Illinois House OK's governor's video-game ban

evilmax17

CAGiversary!
Feedback
1 (100%)
http://www.usatoday.com/tech/news/techpolicy/2005-03-17-illinois-game-ban_x.htm

Illinois House OK's governor's video-game ban
By John O'Connor, Associated Press
SPRINGFIELD, Ill. — The Illinois House approved Gov. Rod Blagojevich's proposed ban on selling violent and sexually explicit video games to children, sending it to the Senate Wednesday over the complaints of several lawmakers who said the bill was flawed.
In an hourlong debate on the House floor, several legislators called the bill unconstitutional, unfair and intrusive to families who should determine what their children see.

"I'm asking you to stand up for the First Amendment. I'm asking you today to tell parents, 'That's your responsibility, not mine,'" Rep. Bill Black, R-Danville, told the House.

The measure would require store owners to determine which video games are violent or sexually explicit and not sell them to children younger than 18. Violators could face a year in prison or a $5,000 fine.

Rep. Linda Chapa LaVia, D-Aurora, said the bill does not restrict parents from buying what they want for their children, and the video-game industry is not doing enough to keep minors from buying games that are potentially harmful.

"They're watching police officers getting their heads blown off. They're defecating on people. They get extra points for sleeping with prostitutes," she said.

Courts have overturned similar laws in Washington, Indiana and Missouri as too broadly written and a violation of free speech. But Chapa LaVia said new empirical evidence by Harvard University provides the necessary punch the measure needs to avoid constitutional problems — that children, for example, suffer post-trauma stress from playing some games over and over.

Several lawmakers urged Chapa LaVia to hold the bill to work out objections retailers have and to resolve potential constitutional problems. It passed the House 91-19.

The bill, which can be read on the Illinois General Assembly site, is HB4023.
 
This quote from the article sums up my thoughts:

"In an hourlong debate on the House floor, several legislators called the bill unconstitutional, unfair and intrusive to families who should determine what their children see.

"I'm asking you to stand up for the First Amendment. I'm asking you today to tell parents, 'That's your responsibility, not mine,'" Rep. Bill Black, R-Danville, told the House."

The state of the world gets sorrier in Illinois #-o
 
Well whatever. I think that some kids should not play GTA. ManHunt, Punisher or even RE4. The Ban does not effect me so I am not worried until they ban a sale of a game to anyone in Illinois.
 
They're watching police officers getting their heads blown off. They're defecating on people. They get extra points for sleeping with prostitutes," she said.

I'm willing to bet she's never played more than 5 minutes of any of the games she thinks she is describing here.

F*ck her.
 
[quote name='javeryh']
They're watching police officers getting their heads blown off. They're defecating on people. They get extra points for sleeping with prostitutes," she said.

I'm willing to bet she's never played more than 5 minutes of any of the games she thinks she is describing here.

F*ck her.[/quote]

I'm with Porno Pete on this one.
 
[quote name='flybrione']Well whatever. I think that some kids should not play GTA. ManHunt, Punisher or even RE4. The Ban does not effect me so I am not worried until they ban a sale of a game to anyone in Illinois.[/quote]

You are missing the point. This law will have the secondary effect of gamemakers not releasing M-rated games because the bottom line is that money drives content and if M-rated games take a nose-dive on sales then they will stop being produced. This "law" violates the First Amendment and I really don't see how this could survive any type of constitutuional scrutiny.
 
This "law" violates the First Amendment and I really don't see how this could survive any type of constitutuional scrutiny.

I don't understand this. Isn't this why the ESRB is in place to begin with? So retailers know not to sell games rated M and A to children? If a parent feels that their child is mature enough to play these games, then they have the right to buy it for them. However, since these games are not intended for kids, they shouldn't be sold to kids. I don't see how this is different than movie theaters: children can't go buy a ticket for an R rated movie, why should they be allowed to buy video games with similar content?
 
[quote name='PRMega']
This "law" violates the First Amendment and I really don't see how this could survive any type of constitutuional scrutiny.

I don't understand this. Isn't this why the ESRB is in place to begin with? So retailers know not to sell games rated M and A to children? If a parent feels that their child is mature enough to play these games, then they have the right to buy it for them. However, since these games are not intended for kids, they shouldn't be sold to kids. I don't see how this is different than movie theaters: children can't go buy a ticket for an R rated movie, why should they be allowed to buy video games with similar content?[/quote]

I think you have it backwards. ESRB was put in place to alert the parents, so they could either prevent their kids from playing or buying these games. It wasn't for the retailers, it was to enlighten misinformed parents.

