Illinois Game Law Overturned

[FriskyTanuki]

http://www1.gamespot.com/news/6140739.html

As expected, the laws were overturned Friday due to lack of scientific evidence from the lawmakers and being unconstitutionally vague.

In a 53-page ruling, Judge Kennelly defended games as a protected form of free speech, dismissed the state's scientific evidence suggesting causal links between violent games and violent behavior. He called the wording of the laws unconstitutionally vague. In particular, he took the Sexually Explicit Video Games Law to task for parroting the language of traditional obscenity laws, but omitting key parts that ensure a work's merit as a whole be taken into consideration when determining its legality. He specifically brought up the recently released action title God of War, and mentioned the title's mini-game in which main character Kratos has implied sexual relations with two women.

[rabbitt]

Good.

[AFStealth]

Why do they keep bothering? Obviously there is no real proof that video games make kids more violent.

[kakomu]

Why do they keep bothering? Obviously there is no real proof that video games make kids more violent.

I still believe that violent media can produce violent behavior. Examples:

-Playing any sort of game inspired by what you read, saw on movies or experienced through any movie. Cops and Robbers, Cowboys and Indians, or for me, that was Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles.

-Mimicing the actions of superheroes, like jumping off a roof to try and fly (like superman)

-Mimicing ones parents. This tends to fall under the realm of drinking and smoking. Statistics have shown that kids who observe their parents drink and smoke are more liable to drink and smoke themselves.

-Pop Culture. Children mimic what is deemed popular, either by the older crowd, what is shown on popular mediums (such as MTV) and their neighborhoods. This tends propagate gang/ghetto violence. This is an example of children mimicing their environment.

[AFStealth]

When I say kids, I don't mean impressionable young children. I'm talking kids at least 13+.

Obviouly younger kids mimic behavior. But other than that, there is absolutely no proof that games make kids violent. In fact, overall violence has decreased in the past decade, while the video game industry has increased. They may not be directly related, but there is a correlation. To say that video games cause children to be more violent, to the point of killing people, is completely retarded.

[kakomu]

When I say kids, I don't mean impressionable young children. I'm talking kids at least 13+.

Obviouly younger kids mimic behavior. But other than that, there is absolutely no proof that games make kids violent. In fact, overall violence has decreased in the past decade, while the video game industry has increased. They may not be directly related, but there is a correlation. To say that video games cause children to be more violent, to the point of killing people, is completely retarded.

There is no direct correlation. Freakonomics claims that abortion (and their prevalence in today's society) as a factor in bringing down violence.

[javeryh]

No big surprise. All of these laws are going to be struck down as unconstitutional.... because they are.

[FriskyTanuki]

I still believe that violent media can produce violent behavior. Examples:

-Playing any sort of game inspired by what you read, saw on movies or experienced through any movie. Cops and Robbers, Cowboys and Indians, or for me, that was Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles.

-Mimicing the actions of superheroes, like jumping off a roof to try and fly (like superman)

-Mimicing ones parents. This tends to fall under the realm of drinking and smoking. Statistics have shown that kids who observe their parents drink and smoke are more liable to drink and smoke themselves.

-Pop Culture. Children mimic what is deemed popular, either by the older crowd, what is shown on popular mediums (such as MTV) and their neighborhoods. This tends propagate gang/ghetto violence. This is an example of children mimicing their environment.
Kids have been mimicking things they've seen for so much longer than TV and other violent media has been around. There's no way to say that it's become more prevalent or dangerous because they've seen it on TV or in a game.

[kakomu]

Kids have been mimicking things they've seen for so much longer than TV and other violent media has been around. There's no way to say that it's become more prevalent or dangerous because they've seen it on TV or in a game.

It's more dangerous or prevalent because TV and games make it more difficult to watch everything a kid is watching.

javeryh, you still have yet to make a direct link between restricting video game purchases based on age and censorship. So far, your arguments rest on indirect logic and slippery slopes.

[FriskyTanuki]

It's more dangerous or prevalent because TV and games make it more difficult to watch everything a kid is watching.

javeryh, you still have yet to make a direct link between restricting video game purchases based on age and censorship. So far, your arguments rest on indirect logic and slippery slopes.
Sure, because you say it, it must be true. They need scientific evidence that M-rated games harm children, which there is nothing that proves it. So these laws are just a waste of money.

