Follow Slashdot blog updates by subscribing to our blog RSS feed

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
Politics Government Entertainment Games

Illinois Game Law Passes 105

Posted by Zonk from the nothing-better-to-do-apparently dept.
The Illinois law banning the sale of violent games to minors has passed another milestone. The Illinois House has given the law an okay, meaning both the House and the Senate have passed the law. It now moves on to be signed by the Governor. From the article: "... supporters insisted the government has a duty to help parents shield children from violence and sexuality. 'Don't let them become the monsters that we see in these violent games,' Democratic Rep. Monique Davis said."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Illinois Game Law Passes More

Illinois Game Law Passes

Comments Filter:
  • Don't let them become the monsters that you see in games? Simple, talk to your kid about the game before/after (preferably before) he/she plays the game, is it just me or is this bill being passed with an unusual emotional ovecharge?

    • Re:Emotional Overcharge (Score:3, Insightful)

      by chman ( 746363 )
      The cynic in this uninformed non-American reckons that it's because the video game industry isn't giving kickbacks to the legislators in the way the MPAA and RIAA have been. Maybe when they start paying their protection money, these guys will ease up the pressure and add software pirates to the axis of evil, along with the P2P users that are already being rounded up in their outposts of tyranny.

      But as I said, that's me being cynical. If I were rational, I'd say that while it is unfortunate that this legi
    • > Simple, talk to your kid about the game before/after

      Or even talk to your kid about why he won't be playing that game. It's perfectly fine not to let your 8 year old brat play an 18+ rated game, just as it's perfectly fine not to let him watch an 18+ rated film. But the emotional overcharge, as you so aptly put it, is totally off the scale, and completely unnecessary.
    • The Emotional Overcharge has little to do with the arguments for or against the bill, and moreso with our politicians' need to fill their days with something other than droll legal literature. I mean... would YOU like to go through hundreds of pages of legalese mumbo jumbo and not have some way of venting all that otherwise pent up emotion? Why do you think they even ALLOW them to get up and speak? In today's day and age most of the work can be handled through electronic (or physical... *shudder*) paperw
  • In Australia, the rating system for movies and games ensures that if a game is MA 15+ you have to be over 15 to buy it. Doesn't this follow logic? What on earth is the point of your esrb rating system if it is not used. It is not as if it stopped me playing GTA:1,2,3 when i was under the recommended age, but the idea was that my parents knew that i was. Incidentally I pirated them so my parents didn't have to pay, but they **knew** what games I was playing. Isn't that the role of every good parent? p.s.

    • Re:I don't understand (Score:4, Insightful)

      by Adelbert ( 873575 ) on Monday May 30, 2005 @09:14AM (#12675934) Journal
      There are similar systems in America, and across Europe. However, these systems hit problems when confronted by "conservative parenting". Conservative (not necessarily politically conservative) parents don't want to be put through the difficulty of actually supervising their kids or anything. They never had these games when they were kids, and hence don't see the need for them.

      What's more, they see that some games contain nasty things such as guns and violence. We can't have kids experiencing these things. The only possibility available is to ban these games. Forget all the adults who actually enjoy playing games.

      All that is really happening here is people are frightened of things they don't understand.

      • Where are my mod points when I need them? :P

        I agree wholeheartedly. It becomes increasingly aggravating when I hear parents complaining about how violent and nasty their young teenage kids have become, especially when they just went out and bought their kids GTA:Vice City.

        I'm too tired, insert your own "Fear-Based Culture Of America" rant here.

      • The word need.... (Score:3, Insightful)

        by LWATCDR ( 28044 )
        " They never had these games when they were kids, and hence don't see the need for them. "

        There is no NEED for these games. You may want to play them but no one needs to play them.

        What I do not understand is this. "The only possibility available is to ban these games. Forget all the adults who actually enjoy playing games. ".
        The games are not banned. The law just requires that ratings to be enforced. An adult can buy any game they want. This is nothing but a tool to help parents. No different than the R r
        • Anybody who claims this law is a TOOL to help parents is a TOOL themselves.
          There are alot of things parents out there don't want there children to have so according to your logic we'd have to ban the sale of of just about everything to minors as just about everything out there is likely to be offensive or unsuitable for their children in the eyes of some parents.
          Why should the parents against violent games have a law but not the religious parents who are against there kids having Harry Potter books, heavy m

          • Re:The word need.... (Score:3, Insightful)

            by LWATCDR ( 28044 )
            " Anybody who claims this law is a TOOL to help parents is a TOOL themselves."