Also, does anybody know if they card kids buying rated R DVDs? Doesn't seem like you should restrict one without the other.

Hey, look on the bright side everyone. Soon parenting will be fully automated, and we'll all be able to sit on the sofa and watch Tivo all day!
 
[quote name='evilmax17']I think you have it backwards. ESRB was put in place to alert the parents, so they could either prevent their kids from playing or buying these games. It wasn't for the retailers, it was to enlighten misinformed parents.[/quote]

Err...yeah, that :p I was under the impression that retailers weren't supposed to sell these games to minors. I dunno...as much as I dislike government regulation, I'm not entirely against the idea of not selling mature-rated games (or DVDs, as you mentioned) to minors.
 
[quote name='PRMega'][quote name='evilmax17']I think you have it backwards. ESRB was put in place to alert the parents, so they could either prevent their kids from playing or buying these games. It wasn't for the retailers, it was to enlighten misinformed parents.[/quote]

Err...yeah, that :p I was under the impression that retailers weren't supposed to sell these games to minors. I dunno...as much as I dislike government regulation, I'm not entirely against the idea of not selling mature-rated games (or DVDs, as you mentioned) to minors.[/quote]

It's up to the individual retailer whether or not they sell Mature rated games to anyone under 17. It's not law, just a matter of company policy. I know GameStop's policy is that we can't sell mature rated games to anyone under 17 unless there's parental permission. Most parents don't care though and the 13 year old usually walks out of the store with a copy of Manhunt.
 
[quote name='PRMega']
This "law" violates the First Amendment and I really don't see how this could survive any type of constitutuional scrutiny.

I don't understand this. Isn't this why the ESRB is in place to begin with? So retailers know not to sell games rated M and A to children? If a parent feels that their child is mature enough to play these games, then they have the right to buy it for them. However, since these games are not intended for kids, they shouldn't be sold to kids. I don't see how this is different than movie theaters: children can't go buy a ticket for an R rated movie, why should they be allowed to buy video games with similar content?[/quote]

The ESRB and the MPAA are not lawmaking entities. They are committees or associations formed with the intent to self-regulate a certain industry. It happens all the time. They can impose their own set of rules almost unilaterally. These rules are typically incentive based - for example, movies with R ratings should not be shown to kids under 17... if you obey this rule as a movie theater we will keep allowing you to show movies. If you break this rule we might decide to no longer send the newest releases to your theater effectively shutting you down... There aren't any real laws on the books for stuff like that... the MPAA may fine the theater but no one is going to jail for a violation...

What Illinios proposes to do is just insane lawmaking by people who have no idea what they are talking about but they think it will serve some political agenda to keep their voters happy. It's total BS. Remember when Elvis was *gasp* swinging his hips on TV? It's the same thing here - older people in charge who don't understand a goddamn thing and since they view it as "bad" then it must be... idiots.
 
Go ahead, let them try this. A lawyer will have an injunction placed on it before it can be enforced, and the courts will throw it out. These kinds of laws have never worked.
 
[quote name='flybrione']Well whatever. I think that some kids should not play GTA. ManHunt, Punisher or even RE4. The Ban does not effect me so I am not worried until they ban a sale of a game to anyone in Illinois.[/quote]

"first they arrested the communists -- but I was not a communist, so i did nothing. then they came for the social democrats, but i was not a social democrat, so i did nothing. then they arrested the trade unionists -- and i did nothing because i was not one. and then they came for the jews and the catholics, but i was neither a jew nor a catholic and i did nothing. at last they came and arrested me -- and there was no one left to do anything about it."

~ rev. martin niemoller
 
[quote name='javeryh'][quote name='flybrione']Well whatever. I think that some kids should not play GTA. ManHunt, Punisher or even RE4. The Ban does not effect me so I am not worried until they ban a sale of a game to anyone in Illinois.[/quote]

You are missing the point. This law will have the secondary effect of gamemakers not releasing M-rated games because the bottom line is that money drives content and if M-rated games take a nose-dive on sales then they will stop being produced. This "law" violates the First Amendment and I really don't see how this could survive any type of constitutuional scrutiny.[/quote]

There are laws against selling porn to minors... but I don't see any shortage of it being produced.
 
