Jump to content

Home

Score one for us!

TiE23

By TiE23
in Yoda’s Swamp

Recommended Posts

TiE23 Newbie

TiE23

Posted
Posted
Judge Blocks Illinois Violent Game Law

 

 

ESA claims another victory in district court

 

The Entertainment Software Association has announced another court victory for the games industry after an Illinois district judge ruled in favor of the ESA, halting the implementation of the proposed violent videogames state law.

 

Arguing that the Illinois law and several similar laws in different US states was unconstitutionally vague and challenging the research used to support the law, the ESA issued a statement following the ruling, which was issued by Judge Matthew S. Kennelly.

 

“We said a year ago when the Governor of Illinois proposed this statute that the court would strike down this law, and that it would be a shame to waste the time and money of Illinois’ taxpayers on a political exercise. Today’s decision proves that prediction was accurate in all respects. It’s unfortunate that the money and time that could’ve been used to help Illinois families and children were wasted. This is the fifth decision of this type," said ESA president, Douglas Lowenstein.

 

"It’s our hope that politicians will start to work cooperatively with the industry by helping parents in ways that are constitutional, effective, and sensible. We again assert that between the powerful tools of reliable ESRB ratings, parental education, and now with the recent announcement that all next generation consoles will have parental controls, there is a wealth of ways that those concerned can ensure that children do not have access to inappropriate games.”

 

In his ruling, Judge Kennelly refuted the research put forward by the state, stating: "Defendants have failed to present substantial evidence showing that playing violent video games causes minors to have aggressive feelings or engage in aggressive behaviour...With these limited findings, it is impossible to know which way the causal relationship runs: it may be that aggressive children may also be attracted to violent video games."

 

"If controlling access to allegedly ’dangerous’ speech is important in promoting the positive psychological development of children, in our society that role is properly accorded to parents and families, not the State," Judge Kelly added.

 

The decision marks the second court ruling in as many weeks where evidence supporting the new laws, which seek to make it illegal for retailers to sell violent videogames to minors, has been rejected at District Court level. The ESA recently obtained a preliminary block on a similar law in Michigan, and continues to defend the games industry against proposed legislation in California. The trade body is also contesting Senator Clinton’s Family Entertainment Protection Act, which will be presented to congress in a matter of weeks.

Heh, score one for us, in you're face Jack/Hilary.

 

Millions of gamers vs. a few politicians. ^__^

 

http://www.xboxaddict.com/news/view.php?News_ID=6617

Link to comment
Share on other sites
CapNColostomy Newbie

CapNColostomy

Posted
Posted

Judge Kennelly is now my hero. "Defendants have failed to present substantial evidence showing that playing violent video games causes minors to have aggressive feelings or engage in aggressive behaviour...With these limited findings, it is impossible to know which way the causal relationship runs: it may be that aggressive children may also be attracted to violent video games."

 

Awesome.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
toms Newbie

toms

Posted
Posted

Who cares if they do pass this law anyway? Games already have ratings. Shops already try to enforce those ratings. Seems to make sense to me... its no different to film ratings.

 

Addmittedly the politicians have little evidence, and don't really know what they are talking about.. but i'd rather be able to enjoy my GTA safe in the knowledge that some politician won't be whining about it... cos it will be restricted to adults only. As it should be.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
  • 2 weeks later...
El Sitherino Newbie

El Sitherino

Posted
Posted
Who cares if they do pass this law anyway?

All the law states is violent video games, which could include Super Mario, like hell I'd sit quietly while Mario was banned from kids.

 

 

And I have yet to go to any shop that sells Teen and Mature games to minors. They may sell them to the parents of minors who are buying them for their kids, but they tell them "You know this does contain graphic images and bad language, right?".

Link to comment
Share on other sites
TiE23 Newbie

TiE23

Posted
  • Author
Posted
I didn't know you learned that what happens in videogames isn't real until you were 18!

My first M-Rated game I played was Unreal when I was 8. The first one I witnessed was probably Hexen 2 (my dad played it).

 

My sister has almost completed San Andreas (the AO version), and she is 12, and her first time playing a M-Rated game was probably before me.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Samuel Dravis Newbie

Samuel Dravis

Posted
Posted
Who cares if they do pass this law anyway? Games already have ratings. Shops already try to enforce those ratings. Seems to make sense to me... its no different to film ratings.

 

Addmittedly the politicians have little evidence, and don't really know what they are talking about.. but i'd rather be able to enjoy my GTA safe in the knowledge that some politician won't be whining about it... cos it will be restricted to adults only. As it should be.

The problem with their passing this law would be that it would set up precedent for restrictions on other aspects of free speech (for minors at least). Any nutcase who lobbies for banning violent books, such as LotR, could get them banned on the same evidence, i.e. none, because it 'contains' violence, nevermind that it's not exactly promoting it.

 

No, I'd rather take my chances with the free decision of stores and parents, thanks. People are already capable of deciding; they don't need the government to tell them what is acceptable. That is not the government's job.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
TiE23 Newbie

TiE23

Posted
  • Author
Posted
On December 21, 2005, Thompson bought shares in Take Two Interactive, so that he could attend shareholders' meetings, to directly confront its CEO, Paul Eibeler. Thompson took the opportunity in a letter to accuse Eibeler of following in Bill Gates' footsteps, and implied that Gates' games (such as Halo and Microsoft Flight Simulator) had trained the 9/11 hijackers, as well as the Washington Sniper.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jack_Thompson_(attorney)

(Click 2.9 Other video game-related incidents)

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Alegis Newbie

Alegis

Posted
Posted
and implied that Gates' games (such as Halo and Microsoft Flight Simulator) had trained the 9/11 hijackers, as well as the Washington Sniper.

Oh yes, after all it's one of the main missions in the game... :\

 

Finally some common sense, hope it spreads out to the other areas.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
swphreak Newbie

swphreak

Posted
Posted
The problem with their passing this law would be that it would set up precedent for restrictions on other aspects of free speech (for minors at least). Any nutcase who lobbies for banning violent books, such as LotR, could get them banned on the same evidence, i.e. none, because it 'contains' violence, nevermind that it's not exactly promoting it.

 

[sorta off-topic]

That actually already happens. But yeah, there are store policies, and parents to make the decision for their children.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

Go to topic listing
×
×
  • Create New...