Federal Judge Strikes Down Ban on Violent Games

CaptainEbo writes "A federal judge in Louisiana has issued a preliminary injunction blocking a statewide ban on violent video games. The judge's holding that 'depictions of violence are entitled to full constitutional protection' flies in the face of Louisiana's assertion that video games interactive nature make them inherently more likely to incite people to violence, and therefore requires reduced First Amendment protection. In rejecting the state's argument, the judge compared video games to literature. 'It is the interactive aspect of literature that makes it successful — 'draw[ing] the reader into the story, mak[ing] him identify with the characters, invit[ing] him to judge them and quarrel with them, to experience their joys and sufferings as the reader's own.'" GamePolitics also has reaction to the news from Louisiana political figures, as forwarded by Jack Thompson.

Meh.

[NsOmNiA91130]

Well, at least the judge found a video game to be essentially an interactive book, instead of a "violence starter". Really, if a 13 year old kid is playing, say, Doom 3, and his parents are aware of it's rating and think that the kid is mature enough to handle it, they usually are. I first played Doom when I was 6, and Half-Life when I was 9. My parents didn't think that it would incite violence, and, well, it didn't. People like Jack Thompson only make ignorant parents more ignorant.

Re:Meh.

[Elemenope]

I don't know about you, but I *liked* Dodgeball and Redrover. Damn modern parents and their precious kids; can't bleed a little for their fun. Don't feel pain! Don't feel discomfort! Don't feel loss! Bah! There's nothing that makes you feel alive so much as getting clotheslined...especially when you are ten years old.

Re:Preliminary Injunction != Strikes down

[Elemenope]

True enough, but in his reasoning the judge absolutely evicerated the only argument that had a chance of prevailing for the state, that being that games have some feature which makes them less deserving of 1st Amendment protection.

Headline should read "Judge upholds parenting".

[ysaric]

Jack Thompson can stick his nanny state where the sun doesn't shine. I'm the parent of a 3-year-old and that means I have to police my language, I have to watch what shows I have on TV. Does it get harder? Hell yes it gets harder. That doesn't mean I'm entitled to throw up my hands and tell the state to protect my kids--which, by the way, (a) the state sucks at since they're too busy doing things a limited government was never intended to do, and (b) will do all the things the opinion says it will. It will reduce all of us to playing only those games suitable for minors.

And those games by and large suck.

Re:A good law would be...

[Anonymous Coward]

I'm glad to see someone else gets this. I keep hearing from people that "if we don't sell violent movies to kids, we shouldn't sell them violent games". This arguement does not hold water, and is based on the very common misperception that selling R-rated movies to minors is illegal (it isn't where I live, or anywhere I've ever lived).

I've explained this fact to people, that movie ratings are only ever enforced by the video stores and theaters, and they often outright refuse to accept this as true, even when shown evidence.

As for the whole porn angle, I never really understood that. Why restict sex and not violence? It's one of those annoying holdovers from the old puritanical way of thinking, but it really ought to be reexamined...

Re:Pffft... dupe!

[laughingcoyote]

The politicians are not stupid and they have advisors. They have lawyers to talk to. They're damn well aware that every time one of these laws gets passed it's going to get struck down.

Problem is, they don't care! It's all in the spin. "Ladies and gentlemen of this great state, I tried to pass a law allowing YOU to decide what kind of video games your children should be exposed to. A single liberal activist judge has decided he knows better..."

Sure, the people of the state lose. But the politician still wins. Politicians may be a lot of things, very few if any of those things good, and probably most of them can't even be said on the radio. But for the most part, they're not stupid. Nasty, cold, arrogant, vicious, cynical, uncaring, dishonest? Sure, and probably then some. But they are dangerous in these things precisely because they are -not- stupid-and we are not watching closely.

(Note before anyone's head explodes: All those not-so-nice things apply to politicians on BOTH sides of the aisle.)

absurd penalties too

[mgabrys_sf]

Even not getting into the sociological arguments, the fact that GAMES are being wholly treated different than movies in the pennalty phase alone makes these laws a joke. The movie industry's rating systems are not law. If a kid sneaks in - the theatre can NOT be held accountable, fined and offending ticket sellers incarcerated.

Now - if the same people pushing felony raps on game sellers want to put the hurt on Hollywood - then fine, I'll consider it. I'll also consider the massive entertainment value of all the lawyers in Hollywood being unleashed on those courtrooms being of the finest money can buy. Would make the RIAA attacks look like bullets compared to H-Bombs.

Re:Meh.

[Razed By TV]

Really, if a 13 year old kid is playing, say, Doom 3, and his parents are aware of it's rating and think that the kid is mature enough to handle it, they usually are. I first played Doom when I was 6, and Half-Life when I was 9.

A 13 year old is fine, and they're at the age where they're going to be exposed to graphic violence from numerous places; from movies, tv, video games they play at their friend's houses, they're going to find gore gallary if that is what they want to find.

However, I think there are a number of parents who are NOT doing their jobs, who let their younger children play whatever games they want without even giving the rating a second thought. I've seen a family where an 8 year old is permitted to play GTA3. He would run around with the flamethrower, igniting pedastrians, and he would laugh maniacially as they screamed and ran around engulfed. I didn't think it was funny, and maybe theres something I just don't get about burning people alive. I digress. My point is that this just doesn't seem like something acceptable for a child to be seeing, and especially playing part in.

Video games have come a long way from their pixelated predecessors, and they're just going to continue to get more and more graphic. Eventually you're going to be able to blow off the enemy's anatomy with well aimed shots to the chin, ear, forehead, back, kneecap, stomach, whatever, and expose the organs, veins, muscles, and brains that lie beneath (I guess an interesting side effect of this would be that children might be better at anatomy). You'll probably even be able to 'saw' through someones arm with a chain gun, at which point they will flail whats left of their bloody stump of an arm and spurt blood all over the room. And it's only a matter of time before you can snort blow off a hooker's ass in whatever iteration of GTA it is going to take for them to incorporate that (Rockstar, you can pay me later).

I don't agree with Thompson's ideals and methods of misinformation. I have no problem with games with graphic violence being available. And I don't think that video games are turning children into serial killers. However, I do have a problem with these games being made available to children. The graphic violence in games will continue to progress. Somewhere down the line, the attitude that "it's ok for my pre-teen child to play the most graphic game on the market" is going to have to be changed. I think we've passed that point. YMMV.

Biggest Problem is Stupid Parents

[queenb**ch]

Where are the parents? You - dear parent - are the one who decided to squeeze out a kid. Therefore, you should be the one raising it. If you're buying your 13 year old kid games like GTA, Hitman, Manhunt, etc., I'm guessing that you buy him booze and hookers too...

Here's the deal, O stupid parent. THE WHOLE $%&*!@# WORLD IS NOT CHILDPROOFED. Nor should it be. Responsbile adults should get to have their fun too. Look at what you are buying for your kid. Take some and read about it on the internet or sit down and play through it yourself before you blindly hand it over to little Timmy. Just because he asks for it doesn't mean he ought to have it.

The PS2 , XBox, etc. is not a substitute for interacting with your child. I know that a lot of parents use the gaming console as a substitute baby-sitter. It keeps the kid quiet and occupied. However, just like the TV, you - stupid parent - need to be paying attention to what little Timmy is doing. Pull that head out of that double-wide behind and start looking around.

2 cents,

QueenB

Re:Jack Thompson must be so steaming mad...

[twistedsymphony]

That's assuming he actually CARES about the effects of violent video games, he's always struck me as the kind of lawyer who only pretends to care for the sake of boosting his career.