[quote name='Kayden'][quote name='javeryh'][quote name='flybrione']Well whatever. I think that some kids should not play GTA. ManHunt, Punisher or even RE4. The Ban does not effect me so I am not worried until they ban a sale of a game to anyone in Illinois.[/quote]

You are missing the point. This law will have the secondary effect of gamemakers not releasing M-rated games because the bottom line is that money drives content and if M-rated games take a nose-dive on sales then they will stop being produced. This "law" violates the First Amendment and I really don't see how this could survive any type of constitutuional scrutiny.[/quote]

There are laws against selling porn to minors... but I don't see any shortage of it being produced.[/quote]

That's not a very good analogy at all. Porn is exclusively marketed (if you can call it that - it sells itself) to adults. Video games are marketed to people of all ages.
 
If it was as simple as "Kids cant buy Mature games without parental consent", i have NO problem with that. I t is up to the parents to teach thier kids whats appropriate and whats not...unfortunately, if its like any other bill they've tried to pass, it will end up severely cramping the style of the retailers even in cases of of-age buyers
 
[quote name='DenisDFat']Thi is a great thing.

I don't see how anybody, even as stupid as yourselves, could whine about it.[/quote]

Maybe because it violates this little thing we call the Constitution?
 
[quote name='javeryh']
They're watching police officers getting their heads blown off. They're defecating on people. They get extra points for sleeping with prostitutes," she said.

I'm willing to bet she's never played more than 5 minutes of any of the games she thinks she is describing here.

F*ck her.[/quote]

I was thinking the same thing. At first she's talking about GTA. The last part might be Leisure Suit Larry, but defacation? Where'd she pull that out of her ass.....Conker maybe?
 
[quote name='DenisDFat']Thi is a great thing.

I don't see how anybody, even as stupid as yourselves, could whine about it.[/quote]

I don't see how anyone can count you as a human :roll:
 
[quote name='whoknows'][quote name='DenisDFat']Thi is a great thing.

I don't see how anybody, even as stupid as yourselves, could whine about it.[/quote]

I don't see how anyone can count you as a human :roll:[/quote]
:lol:
 
Why do we even see these bills anymore? This type of bill has been attempted several times, and every time its been overturned. I don't know why Gov. Blagojevich would even bother introducing it, as its not going to be any different this time.
 
[quote name='Scrubking']Wha't stopping a parent from buying the M-rated games for their kids?? Nothing.[/quote]

That would require a fundamental level of interaction on behalf of the parent
 
[quote name='Kaijufan']Why do we even see these bills anymore? This type of bill has been attempted several times, and every time its been overturned. I don't know why Gov. Blagojevich would even bother introducing it, as its not going to be any different this time.[/quote]

Because politicians get to vote for it and show that they "care" about "children" and want to "protect" the American "family"

It's just grandstanding for votes is all
 
[quote name='ElwoodCuse'][quote name='DenisDFat']Thi is a great thing.

I don't see how anybody, even as stupid as yourselves, could whine about it.[/quote]

Maybe because it violates this little thing we call the Constitution?[/quote] Is it just me or is it funny that he's calling people stupid yet he can't write a coherent, grammatically correct sentence.
 
Denis is just the guy on the site that goes against what everyone thinks to try to be cool. Every site has one, he's this one's.. except he's not funny.

I taught my monkey to throw poop at people on Black and White, does that count?
 
[quote name='Scorch']Denis is just the guy on the site that goes against what everyone thinks to try to be cool. Every site has one, he's this one's.. except he's not funny.

I taught my monkey to throw poop at people on Black and White, does that count?[/quote]
Are you folowing me?
JUst to make sure you understand, i'm joking.
 
[quote name='greendc27'][quote name='Scorch']Denis is just the guy on the site that goes against what everyone thinks to try to be cool. Every site has one, he's this one's.. except he's not funny.

I taught my monkey to throw poop at people on Black and White, does that count?[/quote]
Are you folowing me?
JUst to make sure you understand, i'm joking.[/quote]

You shouldn't be... Dennis really is annoying, unfunny and a pain in the ass. Or as he would say... Dnenis is worst the poster in the site evar.
 
