Judge Throws Out Michigan Violent Games Law 90
kukyfrope writes "The Entertainment Software Association (ESA) gained another victory today as Judge George Caram Steeh struck down the Michigan law previously attempting to ban the sale of certain games to minors, ruling the law unconstitutional. Judge Steeh is pushing for evidence showing the link between playing violent video games and actual acts of violence committed by players."
Re:GTA didn't affect me (Score:1, Funny)
Re:GTA didn't affect me (Score:2)
Retailers are getting a lot better about self-regulating video game sales. I don't think a 14-year-old should be able to buy GTA; however, if his parents want to buy it for him, I'm going to assume they mad
Re:GTA didn't affect me (Score:1)
Re:GTA didn't affect me (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:GTA didn't affect me (Score:1)
Re:GTA didn't affect me (Score:3, Insightful)
Part of parenting is knowing what is and is not appropriate for your own child. The best person in the world to judge that is a good parent. Not society, not a game company, not Congress, and not some random person on the internet (yes, I've had people tell me what is and is not appr
mod this guy up for me (Score:2)
Re:GTA didn't affect me (Score:2)
You, sir, have become a friend.
Re:GTA didn't affect me (Score:1)
You're assuming they actually care. There are far too many parents that see media (in any form) as a way to shut their kids up for a couple of hours.
Even when I earned my own money and purchased my own software, my parents still sat down to se
Re:GTA didn't affect me (Score:1)
But this seldom happens, the link below shows that last year there were only 11 prosecutions and I do not believe that this is because selling 18 rated games to kids does not happen.
http://www.parliament.the-stationery-office.co.uk/ pa/cm200506/cmhansrd/cm060323/text/60323w38.htm [the-statio...fice.co.uk]
Re:GTA didn't affect me (Score:5, Insightful)
"Do you realize this is rated M for mature?"
"Oh, no, I didn't read the label. Why is it rated mature?"
"Because you can pick up a prositute, pay her for 'service', kill her, take the money you just paid her back, drive around running over innocent people, and then wind down by lighting bums on fire and shooting cops."
The look on their face was priceless, but it was also incredibly sad that they didn't even go to the trouble of reading the game's packaging. I just don't understand how a parent can be so unconcerned with what their child is doing, and I don't know why they want to punish the entertainment media for lazy parenting.
Re:GTA didn't affect me (Score:2)
Re:GTA didn't affect me (Score:2)
Re:GTA didn't affect me (Score:2)
Just saying, I mean... Everyone I know who works in a store knows it's a better deal to sell cigarettes and porn to minors, since they'll easily make more money than the occasional fine. Having a moral conscience really isn't good for business.
Re:GTA didn't affect me (Score:2)
Re:GTA didn't affect me (Score:1)
Why should you protect people from things which are REAL, you know, these REAL things commonly known as LIFE? (*hat off to Offspring [lyricsdomain.com]*)
This is one reason a lot of today's music is watered down shit. Walmart won't sell CDs with explicit lyrics. Walmart was (and maybe still is) the biggest seller of CDs in the US.
Re:GTA didn't affect me (Score:1)
He informed the parent as to what was in the game. No rights were "taken away" as a minor will do/view/listen to what (s)he is told by the parent within the limits of the law. You know, parental guidance and all that. If anything he enhanced the ability of the parent to exercise their rights as a parent.
Do us all a favor and don't reproduce as I don't want to see what your idea of "parenting" entails. It remi
Re:GTA didn't affect me (Score:2)
What I'm against is retail stores trying to enforce their morals on their customers at their own behest.
And this applies to the parent poster how? He didn't say these ti
Re:GTA didn't affect me (Score:1)
"I'm all for informing the parent, and letting the parents of the child parent the frickin' child. But what he was doing was refusing to sell games to kids (it was implied the parents weren't there)."
but in the original post it reads:
"time after time, parent or grandparent would walk up to my counter buying GTA for a kid who was in his early teens or even younger"
I think we may all be in violent agreement.
Re:GTA didn't affect me (Score:2)
It is perfectly legal in most states to sell M rated video games to kids and therefore the store should stay out of it.
No, they have the right to refuse a sale. Don't like it? Don't go there.
What I'm against is retail stores trying to enforce their morals on their customers at their own behest.
No, this is stores following their own ethical guidelines. It isn't at all like pharmacists refusing to fill a birth control script, because there's no serious consequence to the customer.
