My Board

We have a lot of gamers here... what are your comments?

[b][size=4]Court rules state\'s reasoning for video game ban insufficient[/size][/b]

[i][size=1]Friday, December 2, 2005; Posted: 10:51 p.m. EST (03:51 GMT) [/size][/i]

[b]SPRINGFIELD, Illinois (AP) --[/b] A federal judge ruled Friday that Illinois\' restrictions on the sale of violent and sexually explicit video games to minors are unconstitutional and barred the state from enforcing the law.

State officials \"have come nowhere near\" demonstrating that the law passes constitutional muster, said U.S. District Court Judge Matthew Kennelly.

Democratic Gov. Rod Blagojevich and other supporters of the measure argued that children were being harmed by exposure to games in which characters go on killing sprees or sexual escapades.

Opponents 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.

The governor\'s office did not immediately return a call seeking comment.

Other states recently approved similar legislation after hidden sex scenes were discovered in a popular game, \"Grand Theft Auto: San Andreas.\" California\'s version, set to go into effect January 1, is among those being challenged in court.

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

Kennelly said the law would interfere with the First Amendment and there wasn\'t a compelling enough reason, such as preventing imminent violence, to allow that.

\"In this country, the state lacks the authority to ban protected speech on the ground that it affects the listener\'s or observer\'s thoughts and attitudes,\" the judge wrote.

[url=\"http://www.cnn.com/2005/TECH/fun.games/12/02/game.ban.ap/index.html\"]Source Link[/url]

I think this is a smart move on the part of the judge. The courts, parents and lobbyists cannot keep on this track of blaming videogaming for deviant behaviour. It is the responsibility of a minor\'s parents to be aware of what their children are watching, reading, and playing. The courts cannot, as was said in the article above, make a ruling on something a person \"might\" do because he or she played a violent videogame. The laws are in place to deal with acts which do happen, and they lay out the consequences. If a person of any age goes out and commits \"grand theft auto\" after excessive game play, then it is up to the lawyers at that point in time to either prove or disprove the game as the catalyst--but chances are, if the deviancy was there after the game, it was there before too. Legal systems in too many countries are all too happy to slowly remove any parental responsibility from the raising of their children. Yes, it takes a village to raise a child, but it takes a parent to care enough to pay attention to what\'s going on in the village.

Yep, I agree with that. It is mostly a parents fault if their child is too out of control because they didn\'t raise them properly, and blaming the game for bad behaviour is just ignorence.