            Baloney.
            There are many laws that are designed to help parents and or protect minors.
            1. A minor may not drive without his parents permission,
            2. A minor may not drink at all.
            3. A minor may not smoke at all.
            4. Some jobs may not be done by minors at all.
            5. Minors my not enter into a contract.

            What you and most of the little fan boys on Slashdot don't get is the ugly little truth that the people that do not want laws like this CARE NO
    • Yep,

      Now the only things that need to be done for the kids in Illinois is to stop posting violent content on the tv news, papers, books, puzzle games, toys, and coke bottles.
    • What on earth is the point of your esrb rating system if it is not used

      The difference here is HOW it is used. The ESRB is a voluntary system at every level - the publishers voluntarily put the ratings on the boxes, the retailer voluntarily chooses to restrict sales based on the ratings, and parents voluntarily choose to observe the ratings when they purchase games for their kids. In my experience, the majority of retailers DO restrict sales to minors, and most parents DO understand the ratings system. In
      • While I understand and am simpathetic to your slipery slope argument First Amendment law makes a very big distinction between the medium of delivery and the content of ideas. While the First Amendment allows regulation on the mode of distribution (eg. one cannot go to a neighborhood at 3am and blast ones ideas with a loudspeaker), Content (of ideas) falls squarely under the protection of the First Amendment (esp. if it is political content). So if a state legislature tried to have guidelines over what con
        • Content (of ideas) falls squarely under the protection of the First Amendment (esp. if it is political content). So if a state legislature tried to have guidelines over what constitutes acceptable content the Supreme Court (and probably the District and Circuit courts way before) will hold the law to be unconstitutional.

          Yes, one would hope. Funny thing is, nobody thought Hitler would dismantle the German government either. Like I said, I know I sound alarmist. But people MUST think about the broader impli
          • Incidentally:

            (1) Slippery slope [wikipedia.org] is a fallacy [nizkor.org].
            (2) There is a reason for Godwin's Law [wikipedia.org]. Please do not make Hitler comparisons.

            In any case, the courts will blow this law away just like they did last time [uscourts.gov], so don't worry about it. Even the law's sponsors seem to believe that if video games are speech, the law is unconstitutional. They just don't think video games are speech, which is absolutely ridiculous, and will be found as such by any reasonable court.
    • In America, the ratings for movies and games are done by industry groups, not the government, and stores follow them at their own discretion. There is no law that says a movie theater can't sell tickets to a minor for an R-rated movie, it's just a general industry practice.

      Now if there were rampant problems of movie theaters letting in 8 year olds to R-rated movies, I'm sure the government would step in.

      This is a private family issue, though, not a governmental issue. Parents should be monitoring their
    • The bigger issue is the principle of the thing. Yes, this time it is to stop kids from buying things they probably shouldn't. That said, what part of the first amendment is confusing. Of all the fucking articles of the constitution, I thought the first one was the easiest one to understand and the easiest to follow. Yet some how it has gotten thoroughly mangled over the years. Sure, the US isn't going to be China any time in the near future, but the direction things are heading is unnerving. There is

  • Fine. (Score:1)

    by huber ( 723453 )
    Minors Shouldn't be getting violent games. I know i wont let my kids buy them. I dont see a problem with this at all.

    • Re:Fine. (Score:3, Insightful)

      by Travelsonic ( 870859 )

      I know i wont let my kids buy them. I dont see a problem with this at all.