Laws against selling
Re:GTA didn't affect me (Score:2)
I fully intend to let my kids play violent video games, because they're video games.
Inform the parents and let them decide. If the parents aren't present, tough shit. The stores aren't being paid to raise th
Re:GTA didn't affect me (Score:2)
It is not the job of the government or Gamespot to shield my kids from violent video games. If I want that to happen I'll see to it personally. Just as any good parent would.
If you want your kids to be able to play GTA3, go buy it for them. Gamestop is perfectly within its rights to refuse service to your kids.
Re:GTA didn't affect me (Score:1)
I used to work at Funcoland, if anybody remembers that store these days. My boss would likely have been pretty happy with me there. Yes, it was a turned down sale, but I also would have been doing my job as "Games Advisor". I had to keep the customers happy, and that meant giving good advice about which games to buy. I can imagine the parents being rather happy if I had stopped them to say "Are you aware of the content of this game?"
I think
Re:GTA didn't affect me (Score:1, Insightful)
Does this mean I'm one of the 'lucky' people that isn't influenced by all the violence? I don't think so. I think most people have thought about some nifty GTA (or any other violent game)-scene when some annoying prick was talking to
Re:GTA didn't affect me (Score:2)
Correction: Bad parents don't. I do. Just because bad parents don't pay attention to what they are buying their children doesn't mean that restricting sales to minors is useless. It still helps the good, concerned parents make conscious decisions for their children.
I was renting a movie one day
Fathers, sons, and M-rated video games (Score:3, Insightful)
I wasn't the father you saw, but I could eas
Re:GTA didn't affect me (Score:1)
Re:GTA didn't affect me (Score:1)
Splendiferous (Score:5, Insightful)
Though it's a shame when a judge pointing out that that the government has just passed an illegal law is declared a "victory."
Re:Splendiferous (Score:5, Funny)
Ultima III kills rabbits. What's next? We must protect our children (our meaning our children collectively) from deviant game players! Who knows if I ever get time to finish Ultima V someone may die somewhere.
Stop the senseless killing, ban video games outright. Oh and ban sex to since that creates killers. 100% of people that murder were created by sex, this link is irrefutable.
Thank you for your time. Have courage, we will make this land great once again.
Re:Splendiferous (Score:1)
Re:Splendiferous (Score:2)
Re:Splendiferous (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Splendiferous (Score:2)
Re:Splendiferous (Score:1)
I found the link... (Score:2)
Don't use so many caps. It's like YELLING.
Best part of the decision (Score:5, Insightful)
From TFA: Translation: Hats off to Judge Steeh.
Re:Best part of the decision (Score:1)
Parents can't and shouldn't be watching what their kids are doing 24 hours a day so it's up to the retailers to ensure that they're not selling GTA to 10 year olds and the parents to make sure that their kids aren't playing GTA.
Re:Best part of the decision (Score:4, Insightful)
Sounds like 2 parent intervention points to me.
And an even better question (Score:3, Insightful)
Game systems should be in public areas of the house where you are likely to spend your time. That way you can keep an eye on what your kids are playing.
Here's a
Re:Best part of the decision (Score:1)
Anyone who is coming out with comments along the lines of "In a free society we shouldn't have to do this" needs to get their heads out of their asses. The reality of the situation is that there ar
Re:Best part of the decision (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:Best part of the decision (Score:3, Insightful)
I don't get it. Every time a law like this rears its head Slashdot goes nuts. Why shouldn't the sale of violent games to minors be restricted?
Because, in any truly free society, the burden is on you to prove that the sale of violent games to minors is detrimental. It is not my responsibility to prove the contrary.
Actually the bar is even higher than this! Not only must it be proven detrimental, but you also have to prove that it's the governments role to legislate it. A much harder task IMO.
Re:Best part of the decision (Score:2)
The judgement not only goes against common sense, it is contradicted by the latest scientific research:
From http://www.sci-tech-today.com/story.xhtml?story_id =0100000094LG [sci-tech-today.com]
Watching too much violent TV and playing too many violent video games takes a toll on children's social and physical development, researchers report.
"We found that the more TV they watch, the less time they spend with their friends," says researcher David S. Bickham, a research scientist at the Center on Media and Chil
"Link" is a loaded term. (Score:4, Interesting)
I'll admit to liking shiny expensive things, but I find that indulging in that desire leaves me with less money, not more.