I really don't understand the backlash here. The video game industry has said that certain games shouldn't be played by 17 year olds without parental consent. They place a big M on these games.

There are games that I can enjoy (being 26), that my 8 year old neice should not play (like Grand Theft Auto SA). I don't see where the constitution protects people to even play violent video games under the age of 18. I think porn is an excellent example.

Now, I would argue if they wanted to punish any parent who would let there kids play these games. But, they aren't. If you think your 16 year old can handle it, then you go to the store with them and let them buy it. That's ok. You tell parents that they need to parent. I completely agree. This is one tool though to help parents. This doesn't do the job for parents, but it will force some to at least think about the issue. It isn't preventing you from playing games. Let's be honest, my parents actually parented when I was younger. I had to proe to them I could handle items. When I could, then I could experience more adult content.

This ins't banning violent games. Though, for those that argue that less violent games will be made because those under 18 can't buy them, if that is your target market for an overally violent game, and you can't attract enough people over 18, I really wonder if the game should be made. To me, that's the same as making cigarretes in bubble gum flavor, then saying your halting the market because you have only under age smokers smoking that brand. If you can't target an appropriate market for your product, then maybe it doesn't belong on the market.
 
[quote name='Backlash'][quote name='lordxixor101']I really don't understand the backlash here. [/quote]

I try my best to enunciate clearly :([/quote]
:rofl:
 
[quote name='lordxixor101']I really don't understand the backlash here. The video game industry has said that certain games shouldn't be played by 17 year olds without parental consent. They place a big M on these games.

There are games that I can enjoy (being 26), that my 8 year old neice should not play (like Grand Theft Auto SA). I don't see where the constitution protects people to even play violent video games under the age of 18. I think porn is an excellent example.[/quote]

Porn is not an excellent example. Every law intended to restrict minors' access to violent material, be it movies or video games or whatever tried this approach, and the court didn't buy it. They recognized a compelling state interest in restricting access to sexual material, but not violent material.

Now, I would argue if they wanted to punish any parent who would let there kids play these games. But, they aren't. If you think your 16 year old can handle it, then you go to the store with them and let them buy it. That's ok. You tell parents that they need to parent. I completely agree. This is one tool though to help parents. This doesn't do the job for parents, but it will force some to at least think about the issue. It isn't preventing you from playing games. Let's be honest, my parents actually parented when I was younger. I had to proe to them I could handle items. When I could, then I could experience more adult content.

This is why this law will fail. Because parents and retailers are supposed to be doing this, not the government. Restricting speech is an absolute last resort, and the courts have said there are better ways to accomplish this end than trying to criminalize such behavior.

This ins't banning violent games. Though, for those that argue that less violent games will be made because those under 18 can't buy them, if that is your target market for an overally violent game, and you can't attract enough people over 18, I really wonder if the game should be made. To me, that's the same as making cigarretes in bubble gum flavor, then saying your halting the market because you have only under age smokers smoking that brand. If you can't target an appropriate market for your product, then maybe it doesn't belong on the market.

This not about marketing. The average video game player is almost 30 years old. And yes it is about banning games, laws like this have what courts call a "chilling effect" on free speech. If this was law, how many stores do you think would stop selling M-rated games altogether?

It's simple. The government has not ever shown that they have a compelling reason to restrict violence in video games or movies or books or anything. And absent this compelling interest, and afurther showing that the proposed law is the least restrictive and only possible way to protect this interest, laws that infringe on the first amendment like this will get overturned.
 
While I still don't really like this bill, it's much better than when the idiot Governor came up with it. It used used to be geared far more towards censorship and truely violated the consitiution by saying that M-rated games be shelved differently in stores and retailers had to place signs and other such things incertain areas indicating the M-rated games and what the policy (which nearly every retail store already does...Good call there governor, try doing research much?) and stores had to incur all the costs for this. If the bill stayed like this it would indeed hurt both game retailers and the industry (at least in IL), so I'm glad it was changed.

Now it seems like a bil just desgined to keep M-rated games out of kids hands. Which while still is arguably a fringe form of censorship isn't so bad by comparision and the bad effects it will have are not as extreme. My biggest problem with it nowis like some others mentioned, is that video games are basically being unfairly taregted with this bill. Why not the same for music and movies? Granted games are interactive, but if it's violence in the hands of kids that they are worried about there's plenty of media containing such besides games. I think they believe they can attack games because they still veiw it as a "kids' hobby", which is total BS.
 