Edit: Also, how hard is it to check on a kid when he's sitting in his room or in the living room watching TV or playing games? If they get angry or secretive, then they are probably doing something they shouldn't be doing.

[bmulligan]

I love all of the 'correlation' arguments between societal violence and violent media, or 'art'. As if we wern't a violent society to begin with.

One only has to look at recent history before games, or movies, or television to find that violent behavior is not a new phenomenon and it could be argued that we are less violent now than in any other time in human history.

[kakomu]

Edit: Also, how hard is it to check on a kid when he's sitting in his room or in the living room watching TV or playing games? If they get angry or secretive, then they are probably doing something they shouldn't be doing.

Because, not all parents are able to hover around their children. Take for instance, the proverbial latchkey kid. Kids of single parents who work late or work a lot. Kids who live in low-income households with parents that work multiple jobs. Sorry, but the 1950s stay at home mother is a thing of the past, and many cannot afford that luxury of being able to monitor every single thing a kid does.

it could be argued that we are less violent now than in any other time in human history.

Then, argue it. I want to hear this.

[rocksolidaudio]

why is this good? kids should be carded HARD for games. then lunatics like jack thompson have to argument, and it all runs smoothly like the film industry.

[FriskyTanuki]

Because, not all parents are able to hover around their children. Take for instance, the proverbial latchkey kid. Kids of single parents who work late or work a lot. Kids who live in low-income households with parents that work multiple jobs. Sorry, but the 1950s stay at home mother is a thing of the past, and many cannot afford that luxury of being able to monitor every single thing a kid does.
I'm sorry that checking in on the kid once an hour is such a difficult task for them to do. If they're working a lot, then there's got to be someone of responsibility to keep an eye on them. That person should know of what the parent approves of and what not. If the kid is by themselves for long periods of time with no supervision, then it's the parent's fault, not the TV/game's fault.

[kakomu]

I'm sorry that checking in on the kid once an hour is such a difficult task for them to do. If they're working a lot, then there's got to be someone of responsibility to keep an eye on them. That person should know of what the parent approves of and what not. If the kid is by themselves for long periods of time with no supervision, then it's the parent's fault, not the TV/game's fault.

So, what you're saying is that a parent who works a lot to make ends meet is at fault because they can't monitor their kid all the time, or afford a babysitter that can monitor their kid when they're not around? Sorry, but I find that pretty hard to swallow. Not everyone has the means to do that. This goes double for single parents and triple for single parents with low incomes.

At least with provisions like this in place, the parent would have to be around to buy an M-rated game.

It's pretty easy to blame parents, but I find this blame to be quite specious (especially when it's in the best interest of the accuser). In today's society, it's just plain hard to be able to be a super attentive parent. A while ago when more people were stay at home parents, it was one thing, but nowadays, both parents typically work, longer, harder and more hours per week than they did a few decades ago.

[alonzomourning23]

I'm sorry that checking in on the kid once an hour is such a difficult task for them to do. If they're working a lot, then there's got to be someone of responsibility to keep an eye on them. That person should know of what the parent approves of and what not. If the kid is by themselves for long periods of time with no supervision, then it's the parent's fault, not the TV/game's fault.

I didn't really want to enter into this in any way, but....... ya. Baby sitters, daycare etc. costs money that a lot of people don't have, or have no way of getting their kids to (if the only way a kid can get home is by bus then they have no way to get to a daycare). In single family households, or families with both parents working (every family that I knew growing up had both parents providing income, assuming there was 2 parents), then checking up on them every hour is simply impossible. I knew plenty of kids in elementary school who went home to an empty house, and the only reason I didn't was because my grandfather lived with us. He didn't exactly watch me though. He stayed downstairs and I'd go there to either visit him or to tell him I was going somewhere with friends.

These weren't exactly latchkey kids, that was just the way things were. Many times no one (other than siblings, if they had them) was home because everyone was working.

I don't see how this is reasonable unless you expect families to have stay at home moms, which isn't something I've ever liked.

