or intact. The positive thing about empty legislation, though, is it's just that. No chance in hell.

 

[penischucker]

That is the most beautiful thing I have ever heard.
It's wonderful but at the same time things like this need to be gradually introduced to a child, like how you shouldn't bathe in ice water.. especially if you have a high fever. It shocks the system and the body (the child's mind) will cease to function normally (possible insanity for sensitive children).