[quote name='Duo_Maxwell']My biggest problem with it nowis like some others mentioned, is that video games are basically being unfairly taregted with this bill. Why not the same for music and movies?[/quote]

Two major reasons:

* legislators did not grow up with games, and do not understand what they are.

* the movie and music industry are used to working with legislators, buying laws they want and getting rid of those they don't.
 
I picked up Jade Empire at BB yesterday and I was carded (I'm 26, and I look 26). The clerk said that its their new policy on games. I asked if the carded for R rated movies, and he just chuckled and said no.
 
"Video games are not art or media... "They are simulations, not all that different from the simulations used by the U.S. military in preparation for war."

That's senator Deanna Demuzio blasting video games. These people are supposed to be intelligent, right? So, Mrs. Demuzio, care to explain to us how exactly the military uses Super Mario Sunshine to train super soldiers? Alternatively, maybe you'd care to enlighten us all on how Resident Evil 4 trained our military to shoot brain-hungry zombies? Maybe there is more going on at Area 51 than we know!

These games she speaks of exist, certainly. Of course, they make up about 2% of the market. They also have a Tom Clancy name attached to the for the most part. Why is she not trying to ban the sale of violent books to kids too?
 
I could care less. I'm still going to buy whatever games I want and buy whatever game my little cousins want for their birthdays.
 
[quote name='ElwoodCuse']Maybe because it violates this little thing we call the Constitution?[/QUOTE]

What is this you say?? Government entities ignoring the Constitution of the United States? No way, it ain't possible!!!! (sarcasm)

It sickens me, and not only in the realm of video games, how the genius document is not only ignored, but manipulated to fit the wills of those passing bills fueled by the corruptive forces of lobbyists and interest groups. It's funny how you don't see it tought often in schools. If the "founding fathers" knew that our government is funded with income taxes, they would probably start another revolution. (prior to the civil war, government revenue was 98% tariffs).

Do I think kids should play GTA at the tender age of 5? No. Do I think video games should be the martyr for Republican agendas? No. Believe it or not, the game ratings board has done a halfway decent job as a self-governing entity of violence ratings. Most retailers card customers attemptint to purchase mature rated games. But here's the thing. Will this stop kids from playing video games with mature ratings? No... but making it more taboo will spark an even greater interest, while availabilty of a game at a "friend's house" will still exist. So here goes more taxpayer dollars down the toilet, to pass and enforce a bill that will serve no greater good other than the self interest of politicians that is borderline unconstitutional. But then again, such is the way of "big daddy government" in a society in which citizens are nothing more than the ants in an antfarm...
 
Minors are not protected by the constitution in the same way as some one over the age of 18.

This doesn't go against the constitution.

Edit: I did a little research and found this:

American Amusement Machine Association v. Teri Kendrick

This is a good indication on how this will hold up v. the courts. This finds that violent video games are not so bad (MK3 & HotD) but since video games are not just violent any more they have sexual themes also this could not turn out well in the courts. The retail industry (i.e. BB, CC) would have been better off policing them selves on this issue before the government stepped in. Most theaters won't allow anyone under the age of 17 unless accompanied with an adult but most retailers will sell a M rated game to a minor. This is how the movie industry avoided a government regulation. If you do not want the goverment to step in contact all major chains that sell video games that doesn't have a "no one under the age of 17 policy" and tell them to put one into affect.
 
[quote name='javeryh']You are missing the point. This law will have the secondary effect of gamemakers not releasing M-rated games because the bottom line is that money drives content and if M-rated games take a nose-dive on sales then they will stop being produced. [/QUOTE]


Nonsense. Even though Mature videos are banned to children, people are still making those vids for sale to adults. Likewise, Rockstar will continue producing Manhunt for adults.

troy
 
[quote name='spoo']Minors are not protected by the constitution in the same way as some one over the age of 18.

This doesn't go against the constitution.
[/QUOTE]

It is true that something can be obscene for minors and not obscene for adults. The Supreme Court said so in unholding laws restricting sales of porn to minors. But this very same case has been distinguished in overturning similar laws against violent material because violence alone cannot be obscene under the Miller test.
 
bread's done
Back
Top