[kakomu]

I knew plenty of kids in elementary school who went home to an empty house

As did I, and I was one eventually.

[FriskyTanuki]

So, what you're saying is that a parent who works a lot to make ends meet is at fault because they can't monitor their kid all the time, or afford a babysitter that can monitor their kid when they're not around? Sorry, but I find that pretty hard to swallow. Not everyone has the means to do that. This goes double for single parents and triple for single parents with low incomes.

At least with provisions like this in place, the parent would have to be around to buy an M-rated game.

It's pretty easy to blame parents, but I find this blame to be quite specious (especially when it's in the best interest of the accuser). In today's society, it's just plain hard to be able to be a super attentive parent. A while ago when more people were stay at home parents, it was one thing, but nowadays, both parents typically work, longer, harder and more hours per week than they did a few decades ago.
Why do they have to do it for money? They don't have any friends, neighbors, or family that are willing to help them out without expecting money in return? If even that's not possible, there's no way to even call and check up on them? But I digress, this is getting off-topic. The matter of the fact is that unless there's scientific evidence that mature games can and do harm kids, there's not going to be a law that won't be overturned.

[kakomu]

The matter of the fact is that unless there's scientific evidence that mature games can and do harm kids, there's not going to be a law that won't be overturned.

There's been plenty of evidence to show a link between violent demonstration (typically through the TV medium) and violent action. When I get the time to do the proper research (I'm only checking here in between HW breaks) I'll dig up the experiment. essentially, they exposed one group of children to violence through TV, and kept the programming away from another group. What they found, when they put the kids together, is that the kids who watched violence on TV were much more aggressive in taking the toys they wanted to play with (resorting to pushing and shoving) and the kids who weren't exposed to this programming were far more passive in their play.

[FriskyTanuki]

There's been plenty of evidence to show a link between violent demonstration (typically through the TV medium) and violent action. When I get the time to do the proper research (I'm only checking here in between HW breaks) I'll dig up the experiment. essentially, they exposed one group of children to violence through TV, and kept the programming away from another group. What they found, when they put the kids together, is that the kids who watched violence on TV were much more aggressive in taking the toys they wanted to play with (resorting to pushing and shoving) and the kids who weren't exposed to this programming were far more passive in their play.
First off, video games =/= TV, which I was talking about mature games. I'd have to see a link to believe this study. I'd have to question the kids' behavior before all this was done, how the study was done, and I'd just need an overall more descriptive article on the study.

[kakomu]

First off, video games =/= TV, which I was talking about mature games. I'd have to see a link to believe this study. I'd have to question the kids' behavior before all this was done, how the study was done, and I'd just need an overall more descriptive article on the study.

Video games are pretty damn close to TV.

[Dr Mario Kart]

Such a study would be perfectly believeable. Whats more interesting is to look at the differences between the kids in the group who watched the tv, in relation to how heavily they were influenced. You'd also have to look at how these effects of influence vary over time. Say, if watching tv yesterday affects me next week, or am I mimicing something fresh in my head from 10 minutes ago. I dont think such a study establishes such a causal link directly. Maybe TV + other factors, but not just TV.

To quote Harvey Birdman, "Isnt TV alright....for the GOOD kids?"

[FriskyTanuki]

Video games are pretty damn close to TV.
Not really, the method for experiencing it is much different. For television, you just sit there and watch what's displayed to you. For games, you get to interact and control what's going on (for the most part) and you are relied on for the game to progress.

[evanft]

Couldn't the parents just, ya know, not buy the game? Maybe I'm old-fashioned, but most kids don't have $50 lying around, nor do they have the means to get to a game store on their own.

Seriously, though, if someone doesn't have enough time to make sure their kids aren't playing violent video games, they shouldn't have had kids in the first place.

[uzumaki_star]

Couldn't the parents just, ya know, not buy the game? Maybe I'm old-fashioned, but most kids don't have $50 lying around, nor do they have the means to get to a game store on their own.

Seriously, though, if someone doesn't have enough time to make sure their kids aren't playing violent video games, they shouldn't have had kids in the first place.

