Illinois Ban On Explicit Video Games Is Unconstitutional 195
An anonymous reader writes, "A federal court has struck down an Illinois law that criminalized the sale of 'sexually explicit' video games to minors. In reaching this decision, the court held that the Illinois law was too broad, because it could be read to encompass any game which displayed a female breast, even for a brief second. Interestingly, the court chose the game God of War as the model of gaming art which must be protected. As the court explained, 'Because the SEVGL potentially criminalize the sale of any game that features exposed breasts, without concern for the game considered in its entirety or for the game's social value for minors, distribution of God of War is potentially illegal, in spite of the fact that the game tracks the Homeric epics in content and theme. As we have suggested in the past, there is serious reason to believe that a statute sweeps too broadly when it prohibits a game that is essentially an interactive, digital version of the Odyssey.'"
Wait what? (Score:3, Insightful)
Two comments (Score:5, Insightful)
2) I find the idea of considering one brief scene of polygonal breasts to be the most damaging aspect of God of War with regards to children... shocking, quite frankly.
Total Bullshit (Score:5, Insightful)
Increasingly, people are looking for scapegoats for violent or antisocial behaviour in children. Honestly, you can either chalk it up to bad parenting, or just the innate propensity of our species to violence.
So like I said, it's all bullshit. I'm glad this was struck down.
Re:Wait... (Score:5, Insightful)
It sounds like the judge is taking the track that any historically accurate game is ok...
Of course it doesn't always work...take Oscar Wilde's Salome...banned in the UK and produced in France.
What's next?? (Score:4, Insightful)
Anyway, does the game show a shot of a *real* breast, or one drawn by an artist?? If drawn breasts are as bad as the real thing, a lot of famous artworks are going to be banned too...
Re:Paint me surprised (Score:5, Insightful)
The politicians involved said to the public "look, I'm taking a stand on the evil violent games! Vote for me!" because games are a wonderful scapegoat, and because taking such a stance is politically safe. The law didn't need to remain in effect in order to serve its purpose, it only needed to be passed. I doubt anyone who drafted the thing will care at this stage, months after the fact.
Now what will they say to the public? "Oh folks, I tried, but those damn activist judges ruled against me. So sorry." It's so easy to shift the blame when the public doesn't care whether those in power respect the constitution.
What amazes me isn't that the judges showed common sense. That's their job. What amazes me is that voters continue to fall for these simple tricks.
Re:Two comments (Score:1, Insightful)
If they do rule in favor, they way they do it is stupid.
Take your fucking victory and be happy for once.
Good grief... (Score:4, Insightful)
Must be a fundamentalist involved in there somewhere, the quesiton is only which religion?
.
Re:Two comments (Score:5, Insightful)
If society choses to be modest in every other way then they can regulate video games. Many video games are played by adults... so much in fact that Nintendo released a console targeted toward them! Just as the simpsons isn't meant for a 5 year old, not all video games are for little tikes. I think my cousin could handle most of the games in my collection (he's a minor) but I wouldn't let him play doom 3. However, his parents let me play doom at 15 (just a little older) at their home when he was almost 2. Its up to them to sensor him and not the government, the PTA, or anyone else.
1. Parents should be responsible for their children. That includes their behavior and what they view/see.
2. Parents should monitor what their children do online and offline. They should teach them what they expect and how to be safe.
3. When someone tries to solicit a child online, its not just that persons fault. Its also the parents fault for not watching their child, letting them use myspace or ET or whatever.
4. Parents need to learn their kid doesn't get a cut in line or special favors. Nothing is that much greater about your kid than every other kid on the planet and if there was it would be on CNN right now.
I could have handled most if not all video games in my teens. Hell i was playing doom and leisure suit larry at 16. I didn't blow up anything, threaten anyone or have 8 children with a bunch of child support. I guess video games aren't the only motivating factor in society! Heaven forbid I might have learned something from my parents and others.
Re:Paint me surprised (Score:5, Insightful)
That, unfortunately, is often no bar to laws being upheld by the judiciary. Retroactive copyright extensions are an obvious example. The effective federalization of the drinking age (and the speed limit) is another. More than half the laws passed under the auspices of the commerce clause also qualify.