      I see a problem, and that is YOU are not the one that would make that choice. Not only are "Violent" and "sexual" broad terms that can be mis-interpreted, but the choice really should be the parent's choice. I feel that many people, but not everybody mind you, who supports this are too lazy to do the job of being a parent and say no to video games they don't approve of, and allowing laws to ruin it for kids whos parents allow t

      • "and allowing laws to ruin it for kids whos parents allow them to play said gams for certain reasons, such as proven maturity."
        You really think that not playing violent or sexually oriented games is going to ruin someone's childhood?
        • Besides, it's a straw-man anyway, if the parents really want to allow their 9--year old to play some 18+ game, there's nothing stopping them from buying it for him/her. All such laws do is stopping kids from buying it themselves.
          • ...and the slippery slope continues...arrest the parent for "child neglect" because they allow the 9-yr old to play 18+ games defined by "such laws".
          • All such laws do is stopping kids from buying it themselves.
            And not even that, because they can just get the games the same way they get booze and cigarretes, or get into R-rated movies - pay someone else to do it. Or even buy pirated games, just like kids buy bootlegged movies from the guy on the street corner.
        • Yes, it ruins the childhood not in that they don't get to play the game though, but in that a parent gave them trust that was restricted by the government.
        • Just because it doesn't matter in the grand scheme of things doesn't mean it should be oppressed by legislation.

          E.g. Will stopping you from freely expressing your ideas online ruin your life? It may make it unpleasant, but it won't ruin it. Perhaps someone should issue a legislation to ban you from posting online then.

        • Re:Fine. (Score:2, Funny)

          by PipOC ( 886408 )
          If I weren't allowed to play violent video games at all, I'm certain I would be one of the most violent people I know.
      • I see a problem, and that is YOU are not the one that would make that choice. Not only are "Violent" and "sexual" broad terms that can be mis-interpreted, but the choice really should be the parent's choice. I feel that many people, but not everybody mind you, who supports this are too lazy to do the job of being a parent and say no to video games they don't approve of, and allowing laws to ruin it for kids whos parents allow them to play said gams for certain reasons, such as proven maturity.

        With such

    • You control your kids, I'll control mine (Score:1, Insightful)

      by Anonymous Coward
      By supporting that law, you want the government to enforce your personal preferences on *MY* kids as well as on your own. Piss off.

      It would make as much sense if I supported a law to *FORCE* your kids to play violent and sexual games. You wouldn't like it either.

      Stick to your own turf, and look after your own kids.

    • Re:Fine. (Score:2, Insightful)

      by DrTheopolis ( 887628 )
      Would you then object to a makeup and skanky womens clothes to be rated, and restrict who can buy them by age? Would you object to not being allowed to buy lipstick unless your over 16? After all, makeup and skanky clothes are used primarily for sexual purposes. And jealousy from sex leads to violence. As a matter of fact, I'm willing to bet more people are hurt from violent crimes motivated from makeup and skanky clothes than from video games. Hmmm... since we can't take the responsibility to protect our k
    • I feel the same. Just like we don't let minors see R rated movies (in Canada at least), we shouldn't allow minors to play M rated games. I really fail to understand why someone believes that a game like GTA is okay to be sold to a 6 year old. Realistically, if the kid is old enough, he/she will find away around this restriction anyways; just like most find ways around getting alcohol whilst underage.

  • Help the parents? (Score:5, Insightful)

    by mwvdlee ( 775178 ) on Monday May 30, 2005 @08:53AM (#12675829) Homepage
    the government has a duty to help parents shield children from violence and sexuality


    Does the government have a duty to help the perents only if the parents want help or does it include forcing the parents to use a prescribed set of "morals"?

    Not saying children should be exposed to violence and sexuality but as we are all well aware, both terms (especially sexuality) can be widely interpreted. Some parents would as say a mere romantic kiss is sexual content, some would even go as far as saying two same-gender people holding hands is sexual.

    Governments should be allowed to assist parents to be parents, they should not do the parenting themselves.
    • And that's what this is. The government is forcing the game industry to help parents shield children from violence and sexuality.
      As you say, parents might have different standards. If I had a 13 year old, for example, I might let it play a 15+ game, but would not allow it to play an 18+ game.
      • If I had a 13 year old, for example, I might let it play a 15+ game, but would not allow it to play an 18+ game.

        The law doesn't stop you from doing that. What it does is prevent the clerk behind the counter from making that decision for you.
        • "If I had a 13 year old, for example, I might let it play a 15+ game, but would not allow it to play an 18+ game."

          The law doesn't stop you from doing that. What it does is prevent the clerk behind the counter from making that decision for you.

          I know. I should have made my position clear in that post too: I support banning the clerks from selling to underage customers. Too often the clerk will act "cool" and get more business by breaking the age limits, so a ban should be legally enforced. Like liquor lic
    • I'll skirt around all of that and just respond that the government has a duty to help its society remain at least remotely sane.

