This article links to <a href="https://www.foxnews.com/us/chicago-sees-spike-in-carjackings-prompting-call-to-ban-grand-theft-auto" rel="nofollow">https://www.foxnews.com/us/chicago-sees-spike-in-carjackings...</a>, which links to the actual source article <a href="https://chicago.suntimes.com/news/2021/2/22/22295471/grand-theft-auto-illinois-ban-violent-video-games-carjackings-evans-operation-safe-pump" rel="nofollow">https://chicago.suntimes.com/news/2021/2/22/22295471/grand-t...</a>.<p>The latter article offers slightly more detail:<p>> Rep. Marcus Evans Jr. wants to amend a 2012 law preventing some video games from being sold to minors. Friday, he filed HB3531, which would amend that law to ban the sale to anyone of video games depicting “psychological harm,” including “motor vehicle theft with a driver or passenger present.”<p>> Besides addressing carjacking, the bill also changes the definition of a “violent video game” to one in which players “control a character within the video game that is encouraged to perpetuate human-on-human violence in which the player kills or otherwise causes serious physical or psychological harm to another human or an animal.”
Politicians can be depressing.<p>Such demagoguery. Material forces, such as poverty, and availability of guns, play second fiddle to video games and even language in the 2020's. One can't not talk about connections between these material forces and crime.<p>I know criminal justice reform is an extremely contentious topic, both from a data standpoint and from a moral standpoint, but one can't just not talk about connections between changes in the law and crime.<p>I don't live in Chicago, but in my city the police are saying that due to the decriminalizations of 'quality of life' crimes, and the elimination of cash bail for almost anything that isn't extremely violent, they are demoralized as they arrest someone and they either don't get charged, get released immediately, or get a desk appearance ticket. When we ask them why violent crimes have skyrocketed, they tell us, our hands are tied. Maybe the cops are lying, maybe not, but it's at least on the table as discussion topic.<p>... or we can ban all violent video games. Hey, here's an idea, let's ban all porn, that should solve all the sexual assault issues too. Let's ban alcohol and that should reduce violence, and ban smoking and that'll reduce lung cancer. It's so simple when the demagogues propose a solution.
> <i>Eliminating GTA will have about as much impact on carjacking as eliminating Call of Duty will reduce world wars or banning Minecraft will decrease structure-destroying “mobs.”</i><p>This is epic-level punnery.
> What such bills accomplish is not crime reduction but political protection. It gives the appearance of action from legislators who do not want to take more decisive or direct action. It is easier to blame a video game than state or city enforcement policies.<p>Setting the absurdity of the situation aside, how can limiting the personal freedom of your citizens be the "safe choice" compared to criticizing or changing policies? And be considered a "less decisive action"? Especially in the USA, one of the countries which arguably values personal freedom the most. This is really not a good direction.
Tesla might be on the right track to solve the issue.<p>Having no spare parts available and repairs only available at select service center means they could potentially refuse service to anyone who used parts with stolen serial numbers.<p>That would make them worthless to steal.<p>As for banning a video game, if he can get the first amendment repelled, sure. Good luck!
>The idea is that the government can regulate what you are enjoying and modify your desires and actions. It is the ultimate expression of paternalistic governance theory.<p>As usual, Turley's hyperbole can be seen from the moon. Laws against the sale of heroin primarily prevent people from enjoying heroin so they will not desire heroin. Laws against child pornography prevent people from enjoying pedophilia so they will not harm children. Laws against street racing prevent the enjoyment of speeding so people will drive more safely. Laws against hate crimes control certain self-reinforcing criminal dynamics. The last three do refer to a real harm-to-others, but the motivational intent of the law is obvious.<p>Wikipedia states: "Criminology is an interdisciplinary field in both the <i>behavioural</i> and social sciences". Indeed the legal concept of <i>punishment</i> still maps well onto the behavioral psych definition of <i>punishment</i>, and the latter is routinely used as a model to critique and inform the former.<p>That's not to say I support this video game ban, nor even am I saying I don't think it's stupid (it is). But all of this "<i>the government is trying to control your thoughts!</i>" chicanery is just that. <i>Everything</i> is trying to control your thoughts.