Hence my surprise.
I have great faith in the US' judicial system in criminal matters. Less in civil matters, even less when large sums of money are involved, and least of all when political activism and "doing things for the children" or "fighting terrorism" are involved.
This case is, in the oft-cited "grand scheme of things," fairly minor. But it's still encouraging to me. But then, maybe I'm a cynic.
Re:upcoming video game titles based on this ruling (Score:3, Insightful)
Or The Bible (Score:3, Insightful)
That aside I'm pretty frustrated with the Judges deciding which laws to enforce these days. Interpret.
Excellent news (Score:2, Insightful)
We now have an argument backing games as freedom of speech from a respected independent organisation, and not only that, it uses a highly respected literary work to make its point. I'd say the Illionois legislature did the games industry a serious favour here.
Seriously guys (Score:2, Insightful)
Did anyone read this?
It was a law that outlawed the sale of sexually explicit video games to _MINORS_.
Now if the law was really extremely vague and open to abuse then it was rightly struck down. The premise of the law, I think, was in the right direction.
Think about it, little 8 year old Timmy should not be able to by a copy of Leisure Suit Larry. This is not censorship.
Seriously, come on everyone.
Re:What's next?? (Score:5, Insightful)
"Anything that is in the world when you're born is normal and ordinary and is just a natural part of the way the world works. Anything that's invented between when you're fifteen and thirty-five is new and exciting and revolutionary and you can probably get a career in it. Anything invented after you're thirty-five is against the natural order of things."
Slightly off topic, but still apt. The people who get snookered into thinking these laws are a good thing are very much in the last category.
Re:Wait... (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Paint me surprised (Score:5, Insightful)
Well I'm sure to get some troll mods for this, but what the hell. There's a certain amount of zealotry in your statement usually only reserved for religion.
The fact that I do not agree that retroactive copyright extensions are unconstitutional should speak to the fact that it is not "blatantly unconstitutional," but if you were arguing with me about it I wouldn't be too put out if you were just sure you were right.
The problem I have is you're arguing with the people whose job it is to decide these matters. (If you want to get REALLY technical, the power to declare laws unconstitutional, which you seem to support, is nowhere to be found in the Constitution.) The case of retroactive extensions was heard and the extensions upheld. Until such time as they review the decision and overturn it, not only are retroactive copyright extensions not blatantly unconstitutional, they are not unconstituional at all. While I know nothing about you specifically, /.'ers often like to make these sort of assertions about Constitutionality without even any legal education which just makes it twice as annoying to me. We'll complain about managers who aren't technical making technical decisions, but in the very next breath we'll argue the law with judges. It really floors me.
Look, if these issues were as simple as you make them out to be, there wouldn't be a judiciary. At the very least, could we not pretend Constitutional issues are so cut and dry? Very little about the law is blatantly anything. Often including intelligible.
Re:Paint me surprised (Score:4, Insightful)
No one even vaguely familiar with the federal judiciary will ever accuse the Seventh Circuit of being activist judges. Actually, this result is pretty well settled precedent at this point in all the federal circuits. These type of laws have been routinely struck down everywhere so the result here is hardly surprising.
I couldn't agree with you more; this was a stupid election year stunt and everyone knew the law would be struck down in the courts.
Re:So, Greek and Roman Gods are ok? (Score:3, Insightful)
Despite being 20 and male, I've never read an issue of Playboy (and no, I'm not gay, I'm just about asexual), but from what I've seen, I'd be hard pressed to say it has "no artistic value" or societal value at all. We're not talking about an exaggerated woman etched on a building with spraypaint. It's professional photographers and models doing their job.
I don't know, but I'm just strongly against any form of government or societal control over what is "obscene." We have freedom of speech, not freedom of selective sight and vision, or the freedom to never have to see or here what we don't like. If you don't like what someone is doing, you have the right to tell them to fuck off (though don't be surprised if they express the same feelings unto you).
If you want to keep Playboy or Maxim or whatever out of Young Sebatian's hands, just teach him why he shouldn't do something, try to watch him, and that's it. ('Cause 2 things parents need to note: Kids are resourceful and will likely find NEW ways to get what they want, regardless of what YOU say. And believe it or not, children have minds, can think and, gasp, might even have some responsibilty for their actions! And secondly, saying, "NO, YOU CAN'T HAVE THIS!" tends to make people want something MORE.)