      And maybe with this law, idiot parents will finally be forced to realize that they are responsible for what video games are brought into their house.

      Which means maybe, just maybe they will finaly sit down and shut up with respect to this whole bitching-about-violent-games-making-people-violen t thing.

      Which is good, because I am seriously going to lose all vestiges of sanity if
    • most don't, but it's taboo to even think that, let alone say it. The Gov't has an obligation to make sure you're raising useful members of society. You need to realize that your actions don't happen in a vacuum. Just about everything you do has some effect on society, and having a kid is a big one.

      This whole "you're not gonna do my parenting" idea is one of the big problems with America. We've got millions of parents who are in no position finacially or emotionally to be parents, but by God they're not

  • Where's the sense? (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Anonymous Coward on Monday May 30, 2005 @08:55AM (#12675844)
    help parents shield children from violence and sexuality

    Newsflash: Everybody has sexuality. Everybody has a penis, or breasts and a vagina. Sexuality isn't something you *shield* people from. Sexuality is something you encourage kids to become familiarised with. It's something you educate them about. It's something you nurture to maturity. This maturity, and confidence in sexuality, is part of being civilized.

    Violence, on the other hand, is in a totally different ballpark. You aren't born weilding a weapon, with blood on your hands and murderous intent. The absence of violence is part of being civilized.

    Why is it, then, that American culture is accepting of displays of violence in movies and on TV, but the hint of a nipple in a game or TV show is so scandalous? Fucking insane.

    Common sense and reason allow one to distinguish between theatrical or game violence, and real life violence and death. I see nothing wrong with playing violent games as long as one has developed those rudimentary mental faculties, hence age restrictions are somewhat sensible.

    The same applies to sexuality versus perversion. Young minds should be taught about the human body and sexuality, and nudity as not beingn perverse in itself. The perversion of sexuality is something young minds would benefit by being shielded (age restrictions, again, seeming somewhat sensible) from until they are able to distinguish between the two.

    My point is although there *can* be seen to be valid motive behind restrictions on both violence and nudity, but the generally accepted reasons are completely turned on their heads and turned into pure emotionalism and sensationalism. Why, oh why, are people so fucking stupid?

    • Why is it, then, that American culture is accepting of displays of violence in movies and on TV, but the hint of a nipple in a game or TV show is so scandalous?

      This sort of blanket generalization is just as ignorant as those being made by the people passing the law.

      Anything that excites or arouses in ANY manner is bound to be considered dangerous by somebody.

      Why, oh why, are people so fucking stupid?

      Because they can!
    • Actually, what I hate even more is the fact that such behavior is actually accepted as the norm, and acknowledged as common behavior in the media. The Media is allowed to push the limits of sexuality to the very edge, talking about all types of sexual positions, showing people having affairs with their coworkers, showing every thing BUT a nipple (Seriously, what's so evil about a nipple?), teenage sex (But let a teenager have sex in real life and it's a tragedy), and just about every other taboo thing you c
  • ...ruins it for all of us again. Everyone I know, for the most part, has played M-rated games (I'm 15). I started playing them at 13 (with the odd exposure much younger, but I didn't know they were M at the time). Many of my friends started playing earlier than this. Interestingly, not one of us has ever killed somebody, or, as far as I know, been charged with a violent crime. The one kid I know that was sheltered from violent games and movies, by overprotective parents, scares me far more than anyone
  • Movies as a form of entertainment are rated for the protection of minors why is this any different simply because of the way it's sold. They are both forms of entertainment which have a dramatic influence on whoever watches / plays.
    • Maybe you don't already know this, but it is entirely legal for minors to watch R-rated movies in the theater. Or X-rated movies, for that matter. The rating system for the movies is enforced by the movie theaters themselves, not by the government. Games already have an equivalent rating system that is enforced by the game retailers, but apparently that's not enough in Illinois.