HYPER-RAMBLE ACTIVATE
Though in this case "Money" would translate to "ability to be aggressive", not "desire to be aggressive". There are certainly two factors involved in the "I wish I could afford one of those big-ass monitors" example. And of course it's "desire" not "ability" which any sensible law would be attempting to prevent. The question is: would I be more desirous of bigger, flatter, more-roundeder monitors if I had the seed which I could technically afford? And, more to the point: would it then make me want to try OSX? ( person who likes squishing bugs -> person who likes making pictures of exploding cars appear on a screen -> [magicar transforumu] -> person who likes raping babies and putting bloody nun-heads on the dashboards of the innocent )
Of course, would I really even want a big rounded monitor if I didnt, deep down, already want to try OSX? And this doesnt take into account that I already use bash, and the possibility of between the time of purchasing a big rounded flat monitor and trying OSX ( that is, decapitating nuns ), I may have met an intriguing and mysterious Mac-using guillotine aficionado (who doesnt even like big monitors).
Some guy once said "Lies, Damn Lies, and Statistics." I'm pretty sure he would have liked San Andreas, too.
ULTRA-MEGA-RAMBLE XXTREME GO!
The point is: "Inside Man" sucks. If you want to do random out-of-place commentary, but can't find an example in a real game which is "extreme" enough to get the point accross, then maybe you should adjust your shallow world-view instead of making up one and then pointing to it to say "They're just like that! and isnt that horrible!?"
in conclusion:
I was gonna be first-post when I started typing this. I assume not at this point.
Re:"Link" is a loaded term. (Score:2)
Re:"Link" is a loaded term. (Score:2)
In other words, it's equally as valid to say that there is another explanation that causes both playing violent video games AND committing violent actions as the idea that one causes the other.
Re:"Link" is a loaded term. (Score:1)
Though it should be mentioned that fuck you for not actually reading more than the first sentence of the post, jackhole. Want to comment? You get a free read the whole thing first.
Yeah, It's admittedly rambling, goes around all over the place and gets nowhere. I can understand not reading it. You know what you get to do if you havent read something? You get to not respond to it! Just like I didnt respond to any of your posts, becaus
stupid (Score:1)
You hear that Mr. Anderson? That is the sound of.. (Score:1)
Seriously, games are a new entertainment medium, and as history has told us, all new mediums are resisted by the older generations and are gradually accepted overtime.
I'm glad to see that this is happening sooner rather than later. Good news on
Re:You hear that Mr. Anderson? That is the sound o (Score:2)
Here's how the Video Game Law system works... (Score:1, Insightful)
Mr. X has several others sign on to his planned bill, including folks from the othr side of the political spectrum. The bill gains huge support from both sides of Mr. X's legislative body.
The bill
More losses and gains (Score:2)
Public perception of the promoter of the bad law likely improves.
Public perception of the judiciary likely falls.
Someone has to take significant risk to ensure the government behaves properly.
Gains
The bad law is gone.
It is possible the promoter of the bad law might look stupid.
People are reminded there are some people in positions of authority who understand and believe in the constitution/laws of the country.
Re:Education Correlation? (Score:2, Insightful)
a) claims to be a simulator, and realistic, and
b) uses the same control system as a real RC vehicle.
Clicking on a head-shaped collection of polygons is rather different to aiming and firing a gun, and it's clearly a fantasy.
This does, however, lead to a rather contentious thought I had yesterday, when hearing a news item about the increase in fatal accidents among younger drivers. Are the anti-games lobby missing the real targe
Re:Education Correlation? (Score:2)
I'll bet you drive slower in the rain, though. Playing GT3 has made me more conservative in crap weather, because I can see what happens when my rear end gets loose in a turn. Also, Handling cars in GT3 is anything but easy - I mean really, who in their right mind thinks that driving a race prepped 300hp rear wheel drive car around a tight track at the limit is easy hasn't done it. Also, you have to drive like that for 5-7 minutes (in the easy stages) at a time with no mistakes or the other guys will eat yo
Case Study (Score:1)
1. Have hate crimes against Taurens risen since WoW was launched?
2. Has there been a rise in reported cases of grand theft ninja?
3. Are more Gnomes getting college degrees and taking jobs at NASA, or are they still building explosives and arcanite dragons?
