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)
Re: (Score:2, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
anyway, screw the games, seen the covers on public display in any shops magazine rack recently?
Wait... (Score:5, Funny)
I see more parades on the horizon...
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.
Re:Wait... (Score:5, Funny)
Re: (Score:2, Funny)
Re:Wait... (Score:5, Insightful)
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?
Re: (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)
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Ummm... (Score:5, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
hmm.
Ok, I can't think of any either.
Re: (Score:2)
Don't forget the public vomitoriums, leading to the reclassification of bulimia from eating disorder to social disorder.
That, of course, and the widespread acceptance of NAMBLA.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Anyway, why should we be so unaccepting of the National Association of Marlon-Brando Look-Alikes? They are good people, and serve our communities well, even fending off pedophiles!
Re: (Score:2)
I see more parades on the horizon...
Paint me surprised (Score:5, Interesting)
Every now and again, something happens to help convince me that all hope is not, in fact, lost.
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: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: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: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: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: (Score:2)
Grumble.
(Disclaimer: I HEART EVANS)
And for some REAL 7th circuit humor, please see: US V MURPHY 406 F.3d 857 at footnote 1. Muahahhaa.
less fun, but cute: Crue v Aiken 370 F.3d 668;
Re: (Score:2)
Wrong.
Games are not alcohol. Games are not cigarettes. Games are entertainment - the same as novels, movies and television. Regulating the sale of books/movies/TV to minors? Unconstitutional.
Porn is treated as it's own category under law, and in any case would apply to pornographic games regardless. There are broad
Re: (Score:2)
No, there is legal precedent. The precedent is stuff like the ruling in TFA; judgments have invariably favored free speech over nanny-state censorship laws. The precedent is against you.
Get back to me when games start causing cancer. Or i
Re:Paint me surprised (Score:5, Informative)
Laws can regulate expressive speech in various ways, but laws which regulate speech based on content (as opposed to the manner in which the speech is done) must pass what is called "strict scrutiny".
Under "Strict scrutiny", the government has a burden of proof to show that the law in question is narrowly tailored to serve a compelling public interest.
Persons of a libertarian bent might see keeping sexually explicit games out of the hands of minors as failing to rise to the level of a compelling public interest. However it sounds like the law failed because it was not "narrowly taliored".
A law which is intended to restrict access by minors to sexually explicit games may not under any conceivable circumstnaces restrict anything else. It probably helps that there is an example of how the law does more than it is supposed to, but such an example doesn't have to exist. Hypothetical future expression is important to protect too.
Re: (Score:2)
Amen. May exposed breasts always be protected by the constitution.
So, Greek and Roman Gods are ok? (Score:3, Interesting)
Or Aztec?
Or Celtic?
That said, good ruling.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (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 j
upcoming video game titles based on this ruling: (Score:5, Funny)
"death of a salesman", the graphic language mmorpg
"to kill a mockingbird", with an orgy scene
Re:upcoming video game titles based on this ruling (Score:5, Funny)
Wait, what?
Atticus better not find out about that or Scout and Jem are going to be in TROUBLE!
Re: (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.
Re:upcoming video game titles based on this ruling (Score:2)
Old news? (Score:5, Informative)
I can't really figure out where the new news is in this, seeing as we're already on the "Illinois ain't paying squat" part of this saga.
Blagojevich hasn't paid for video lawsuit as judge ordered [chicagotribune.com] (Chicago Tribune, reg. required, subscription-free Sun Times here [suntimes.com].)
Chalk up another horrible idea to good ol' Rod, (illegally importing drugs from Canada, buying $2.5 million of non-FDA approved flu shots). But all's well - we voted him in another 4 years too.
Re: (Score:2)
I recently moved here, and between here, Florida and Massachuttes, I have to say I've lost all hope for the country. Though with my luck the next state I'll reach is California. At least there I'll get to watch the Terminator put the smack down on the state congress every so often.
LOL - no smackdown for you (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
[Funny you picked California -- oh Ahnuld.....]
Re: (Score:2)
The really sad thing is that the corruption moves through all spectrums of Illinois bureaucracy including the schools. You'd be AMAZED at the amount of waste going on there.
Re: (Score:2)
good, he should break those laws.
unless of course those drug companies are shipping substandard drugs to canada...
Which I kind of doubt.
The Slashdot title is misleading (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Slashdot has had a long and honorable history of putting headlines out that provide more sound and fury [slashdot.org] than the actual article.
Actual Opinion (Score:2)
Does anyone have a link to the actual opinion and ruling?
The Ruling (Score:5, Informative)
Here's a copy of the ruling: ESA v. Illinois [daledietrich.com]
No, you can't have censorship. (Score:2)
Don't forget the game. (Score:2, Interesting)
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.
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: (Score:2)
Re: (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?