  • This bill's dead as soon as it becomes law (Score:4, Interesting)

    by Anonymous Coward on Monday May 30, 2005 @09:11AM (#12675916)
    This bill has been treated as nothing more than a joke since:
    a) The Illinois State Police has basically said that they have better things to do than waste their time busting video game retailers when they should be busting drug dealers and murderers.
    b) At least two politicians that voted for it said they had no choice but to vote for it for fear of their vote against the bill being used against them come re-election time.
    c) One politician called it for what it actually is: A publicity stunt by the governor of Illinois to boost his Presidential bid in 2008(like that's really going to work out for him, look at how Lieberman fared in his Presidential campiagn last year).
    d) As soon as the governor signs it into law, it's going to challenged in Federal court and ruled unconstitutional, just like all the others before this one.

    == BearDogg-X ==
    • You are correct sir. Reminds me of when they tried to ban Rock and Roll. A bunch of publicity seeking politicos shouting FUD at the top of their lungs to scared parents. In my time we played WWII with plastic Thompson machine guns and bazookas and grenades that used caps. I don't think these exist anymore.
    • The Illinois State Police has basically said that they have better things to do than waste their time busting video game retailers when they should be busting drug dealers and murderers.

      They also have better things to do than bust convenience stores for selling cigarettes or alcohol to minors. What they will do is every so often is bust a few stores to keep the rest honest.
      Even though the rhetoric of the supporters is over the top, I have no issues with the bill. Why shouldn't the default for a minor tr
    • And to point d, undoubtedly waste hundreds of thousands of taxpayer dollars repealing it.
  • And yet it's perfectly legal for a minor to buy an R rated movie. How come there is no VGAA for bribing lawmakers?

  • Monsters (Score:3, Funny)

    by GQuon ( 643387 ) on Monday May 30, 2005 @09:42AM (#12676079) Journal
    "Don't let them become the monsters that we see in these violent games"

    Wouldn't it be, like, wicked cool if some of the kids who played these games became real zombies, goblins and orcs and stuff? Would make for an interesting drive through the suburb.

    Me: "Orc, 11'clock"
    Friend 1: Click! "Dang, shotgun jam!"
    Me: *sverve* BANG! "Eat car door!"
    Friend 1: "Wow! Cool!"
    Me: "Crowd of zombies!"
    Friend 1: "Man the M2!"
    Friend 2: "Ok!" rattattattatta
  • I know it is very cliché to say that, "When I was a kid and I played all of these violent videogames and watched violent movies and I turned out alright", but I honestly believe it's true and this is why: By prohibiting certain high rated videogames to minors you are essentially recreating a problem that exists in our society with drugs, alcohol, rated r movies and other kinds of prohibited vice, you strengthen children's curiosity and willingness to obtain it. Let's take a child like me who had heav
    • Good post. I made a similar one touting education as the weapon to use over censorship. And not only do I believe your assessment is true, but I would think it's important to tally up all the video games sold since... let's take 1985, PAC-MAN I guess COULD be considered violent because he ate ghosts, but technology really didn't start displaying people and blood until the first NES came out. Since about 200 million video games were sold in 2004 alone, it might be safe to assume at least that many in violent

  • I play video game, so I'm a terrorist (True Story) (Score:2, Funny)

    by Anonymous Coward
    I had a Federal Marshal and 2 FBI agents come to my house one day and ask if they could speak to me (this being Autumn 2001).

    They asked a bunch of stuff about what I did for a living, where I went to school, knew I had thought about joining the Navy after high school, etc etc, before getting to the meat of it all. The Marshall then said that they had records dating back to 1996 of me requesting maps of municipal water and electric systems, city maps, county maps, lots of platt records, DOT road maps, and t
  • Help parents to parent their children , dont do it for them .
    Its a parents duty to make sure their child has the best upbringing they can and to decided what is and is not suitable . A an Age advisory is fine , but enforcing it with legal powers does noone any good .
    Parents should know their children well enough to know if they are ready to handel a violent game or violent movie and if the parent deems it aceptable then it should be for the child .
    ofcourse this dosn't help bad parents any , but neither do l
  • This only prevents the sale of such games to minors. I don't see them prohibiting minors from playing violent games, they just need someone else (presumably a parent) to buy it from them.

    Is that so bad?