You could go even deeper than this, and I think that you'll find t
Re:Case Study (Score:2)
I don't think it's that simple. Video games don't cause people to become violent. However, it could probably be demonstrated that they are influential in violent behavior, probably moreso than music or video due to the interactive nature. You're not just watching violence, you're practicing it.
For the vast majority of players, that has no bearing on their actions. For a select few, though, it co
Re:Case Study (Score:2)
I'm using a different definition of "practice" here, as in "the practice of _____".
.50 DE in Counter-Strike doesn't mean he won't get stupid and try to recreate it with his dad's .22 Ruger.
You're arguing the absurd. Just because a disturbed kid shoots a
Re:Case Study (Score:2)
I thought so. Actually, I was making a point with it. You (assuming you are the same person, posting as AC for some reason or another) are being ridiculous.
So are you saying that violent video games have no effect on young people with a history of violent behavior? That they don't tr
Re:Case Study (Score:2)
Engaging in simulated activities often stimulates the same part of the brain as actually engaging in the activity in real life. Throwing a grenade at someone in BF2 may not actually kill someone, but a small part of your brain registers that killing is enjoyable.
No, it registers that you've defeated or injured an opponent. In the context it's in, it is no different than scoring a 1st down in football. Context is important.
Re:Case Study (Score:1)
Now, several things strike me about this list. For start
Re:Case Study (Score:2)
That's really absurd. You think that getting into fights, something which we've been doing since before we were primates, is due to the media? You've never seen cats fight? Do you think they played too much Tekken?
I'm pretty sure people stole before we'd invented writing too. Shooting police... well when they carry guns and threaten to use them on you it doesn't take a genius to come up with the id
Re:Case Study (Score:1)
Ira
Hold the presses for rewrite... (Score:1)
Thank God (Score:1)
You're probably joking, but... (Score:2)
I wasn't... shit (Score:1)
Relation . . . No Judicial Activism . . . (Score:3, Informative)
What the judge has basically said here is the State has failed to meet even the lowest standard to prove Consitutionality.
This is a Federal Court judge applying established Supreme Court jurisprudence to what is categorically an obscenity issue. I see no judicial activism here.
Judicial activism occurs when a judge renders a decision clearly at odds with otherwise valid laws or established precedent that is itself founded on sound jurisprudence. Since the First Amendment grants Free Speech, but the government still has an interest in not allowing people to yell "Fire" in a crowded theater, the Court has categorized speech that may be restricted uncer certain criteria. Obscenity is one such category, and it is given the low threshhold because it is argueably not the meaning of the First Amendment.
Conversely, if this were completely political speech, the Government should have a near impossible chance to silence it. So, this judge is acting completely within the framework offered by the Court, and is not bucking precedent. Therefore, he is not an activist.
What we have hear is a Legislature that is clearly wrong on this one. I would love to see the breakdown of votes by party as the web site suggests a nearly equal footing by both parties.
Re:Relation . . . No Judicial Activism . . . (Score:2)
Re:Relation . . . No Judicial Activism . . . (Score:2)
I would be curious as to why you think that obscenity caselaw was used, when the definition of obscenity requires that sex be involved, and this law is about violence.
Re:Relation . . . No Judicial Activism . . . (Score:2)
I used obscene in the older meaning, which was to mean something abhorrent. I neglected the sexual use because at least obscenity does not carry an immediacy element. Obscentity can also mean speech deemed to be against community standards. This might include using swear words at a circus with lots of young children around, but would not include the same words used at a bar.
However, I believe the same test is appli
Re:Relation . . . No Judicial Activism . . . (Score:2)
No. In a legal sense, obscenity has a very specific meaning. In order for speech to be obscene, it must:
1) When taken as a whole, applying community standards, appears to appeal to prurient interests;
2) Depict or describe in a patently offensive way, sexual conduct; and
3) When taken as a whole, lack serious literary, artistic, political, or scientific value.
That 'and' is important, as all three conditions have to be met.
This might incl
Re:Why is this bad again? (Score:1)
What is the difference? (Score:1)
Movies, like games, are rated according to their content and whether or not it is appropriate for different age groups. Some movies kids can see on their own, some only with a parent present who has
The next wave WILL bring evidence (Score:1)
Judge Steeh is pushing for evidence showing the link between playing violent video games and actual acts of violence committed by players.
I am expecting that the next wave of laws that target games will be bundled with such "evidence" from "experts"...