What is art? (Score:5, Insightful)
As defined by whom? Why would something like God of War fall under that categorization, while something like Pirates [wikipedia.org] (the porn film; don't worry, the link is to the wiki article about it) would not? Both are set in pseudo-historical or pseudo-mythological settings, and both are primarily interesting for their violent and sexual content, respectively, with the setting being just that - an interesting setting for the violence or sexuality to take place in. Yet the latter is very clearly considered (my those whose opinion matters in court) "obscene", and the former is apparently some sort of work of art. What's the difference - and more importantly, to whom are we entrusting the power to determine what it culturally valuable or not? Doesn't the fact that someone wants to acquire such works mean that they have value to someone? Just what is "literary" or "artistic" value, beyond simply being a piece of media that someone finds interesting and worth experiencing?
Repost as plaintext -- oops (Score:3, Insightful)
Couldn't we solve the whole issue with a voluntary rating system? Seriously, if you think your game contains material too explicit (sexually or violently) for children, either provide an in-game mechanism to lock it out, or provide your own voluntary rating and ask stores not to sell it to minors. By doing that, you're not preventing anyone from playing it, but you're forcing the parents to get involved.
I'd imagine there are at least a few game developers out there with the decency to admit: "Enemies can be decapitated and dismembered, and their realistic-looking blood spews all over the screen. Not recommended for children." Or maybe "Will teach stupid, impressionable people to be a gangster. Not recommended for children of any age." You get the idea.
Or better: Abolish ratings altogether, and don't allow children to buy games. This might force the parents to actually read some reviews, so they have no excuse to act so fucking surprised when they learn that you can take a hooker to a quiet place, make the car bounce as you regain health, then beat her to death -- and then some -- and eventually get your money back. You'd think they'd show a little discretion when the game is called "Grand Theft Auto" -- what, do we have to call it "Breaking and Entering" before they'll get it?
Oh wait, "Breaking and Entering" might actually sell. Shit.
Re:Total Bullshit (Score:3, Insightful)
Want more parenting? Improve the lot of the average worker.
Re:Paint me surprised (Score:5, Insightful)
Two additional side notes: Did you just question judicial review and then expect anyone to continue reading and take you seriously? I think Marbury is pretty well accepted at this point....
And....The court has specifically noted that there can be manifestly unjust laws that courts may sometimes wrongly uphold. [That doesn't make them any less unjust; it just makes the ju[stic|dg]es a bunch of jerks] See e.g. Walker v. Birmingham. </rant>
Re:What is art? - Off Topic! :) (Score:3, Insightful)
All that you just said sounds, to me, in plainer English, about like this:
Something of transient literary or artistic value = something that I find interesting at the moment.
(Interesting doesn't mean pleasant or enlightening, just worthy of my attention, worth sampling an experience of).
Something of stable literary or artistic value = something that many people (given some context, presumably) find interesting at the moment.
Something of lasting literary or artistic value = something that many people throughout time find interesting or worth experiencing.
Given that sex and violence have been of great, perhaps even the greatest interest to many people for pretty much all of human history, and that the definition of "literary or artistic value" is supposed to exclude pornography from the category of things predicated thus, they who use such terms as a means of demarcating art from non-art must mean something other than what you have said.
Though my original question was purely rhetorical. I'm pretty sure that their definition is something along the lines of "being of interest for reasons other than violence or sexuality", which is a nice self-serving way of defining the problem in their favor - a nice easy way of saying "we don't like porn, but we'll allow it if it's not just porn". It still leaves unanswered the question "what's wrong with porn? Why should we ban it?"
And frankly, the whole "this category of things is banned unless it's useful to society" angle strikes me as a slippery slope toward a command society, where you're forbidden from doing anything other than what you are told to do, which is whatever the authorities deem useful; and anathema to freedom, wherein all things are permitted unless they are harmful to others.
Re:Two comments (Score:3, Insightful)
If that "someone" knows they are talking to a minor then how the fuck is it anyone else's fault?
BTW: Just a guess here but your not a parent are you?