  • thanks! (Score:5, Funny)

    by aminorex ( 141494 ) on Monday May 30, 2005 @01:17PM (#12677223) Homepage Journal
    I hope that my case can serve as a warning to other families. I let my daughter buy Godzilla: Destroy All Monsters Melee, and she turned into a giant moth that destroys airliners!
  • "Don't let them become the monsters that we see in these violent games"

    Miss Davis, I hate to tell you this, but a videogame is the last thing
    that's going to make someone a monster. Ditto for movies, television,
    and music. Want to know what *really* makes children into monsters?
    Bad parenting, no parenting, or, worst of all, abusive parents. It's a
    cinch that a kid who's living in a crack house or being abused is
    gonna turn out pretty fucked up. It doesn't matter whether he plays
    videogames. Another big one is g
    • It's all well and good to voice your opinion to a congressman or -woman, but email is just too easily falsified for our representatives to pay attention to. The weightiest thing you could do if this really matters to you is to send a letter, via snail-mail, to Representative Davis.

  • WAHOO!!!!!!!!! (Score:3, Interesting)

    by BigDogCH ( 760290 ) on Tuesday May 31, 2005 @08:47AM (#12683025) Journal
    This is GREAT news! Finally it will be safe to walk through every area of Chicago.

    I guess it boils down to this choice.......
    either violent video games cause kids to be violent, or......
    violent kids buy violent video games.

    Hmmm, I wonder which is more logical? My opinion is that the fault lies in the parenting, though I think most parents don't want to accept this responsibility, so they find the nearest scapegoat (which they purchased for their child).
  • One aspect of this law which should be on everyone's mind ... but is easily overlooked, is the justification for the violence portion of law.

    It is written not in the same wording as morally objectionable content like pr0n, but socially dangerous material like tobacco.

    This law makes an assumption that there is a casual relationship between violent video games and crime. That lays the groundwork for lawyers to start suing retail stores if little Jimmy robs a bank.

    So while everyone argues about responsibil
  • I played "violent" video games all my life. What it taught me, along with public television, was violence doesn't hurt anyone when acted out in fantasy, but don't even think about it in real life. I don't believe censorship of this kind is really the most effective way to shield children from danger. Would most people agree censorship leads to ignorance? Wouldn't proper education also make for a more effective tool to curb violence, negating the need for censorship? And did this senator cite any evidence wh
  • There was a news story this morning on CNN about kids going to trial for the 'stomping death' of a homeless man.

    It's blatently obvious that this devious behavior is none other than the result of years of playing violent video games such as SUPER MARIO Bros and SUPER MARIO BROS 3, where innocent children are misguided into playing the role of the malacious character 'MARIO' in STOMPING koopas to death!

    Not only does it induce children to stomp out the life of other beings, but it also teaches children
    • Not to rain on your parade or anything but in the Super Mario games humans are more of a minority than koopas, goombas or even lakitus. Koopas (or Koopa Troopers) are soldiers, the game teaches you to kill the soldiers that are loyal to the government (King Koopa) and raise the red star flag whenever you conquer a territory.

  • Thank yet another Democrat (Score:1, Interesting)

    by Anonymous Coward
    for another intrusive, Nanny-State, "We Know Better Than You Do", bullshit feel-good law that does nothing but waste time and money and refuses to address the real concerns.

    Just like banning the .50 rifles in CA. Nevermind that these have *never* been used in a crime. Ever. Anywhere in the US. But, it sure looks like the worthless legislature's doing something, right? Ignoring the true sources of crime because they don't want to appear "racist" or be "profiling". Or the worthless "assault rifle" ban. Does
  • Yeah, sure, putting an age limit on the purchase of violent games isn't so bad. I mean, look how effective that is with cigs and booze and such. But really anybody who says that video games and TV cause violent tendencies in children is retarded....really. Have you ever watched little children play, around the age of say, 3 and under? I pretty sure my 15 month old cousin learned to hit his sister over a toy from GTA Vice City, or my infant brother thinks my falling or getting hit with a ball is funny be
  • Hey just because you make a law saying minors cant buy games, doesnt mean they arent getting the games. I mean look at the Illinois gun laws. You can't carry a gun but SOMEHOW you'll still hear about people gettin shot up on the street or whatever. Now correct my if i'm wrong, but shouldn't the retail store selling the games to minors be held liable for their actions? It just like selling alchohol or cigarettes to minors. Plus if you're blaming video games on kids being violet, maybe you should take a look

Slashdot Top Deals

Get hold of portable property. -- Charles Dickens, "Great Expectations"

Close