Washington State HB 1009: Games and Police Officers

[Spiderman]

From today's Gamespy newsletter:

IEMA Comments on Washington Law - Prophet
The IDSA isn't the only trade group displeased with Washington State's HB 1009, signed into law on Tuesday by Governor Gary Locke. The Interactive Entertainment Merchants Association also issued statement today expressing its concern about the validity of the law and to announce its plan to draw up a formal complaint against the law along with other trade groups and its partners. The law makes it a crime, punishable by a $500 fine, to sell or rent videogames that depict violence against police officers to anyone under the age of 17. Here's the statement issued by the IEMA today, in its entirety:

"The nation's leading retailers of computer and video games were dismayed to see that Washington State HB 1009 made it through the legislative process and then disappointed to find that Governor Gary Locke had signed it into law. Over the past several years retail members of the IEMA (Interactive Entertainment Merchants Association) have made significant and voluntary investment and progress in working with parents in stemming the sale of inappropriate games to minors. This law does nothing to aid in our on-going effort, but instead acts as a clear violation of the First Amendment and a dubious effort of censorship. We remain committed to our customer's rights and firmly believe that parents are the best and most directly responsible party to determine appropriate entertainment for their children. To that end, we have chosen to join our trade partners in preparing a formal complaint." Hal Halpin, President, IEMA.

And another:

IDSA To Challenge Washington State Law - Celeryface
In a report from Reuters today, The Interactive Digital Software Association (IDSA) stated that it would challenge the bill signed yesterday by Washington State Gov. Gary Locke, in court.

The bill makes it illegal to sell or rent video games to minors (under the age of 17) that depict violence against police officers. The IDSA says that the bill violates the right to free speech and would go to court to put an injunction on the enforcement of the bill. Here is a quote from the report:

"If the goal is to keep games out of the hands of kids for whom they are not appropriate ... then the answer is to focus on parental education and awareness of the (ratings system), not to try to turn retailers into parents," IDSA President Doug Lowenstein said in a statement.

I couldn't decide if this should go in General Gaming or here, but it seems more political so here it is...

I'm not sure what I think. I guess it seems to be favoring the police, because there are lots of games about killing or doing violence against someone. It sort of reminds me about the furor over NWA or Public Enemy back in the day...

 

[Thallid Ice Cream Man]

Let's make a list of affected games:
Tekken 3: Paul's ending shows Paul kicking at a police officer! Mature rating.

Well, I can't think of many more examples although I'm sure they're all over the place. maybe you can.

 

[EricBess]

I don't typically play the type of game that would have such stuff in it anyway.

 

[Ferret]

What's so bad about this law? I think that kids shouldn't be exposed to this kind of nonsense until they're mature enough (thus, the Mature rating) to realize how absurd it is. If you teach kids that it's okay to kick around the very people that are trying to protect them then all you will get out of it is anarchy and chaos.

-Ferret

"Ha ha! He shot a cop! Let's do that the next time they pull us over for not letting us go fast!"

 

[Apollo]

I don't think you give kids enough credit, Ferret. I don't typically play that kind of game myself (sports, mostly), but most kids have the sense to know that video games do not depict what you should do in real life--and if they don't have that sense, well, something else would have set them off anyway. I'm all for the ratings, and parents checking into what their kids are playing and talking to them about it, but not for banning them outright. I also think the law is too vague--if a game features a crooked cop that the hero stops, is it a bannable game? And with games as long as they are now, and as many of them as there are now, retailers have no way of knowing what is in which game, but they can still be fined for selling them.

At any rate, I'm for the education and awareness of parents, not laws that just hurt video game stores.

 

[EricBess]

I think it's the impression it gives, Apollo. For example, suppose at the end there is a crooked cop that you need to reveal and deal with. That's one thing as long as there is a rich storyline that comes across well.

On the other hand, suppose it is simply a first-person shooter where you take on a crooked precinct. Story line or no, if you are mowing down cop after cop, that's going to leave an impression.

I really don't see how this hurts vendors. I can't imagine that there are very many games that fall into this category and those that are should probably be questioned in the first place.

And I'm all for educating parents and having parents responsible for educating their children, but while a nice theory, what you are basically saying is that if parents do their jobs, most of the kids won't play these games anyway because their parents won't let them. But if this were really happening the way it should, then there would be no market for these games and they simply wouldn't be produced. We know they are, so where is the break down?

 

[Spiderman]

Like I said, one of the problems is why stop at police officers? Why not killing in general? Or even soldiers?

Another problem is that I'm not sure how or why the law got passed in the first place. My original post just had the response to it, not the reasoning behind it.

 

[whuppinboy]

yet another example of how inane democracy can be. for crying out loud, it's a friggin' VIDEO GAME ! and Spidey, you're right, this exactly like the whole Ice-T, NWA and the whole Tipper Gore thing back in the early 90's.

next thing ya know, they're going to ban anything that has swear words in it or sexual suggestion. jeebus, i hope this gets repealed, it's not like it will be effective or anything, the kids will either just get their parents to buy it for them or another friend that's old enough. buttheads, what buttheads.