Re: (Score:2)
Conversely, there are good parents who try to monitor their kids. I had a coworker who caught her 13 year old daughter talking to a 23 year old guy. The were already exchan
Breastfeeding, animations and computer games (Score:2)
People can't have it both ways.. women want to breast feed in public
That's an unrelated issue though - it's not to do with sex as in f*cking so much as it's to do with sex as in gender, even though it involves some of the same body parts. No one breastfeeds in order to try to titillate you, so to speak.
Just as the simpsons isn't meant for a 5 year old, not all video games are for little tikes.
Yes, I think this is more likely the problem. Just as some old fashioned people think that animation must
Re: (Score:2)
Moreover, the gist of the argument from TFS seems to be that actual Greek mythology is plenty bloody already. Ergo it is inconsistent to limit the expression of a game borrowing
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
"
This is what witnesses are used for. Both sides need full opportunity to challenge any evidence, which would be impossible if the judge went off and performed an independant investigation. The question of whether or not GOW is similar to Odyssey or whether Odyssey has any educational value is up to expert witnesses to testify to. Judges are not capable of knowing what has educational value or not.
polygonal breasts damaging to children (Score:2)
Polygonal breasts would be damaging to children (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Come on, biology has nothing to do with creationism, why would they teach it?
Re: (Score:2)
However, there really are people in this country who are outraged by the demonic, seductive, and totally inappropriate images of naked female bosoms on websites designed to discuss breast cancer. Honestly, what good could come from talking about "Satan's Tits," as they should be properly called?
To be fair, I'm sure almost all 1st world nations have people like this. They just tend to ha
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: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
That's very admirable, but how exactly would you go about monitoring what you get them?
Without some kind of censorship how do you know that Blues Clues Holiday Special DVD you just bought for your kids doesn't come with a bonus episode of "Joe Goes Apeshit In A Brothel And Shoots Kittens"?
The simple truth is that you can't watch everything your kids are ex
Re: (Score:2)
That doesn't require censorship, just a rating system. Rating systems don't require government assistance, except in the form of laws against fraud (claiming a rating without having it, or making incorrect claims about content). In your example: you know that because you saw the big "G" or "TV-Y" rating lo
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Want more parenting? Improve the lot of the average worker.
Re: (Score:2)
God of war is one of the more brutal ps2-games there is. You rip peoples (well, medusas) heads off, you impale caged prisoners that pose no threat to you, you slaugther hordes of enemies, blood flying.
Still, the aspect of it they're concerned with is the fact that there's a scene or two where you can spot a naked breast for a second or two, you can also choose to have sex with two whores once you arrive in Athen, the sex is off-camera (you see only a shaking bed
On your sig (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
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:What's next?? (Score:5, Interesting)
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: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: (Score:2)
Good grief... (Score:4, Insightful)
Must be a fundamentalist involved in there somewhere, the quesiton is only which religion?
.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Good grief... (Score:5, Interesting)
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.
American? (Score:2)
>sex appeal can sell practically anything, and why an
>unclothed breast gets all the Normals so excited.
I've been poring over some musty old documents, and it looks like folks as un-American as the ancient Israelites:
1. Covered their breasts (women).
2. Found breasts erotic (men).
BTW, Solomon had lots of wives, and therefore saw lots of breasts. Yet judging from Song of Songs, he still found them exciting
Therefore, I conclude that this peri
Re:Good grief... (Score:5, Interesting)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Actually, this is what you get... (Score:2)
Yes, Rod Blagejovich is a Democrat. There's no fundamentalist frosties here, folks, just a good Ol' Democrat trying to force his morality on the rest of the state.
I'll never figure out... (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Safety (Score:2, Funny)
as often I do
the clouds had parted
the light shone through
I thought to myself
as often I do
"Teh boobies r safe!"
I cried. "Woohoo!"
Governor Rod (Score:2)
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.
nss (Score:2, Informative)
the HELL? (Score:2)
Stamping out censorship is good, but at what cost? Dear god, what terrible cost!
IL is a stupid state (Score:2)
We do still manage to get by with a flat 3% in
Voluntary Ratings (Score:2)
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 ar
Art (Score:2)
Just sayin'. I'm glad it was overturned, and in fact I oppose all sexual/violent content bans of any sort on any kind of media, for adults or kids. I'm not outright encouraging its consumption, but I've yet to hear anyone explain why kids would be harmed by, say, pornography. It seems like an assumption everyone takes for
Re: (Score:2)
Okay, now lets see the rest of that:
In August 2005, the Illinois State Legislature enacted the Sexually Explicit Video Game Law
The point of the article is the new ruling, and not the legislation itself, so I'd say the submitter reads just fine.
Re: (Score:2, Funny)
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: (Score:2)
Of course in my opinion theres not alot obscene about sex.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
You know, people might be more accepting of your homersexuality if you weren't constantly shoving it in peoples... uh... faces.
Re: (Score:2)
Because (as has been said elsewhere in this thread) the people involved in promoting this garbage score political points with the more mindless element of the electorate. Come election time, it's important to have been seen taking a tough stance on