That is true, evanft. We all know in the end it is the responsibilty of the parent to not let their children play these types of games and making laws really isn't going to help that fact.

[kakomu]

Couldn't the parents just, ya know, not buy the game? Maybe I'm old-fashioned, but most kids don't have $50 lying around, nor do they have the means to get to a game store on their own.

Extremely old-fashioned. I had more than enough means of making money when I was young. Whether it was throwing papers, doing chores, mowing lawns, etc. Also, where my mom lives now, there's an EBgames that is 5 minutes away on foot.

Seriously, though, if someone doesn't have enough time to make sure their kids aren't playing violent video games, they shouldn't have had kids in the first place.

I think you've just eliminated a large segment of the population, since they don't have enough time to monitor their kids all the time. In fact, I'm curious, was there any generation before ours that required that parents had to check up on the kids all the time?

[javeryh]

javeryh, you still have yet to make a direct link between restricting video game purchases based on age and censorship. So far, your arguments rest on indirect logic and slippery slopes.

*sigh* I don't have to make a direct link between anything. If you knew the first thing about how the Constitution worked and especially the First Amandment you would know that none of these laws will pass constitutional scrutiny. These types of laws must all be narrowly tailored to serve a compelling government interest. Assuming for one second that it was a scientific fact that all violent games made 1 out of 10 kids go on a killing spree these laws would still be unconstitutional. The compelling interest would be there (protecting the public from moronic kids on killing sprees) but these laws are in no way even close to being narrowly tailored - they all either vague or overbroad as they are currently drafted. It is virtually impossible to enact this type of legislation over something classified as speech.

[kakomu]

*sigh* I don't have to make a direct link between anything. If you knew the first thing about how the Constitution worked and especially the First Amandment you would know that none of these laws will pass constitutional scrutiny. These types of laws must all be narrowly tailored to serve a compelling government interest. Assuming for one second that it was a scientific fact that all violent games made 1 out of 10 kids go on a killing spree these laws would still be unconstitutional. The compelling interest would be there (protecting the public from moronic kids on killing sprees) but these laws are in no way even close to being narrowly tailored - they all either vague or overbroad as they are currently drafted. It is virtually impossible to enact this type of legislation over something classified as speech.

Define speech and explain why your logic doesn't apply to pornography, cigarette and alcohol ads.

[javeryh]

Define speech and explain why your logic doesn't apply to pornography, cigarette and alcohol ads.

You just love to argue, don't you? :D

First of all, it's not my logic - it's the accumulated logic of the Supreme Court of the United States of America. Second, if you must know, speech (in a legal sense for purposes of a constitutional analysis) is loosely defined as words or conduct that convey a message or thought and can be readily understood - this means almost any actions (i.e. burning the flag) or words (spoken or written) can be interpreted as speech under the Constitution. There are exceptions, of course.

1. Pornography isn't really a legal term but what I think you mean is obscenity - anyway, obscenity does not get any protection under the First Amendment and there is a test that defines what is and is not obscene and believe me, video games don't qualify (see Miller v. California - if I remember correctly - for the test) although if there was an obscene video game then it could be subject to regulation. Also, keep in mind that just because something is pornographic does not mean it is obscene. There are other categories of unprotected speech such as libel, slander, fighting words, etc. but video games do not fall into any of them either.

2. Cigarette and alcohol ads are a different kind of speech called "commercial speech" which are basically advertisements. Commercial speech is afforded lesser protection under the First Amendment. For this and other types of speech (such as porn that is not obscene), the government can impose "time, place and manner" restrictions on when, where and how the speech is heard as long as the message can still be diseminated to the public. Video games do not fall into this category either.

There is just too much out there to condense it all down but that's the basic idea - video games, along with music and movies are going to be afforded the highest protection under the First Amendment and that's the way it should be.

[Puffa469]

and if Javeryh doesnt settle your case in 30 minutes or less, you get a free Pizza! ;)



I did my masters thesis on the effects of television advertising on children, and If I wanted to waste my breath I could argue for pages how no study has ever shown a definitive link between media of any kind and violence in children, but its nice to hear the educated views of an actual attorney on why these laws are unconstitutional regardless of what they are trying to legislate.