 

[Ferret]

I guess the thing I like about the law is that it prohibits the sale to minors - in other words, if some kid wants it they should ask their parents to buy it for them. The parent could look over the title, discuss it w/ the kids and explain how it's "just a game" to them. This encourages a concept that's not seen that often in American society: Responsibility.

The law (just like Tipper's actions of the late 80's) is not out to censor or ban anything. It's just trying to get adults involved w/ the things their kids interact with - and there's absolutely nothing wrong w/ that.

-Ferret

"So, Dad. You're telling me that killing is bad? I don't get it."

 

[Spiderman]

But again, why single out the police? Why not just put it on all violence in general?

'Cause obviously a lot of games are violent... but it still should be standard across the board, rather than singling out a single group.

 

[Mr_Pestilence]

I've been a video gamer for more than 20 years, and mowed down millions of cops, aliens, innocent bystanders, giant bugs, zombies, villagers, etc., etc., etc. in that time.

I was a teenager when I began, and I haven't knowingly harmed another person or animal in all these years.

Video games, television, rock music and so forth don't cause violence - violence existed long before the above mentioned phenomena, and if they all disappeared tomorrow, there would still be violence. This is just part of the human condition.

There are places in the world right now without widespread TV, video games, etc., that are among the most vioent in the world.

Stop blaming entertainment media for screwed-up people!

 

[Apollo]

Ditto Mr. P. Entertainment does not creat violence.

what you are basically saying is that if parents do their jobs, most of the kids won't play these games anyway because their parents won't let them.

No, what I was saying is that if parents do their jobs, the kids will know better than to take the games seriously. That doesn't mean they won't play and enjoy them. Like Mr. P, I have probably killed more than my share of cops over the years on my TV screen, yet becuase I was brought up decently, I have somehow resisted the urge to do so in real life. If a kid is going to be violent, he will be regardless of whether or not he played Hitman 2.

 

[Ferret]

Originally posted by Mr_Pestilence
I've been a video gamer for more than 20 years, and mowed down millions of cops, aliens, innocent bystanders, giant bugs, zombies, villagers, etc., etc., etc. in that time.

I was a teenager when I began, and I haven't knowingly harmed another person or animal in all these years.

Video games, television, rock music and so forth don't cause violence - violence existed long before the above mentioned phenomena, and if they all disappeared tomorrow, there would still be violence. This is just part of the human condition.

There are places in the world right now without widespread TV, video games, etc., that are among the most vioent in the world.

Stop blaming entertainment media for screwed-up people!

Thank goodness everyone is just like you.

If you take a good look - not just a cursory clance - you'd see that most people are easily influenced sheep. This new law encourages a little responsibility. The reason that you're so well adjusted is because you know how to think for yourself. Good luck finding nine people out of ten (random people - not your friends) that have their own opinions that aren't influenced by movies and/or Tv...

-Ferret

"...heaven knows I've tried..."

 

[train]

This new law encourages a little responsibility.

I'm neutral as I don't really play video games, but placing this responsibility on the vendors is the same as checking ID's for cigarettes and alcohol...

All I know, is that if a kid wants the game, all he needs is an older friend, or mom and dad with a PS2 in the family room...

I doubt most parents look at the ratings anyhow...

"Honey, just pick out the game you want, and hurry! Springer starts in 15 minutes..."

 

[Spiderman]

Actually, I bet everyone's opinions are influenced a little by TV or movies; it's how they take that information (and whatever other external forces) to create their own opinion.

Ferret, I don't think you're finding enough people that jive or agree with your stance, that's all. And you yourself has shown (so far) to be a sheep in regards to TV news, with your comments about reporters generally making up news and minorites in sports (you never cared to explain further about those topics so I'm going off of what you said).

 

[EricBess]

Originally posted by Apollo
No, what I was saying is that if parents do their jobs, the kids will know better than to take the games seriously. That doesn't mean they won't play and enjoy them. Like Mr. P, I have probably killed more than my share of cops over the years on my TV screen, yet becuase I was brought up decently, I have somehow resisted the urge to do so in real life. If a kid is going to be violent, he will be regardless of whether or not he played Hitman 2.

Okay, I can understand where you are coming from and I agree. However, I think each child is different and a parent has the responsibility to know which children are able to disassociate real and pretend and to respond accordingly.

But regardless, what I was saying still stands. We know that not all parents do take their responsibilities as parents seriously and it's a situation that is getting better, not worse. So, what do we do? Do we start punishing parents for the crimes of their children? That's certainly one approach. This particular law seems to say that since parents aren't doing their jobs, society should help them by enforcing it.

In theory, if a child wants a particular game, they need to go to their parents and have their parents buy it for them. In practice, they will probably go to some older friend...

At any rate, it may not be the right answer, but it's a step in the right direction.

And I completely agree with Spiderman. It's stupid to single out games that have violence towards police officers. They should be targetting violence in general if they are going to do that. This law wouldn't cover a game whose only purpose is to wander around a school shooting down other students, would it?