A more informative source:<p><a href="https://chicago.suntimes.com/news/2021/2/22/22295471/grand-theft-auto-illinois-ban-violent-video-games-carjackings-evans-operation-safe-pump" rel="nofollow">https://chicago.suntimes.com/news/2021/2/22/22295471/grand-t...</a>
Oh I'm sure increase in carjacking is due to video games, and not at all related to growing economic inequalities and stress which were recently amplified by Covid... /s
Just recently during the Robinhood hearings there was another Rep that was asking why Robinhood wasn’t moderating Reddit and other big social media sites. Speaking with such conviction that you’d think it was the smartest idea ever, if you knew absolutely nothing about the internet. Some of these people are out of touch.
This politician's effort is probably dead in the water, US Supreme court ruled in 2011 against something similar:
<a href="https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/10pdf/08-1448.pdf" rel="nofollow">https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/10pdf/08-1448.pdf</a>
From direct experience working with children I am certain that video games shape how children behave as an individual or in a group.<p>For example, I see kids playing real life re-enactments of Roblox or Minecraft when they are together. Or create their own games with similar rules, goals or consequences.
I mean, legislators have seeked to ban <i>literally</i> water (see <a href="https://www.latimes.com/archives/la-xpm-2004-mar-13-me-water13-story.html" rel="nofollow">https://www.latimes.com/archives/la-xpm-2004-mar-13-me-water...</a>)
A car is so enormous, I don't understand how car theft even happens. Surely it can't be hard to go through the finite number of facilities in a city capable of chopping up a car and find some evidence.
From the article:
> Carjacking is increasing because there is insufficient deterrent.<p>[citation needed]<p>I'll buy that increasing the risk of getting caught might deter crime. But just like bike theft, you can't keep an eye on all parked cars, or even a small fraction of them.<p>And even when you catch someone stealing tires off a car, how hard a punishment can you really give -- hopefully not much.<p>Maybe we should also why some is stealing tires? Or jacking cars.
Hillary Clinton along with Tipper Gore felt that the cause of societal ills in the 1990s were video games and rap. It was ridiculous and how we ended up with “explicit content” labels and absurdly bleeped out music recordings.<p>Clinton tried to blame the Columbine massacre on Doom much in the same way Dan White tried to excuse his assassination of Harvey Milk on Twinkies.<p>Around that time Tom Petty had a song censored, every time it played on MTV the word “joint” was replaced with indecipherable word-like sound.<p>Once the boomers have died off hopefully so will their insane need to resort to censorship instead of accepting personal and societal responsibility.
Here's the bill: <a href="https://www.ilga.gov/legislation/BillStatus.asp?DocNum=3531&GAID=16&DocTypeID=HB&LegId=132549&SessionID=110&GA=102" rel="nofollow">https://www.ilga.gov/legislation/BillStatus.asp?DocNum=3531&...</a> ("Bill Status of HB3531 102nd General Assembly")<p>The synopsis of the bill (provided at the link above):<p><i>> Amends the Violent Video Games Law in the Criminal Code of 2012. Changes provisions that restricts the sale or rental of violent video games to minors to prohibit the sale of all violent video games. Modifies the definition of "violent video game" to mean a video game that allows a user or player to control a character within the video game that is encouraged to perpetuate human-on-human violence in which the player kills or otherwise causes serious physical or psychological harm to another human or an animal. Modifies the definition of "serious physical harm" to include psychological harm and child abuse, sexual abuse, animal abuse, domestic violence, violence against women, or motor vehicle theft with a driver or passenger present inside the vehicle when the theft begins. Makes conforming changes, including repealing a Section concerning the labeling of violent video games by video game retailers.</i><p>I am gonna take a atypical/non-standard opinion (for HN) on this -- I wholeheartedly support this proposed bill.<p>We already have First Amendment restrictions when it comes to the depiction of a certain type of crime (i.e. a certain type of pornography). If that 1st Am. exemption is legal and permissible, then it should constitutional for that exemption to cover other crimes as well.<p>I see no reason why the depiction of the commission of other types of crime should be legal, permissible, and <i>even popular</i> (as shown by how many buy games like these). You can still make a lot of interesting video games that don't involve gratuitous user-directed violence / other crime.<p>Heck, I think the whole video game scene will become a lot more interesting and creative once a ban like this is put into law.<p>One last note: I <i>don't think</i> this bill would lead any reduction in real-world crime. I know that was the reason this bill was introduced, but I find that kind of connection to be spurious at best. I think a real reason we should ban depictions of crimes and violence (often where the player is the one perpetrating it), is that <i>it simply is distasteful</i>, and if I may say so--a tad bit morally not-good.