Gov. Rod Blagojevich Vows to Appeal Federal Ruling

Remove all ads!

The democratic Illonois governor Rod Blagojevich has vowed to appeal the federal judge's ruling striking down the Illinois games law. The judge claims that the governor and others have failed to demonstrate that the law is in accordance with the US Constitution. Freedom of speeach and precedents from other states were used as argument for ruling against the games law. Here's a snip:

This battle is not over," Blagojevich said in a statement. "Parents should be able to expect that their kids will not have access to excessively violent and sexually explicit video games without their permission."

Kennelly said state officials came "nowhere near" demonstrating that the law passes constitutional muster.

Opponents had declared the law a restriction on free speech and pointed out that similar laws had been struck down in other states.

"It's unfortunate that the state of Illinois spent taxpayer money defending this statute. This is precisely what we told them would happen," said David Vite, president of the Illinois Retail Merchants Association, one of the groups that sued over the law.

Blagojevich proposed the ban late last year after hearing about the video game "JFK Reloaded," which puts the player in the role of President Kennedy's assassin.

The measure, which was to go into effect Jan. 1, would have barred stores from selling or renting extremely violent or sexual games to minors and allowed $1,000 fines for violators.

It's amazing how freedom of speech is being used to justify selling violence and sex to minors. The judge's final argument that the state lacks the authority to restrict speech on the ground that it affects the listener's thoughts and attitudes makes more sense than what the opponents of the bill say, but it's still not so obvious to many people, including prominent politicians.

Read the whole thing on Yahoo and feel free to voice your own opinion on SP boards.

 

I don't really understand why these laws are being struck down. We've got a similar law governing movies (I think it's a law), so why not video games? I assume that parents can still buy them for their kids, and past that it should be an issue with the rating system, not the law.

 

IMHO judges are being retarded on this one. Freedom of speech is about you being allowed to say what you want, not about making you ablet to reach someone. It's on the speaker's level, not the listeners. Children don't have the freedom to listen to or look at whatever they want; parents are the subjects of that freedom as regards their children. Therefore parents can make the decision for children. If they want, they can still buy and give it to their sons and daughters. If films can be rated and minors not let in, then why not games?

I'm starting to think that it's not about retailers being uncertain if they will be punished or not because they haven't played the game and don't know, but about lost profit from saling such games to minors. Thou shalt not stand in the way of profit... After all, the judge doesn't say a word about retailers not always being able to tell. His ruling deals with the concept of the restriction itself.

There is freedom of speech but there is no such thing as freedom to sell violent and sexual material to children and teenagers. Would it be unconstitutional if an individual retailer refused to sell XXX Hot Sluts Video Poker to a 13 year old boy? Shouldn't alcohol stop being illegal for minors simply on the grounds that it affects thoughts and attitudes, anyway? If affecting thoughts and attitudes is no reason, then why are films still rated?

What's next? Maybe marking films or games or books violent or sexual is bad? Maybe there should be no reviews? Yeah, scratch even the titles. And blank the covers. They are such great give-aways.

 

Very well said. This is something we agree on.

 

Quis custodiet ipsos custodiem ?

 

It is not a law. It is, rather, MPAA policy. MPAA is not in anyway a government agency.

 

People should *seriously* stop fussing about this.
I've said this a gazillion times before: violent computer games don't make normal people MORE violent but LESS violent. When I feel like beating my annoying siblings, I blow apart some heads in Chaser instead.

The only people who go into a killing spree due to a killing spree are nutjobs on the edge who were only waiting for a trigger anyway. What's next, outlawing TV shows with sex/violence because a minor might watch them?

It is a parents' responsibility to determine if and what games a child may play, and the government has no business interfering with that.
/rant

 

Got this from a previous issue of 8bit theatre: http://www.nuklearpower.com/daily.php?date=050621

You said it Brian

 

I couldn't agree more with the quote Shrikant posted. Besides, while reading all those latest news posts about banning games with certain contents, I started wondering: what the f*** is a kid that needs protection from such content doing with enough money to buy the game without its parent(s) being there with him in the store? I have never seen such games in the grab bin where you can have them for 5-10 euro (or dollar). This means those "innocent" KIDS are running around with 50-60 euro (dollars). Wtf does a kid need so much pocketmoney for? And don't tell me it saved up half a year (or a whole year) just to buy that game. If you want to keep your kid away from harmfull content, make sure they don't have the means to acquire it, instead of counting on stores to do your parenting job for you.

 

I think alot of people are perhaps missing the point here. It doesn't concern whether or not parents are buying these games for their kids, or really whether or not people are being good parents. Look, we know many parents aren't doing a good job. All it takes is a walk around your local mall to confirm that However, that's not the concern. Clearly the concern is children who do have the money going in and buying the games for themselves without the parents ever knowing. And lets face it. Regardless of whether you think kids should have that type of money, it's not all that uncommon for them to have it. Even many years ago in my younger days, I could and did save enough money to purchase some games on my own. Now in this instance, I'm sure you could chalk it up to bad parenting. And it could be the case. But even good parents can't watch their kids 24/7 unless you're locking them in the home. That's why their are laws, or at least adhered to policies, governing other forms of media. You don't think kids have enough money to buy porn? Think they couldn't get to an adult book store or theatre without their parents knowing? Think again. Fortunately, there are at least laws in place preventing them from viewing the material, because I don't think owners of such establishments (nothing personal) are the most reputable or moral people around. And honestly, if they EB Games clerk would sell a grand theft auto title to a 13 year old, I don't think they are terribly reputable or moral either.

So the question becomes why is it bad that the government regulates sales of clearly adult oriented video game material to minors? I'm sure you could come up with many reasons, from governemnt regulation is bad to video games don't hurt anyone. And those are things that I don't necessarily disagree with in some form. But can you really tell me you think it's good that even an 12 year old child should be making the choice about whether he wants to buy true crime: new york?

 

The point is here that my experience with the current rating organs has made me very suspicious as to whether they are capable of judging this correctly. With porn it's easy, it's something adult. But with games, it's much more difficult to decide where you pull the line, same as with movies. Of course something like Bully needs to be restricted. But for most games things aren't so obvious, as shown by my example I've discussed extensively with Chevalier in another of the news posts regarding the 16+ rating of Shadow Hearts: Covenant.

Not that I should care, being 24+