Want to read Slashdot from your mobile device? Point it at m.slashdot.org and keep reading!

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
×
The Courts Government Censorship News Entertainment Games Your Rights Online

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.'"
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Illinois Ban On Explicit Video Games Is Unconstitutional

Comments Filter:
  • Paint me surprised (Score:5, Interesting)

    by Control Group ( 105494 ) * on Monday November 27, 2006 @06:23PM (#17008276) Homepage
    How stunningly...sane.

    Every now and again, something happens to help convince me that all hope is not, in fact, lost.
  • by WillAffleckUW ( 858324 ) on Monday November 27, 2006 @06:25PM (#17008304) Homepage Journal
    What about Hindi ones?

    Or Aztec?

    Or Celtic?

    That said, good ruling.
  • by SSChicken ( 872688 ) on Monday November 27, 2006 @06:29PM (#17008364)
    I fully agree with the ruling. It's laws like this which would have prevented me from buying the game "Civilization II" because there's an exposed breast in the background of the games 'desktop' (behind the windows if you move them)
  • Re:What's next?? (Score:5, Interesting)

    by Shados ( 741919 ) on Monday November 27, 2006 @06:47PM (#17008596)
    But remember, its videogames! They don't go by the same rule as "real" art, duh!

    It is rediculous how people forget history and let it happen over and over. Anyone take a modern history book, and read about north american culture in 50-60 years ago. People DID talk about books the way they talk about videogames today. I'm not sure about protestant-land, but in catholic areas, fort the longest time books like The Three Musketeers were -BANNED- because of their content. A few centuries before, paintings and such were often shunned down or banned because of similar things

    Now its video games.

    Anyone wants to make a long term bet with me? 10$ that within 50-60 years, you'll hear conservatives go "OMG! All these Virtual Reality Systems are teaching our kids the worse things! They should play console videogames so their brains don't rot away, like we did in the good old days!"

    Anything thats new is automaticaly a scapegoat for everything bad in society. For now, its videogames and movies.
  • Re:Wait what? (Score:2, Interesting)

    by include($dysmas) ( 729935 ) on Monday November 27, 2006 @06:51PM (#17008646)
    and!!! .. a much better example of something explicit would be the mini/sub-game (on my UK PS2 version)... you start a level on a boat, there are 2 naked women in a bed, and if you "use" them, the camera shifts to the side so both they & your character are off screen, by waggling the analogue stick in the shown manner, you hear expected noises and the bedside unit shakes around (if memory serves)

    anyway, screw the games, seen the covers on public display in any shops magazine rack recently? ...
  • Re:Good grief... (Score:5, Interesting)

    by inviolet ( 797804 ) <slashdot@nOsPAm.ideasmatter.org> on Monday November 27, 2006 @07:14PM (#17008998) Journal
    How exactly did Americans get so completely uptight about boobs and yet graphic violence and games about killing cops are just fine. It's completely insane.

    Take care here. Calling something 'insane' or 'evil' or 'nuts' explains nothing, but it kills your own motivation to seek further understanding. Whereas almost all human behavior is actually understandable.

    In this case, America is sexually repressed. That is why sex appeal can sell practically anything, and why an unclothed breast gets all the Normals so excited. The clamor for censorship is their way of quieting the ensuing cognitive dissonance [wikipedia.org].

    A possible secondary element is the approach that American women have taken towards nudity. In order to maximize the emotional impact (and hence the indirect financial value) of exposing their own breasts, American women demand a ban on all public sensual exposures of female breasts. They're just maximizing profit by shrinking the supply, you see. Contrast this situation to Europe, in which sensual breast exposures are ubiquitous and so European men get no thrill out of getting the same from their mates.

  • Re:Total Bullshit (Score:3, Interesting)

    by PitaBred ( 632671 ) <slashdot@pitabre d . d y n d n s .org> on Monday November 27, 2006 @07:54PM (#17009490) Homepage
    Which means that it's your job to teach your kid to distinguish right from your in your stead. It's hard, and it takes commitment, being consistent, and paying attention to who your kid's friends are, what they're doing, what they think, and so on, but that's called "parenting". We contemplate these laws because parents think it's too much work to worry about what their kids are doing, and we live in a society where responsibility is routinely laid on inanimate objects (alcohol, guns, video games, drugs, etc.) to deflect it from the real perpetrators (the lazy, amoral, immoral, criminal, etc.)
  • Re:Good grief... (Score:5, Interesting)

    by inviolet ( 797804 ) <slashdot@nOsPAm.ideasmatter.org> on Monday November 27, 2006 @11:22PM (#17011372) Journal

    It's not sociological theory, it's economic theory. It all becomes obvious when you realize (or should I say accept?) that sex is a service which women trade on the open market. The presence of prostitutes creates a free market for sex, which puts a competitive pressure on wives. Prostitutes drive down the "fair market value" of wife-provided sex, which in turn means that wives cannot drain as many resources (emotional, physical, financial, etc.) from their husbands as they otherwise might. This is the primary reason why women oppose prostitution.

    Of course they say that their oppposition is out of "concern for the prostitutes' wellbeing", but not even they believe such a claim, when it is so obvious that the illegality is precisely what makes prostitution so squalid and dangerous.

    As for academic research, bear in mind that this is a Politically Incorrect subject, because we all know that Marriage Is About True Love. Nobody likes it when you prod that particular cherished belief. But for a start, read Edlund and Korn's "Theory of Prostitution" paper, in which (among other things) they attempted to explain why prostitutes are paid so much per hour. They found that a prostitute's hourly rate is comparable and proportional to the values she is sacrificing by not marrying. The rest can be inferred, and (to my eye) directly observed.

    I would like to see a study of the average cost of first-date-through-marriage courtship in a country which bans prostitution versus one which allows it (e.g. Netherlands). If I'm right, the total cost will be noticeably lower in places where prostitution lowers the value of the sex she bargains with.

Long computations which yield zero are probably all for naught.

Working...