Slashdot Mirror
Indianapolis Restricts Display Of Violent Games
Darren M. writes: "This CNN article talks about a new law passed in Indianapolis. Apparently, starting the 1st of September, arcades will be required to place games with violence or strong sexuality away from non-violent games, separated by a wall or curtain. They will also be required to only allow persons 18 and over to play them. I cannot imagine how this is constitutional." This seems like a thin excuse to harden and extend the age stratification that passes in many areas of life for "common sense." Remind anyone of jamie's story about age restriction on Soldier of Fortune in British Columbia?
Most of all, kids.
I have seen this sort of political pandering before. The same sort of thing was tried in Longview Washington almost 10 years ago. It lasted a couple of months and then people forgot about it.
It accomplished nothing.
These sort of "quick fixes" get proposed all the time. You see much more of them during political prostitution season. The various leaders need to show that they are "doing something for the community". Of course, the electorate is shallow enough to not question if this will have any effect on youth violence.
If you can find it (and it has not been banned by the local authoritarians), check out back issues of a small press magazine called ""Murder Can Be Fun". They do research into the more morbid parts of history. One of the issues was on youth violence. What they published goes counter to everything we are told about the causes of todays violent youth. The nasty little monsters of yesteryear would give any of the current gangsterbrats a run for their money.
"Trademarks are the heraldry of the new feudalism."
First of all there is no PG equivalent for games. Right now its either Anyone can play it or "This is as bad of porn. Stay Away".
As for PG, it has become a rating almost akin to G. PG means its acceptable. PG-13 tends to mean its acceptable for anyone around 11 and up.
The problem with current ratings is that they are both highly subjective and constantly evolving. Quite a few R rated movies from twenty years ago would be rated PG today. As such, it should really be a parents responsibility to decide what is acceptable. What would be far more appropriate is content ratings on movies and games, so that it is the parents decision.
As a final note, it can be seen that the current rating systems are flawed as Saving Private Ryan is accesible to children (with parents consent)yet SoF isn't... doesn't make much sense to me. And as long as ratings systems make little sense, they will continue to be ignored, a la ESRB.
These sort of laws are ridiculous. All it does is make for less explanation by parents. When a kid asks "Why cant I play Quake 3?" a parent can just say "Its illegal" instead of actually explaining and justifying their actions. Its the same way with things like school uniforms. It makes it easier for parents to say that they wont buy tommy jeans for their kids, instead of actually explaining why. Laws like this make for bad parenting, with no explanation to their children. They deprive children of learning the how and why of their parents morals and beliefs, so that they can learn from that, and become thinking rational adults.
"My head hurts, My feet stink, and I dont love Jesus." -Jimmy Buffett
While this is true, its important to remember that when the MPAA was first formed, it was as an attempt for Hollywood to self regulate itself, because they knew that if they didn't, the government would
I live in Indy. I don't see how they are going to enforce this. The biggest reason being that most the arcades I am aware of (in malls) are UNsupervised. I have never seen an employee to give refunds let alone someone to babysit. Then again most of the Arcades in the malls suck anyway because of their 3 year old games (IE MK3). Blockparty is about the only place I can think of that has new games and has employees. Therefore the only place that can enforce this.
People, how quickly will you give up the First Amendment. To protect the children?
Will you wait until Slashdot needs to do adult verification because someone could post porn or a link to it on it or because it contains (what The Man considers) "extremist" views???
Just because it CAN be done, doesn't mean it should!
I personally am not so sure as you about whether or not violence in the media leads to violence in the real world, but let's assume that it does. What right does that give us to restrict access to violent videogames? The answer to societal problems is not increased govermental regulations. This can only lead to disaster. I mean, look at the tax code. Now if something as simple as taxation can be made so complex by the government, then imagine how impossible it would become if we relied on the government to regulate every aspect of our society! This example seems silly, but I think that it does make a point. The answer to societal problems (if there is an answer) is not to build up mountains of legislation. The answer is to attack the root of the problem: our society. Now everyone has their own opinion of what is wrong with our society, and that is a debate that I don't want to get into right now. But I think it is pretty obvious that the government simply doesn't have the power to stop the problems that we face. And if it did have that power, that would be a bad thing also, because then the government would have too much power... and absolute power corrupts absolutely...
This law will inconvenince those of us who like violent, etc. games. However, I do think that it is a good idea. Some will argue with me that we have a constitutional right to view any content we choose, play any games we choose, and shall not be prohibited from those choices. I do not disagree. The day the Government tells me I can't play Marathon because it has guns and blood will be a sad day. However, I also believe that those of us who enjoy content like that should think about this for a few minutes.
Those reading this who have children under the age of 10 will most likely admit to having taken steps to prevent their children from viewing, participating, or otherwise being exposed to violent or sexual content (if parents do not, that is their choice, and I am not one to make a judgement on that). Certain movies are not rented, certain shows are not watched, certain web sites are not visited, etc. Now, imagine that this particular family goes out to dinner at a pizza pit, or other place where arcade games are readily available. The child wants to play a video game to pass the time. The parent(s) have a choice: either let the child go to the arcade to play PacMan (or other non-violent game) and be exposed to Mortal Kombat, etc., or do not let the child play in the arcade.
This law would require a visual barrier to be in place between the violent and non-violent games. Yes, this would require another few steps to be taken by the player to get to the machine. But, I think that players need think about others in the arcade, not just themselves. Regardless of what psychologists say, a child seeing violence does effect the child. Also, as pointed out in the above example, it allows families to choose whether or not to expose their children to such content. Think of it like the password lock-out features of digital cable or satelite TV - those who want it willingly take a few more steps to access their violence and porn in order to prevent the little one from stumbling across "Debbie Does Dallas" and asking "Mommy, what is that man doing?"
If we are in a society that is so concerned about choice, why is it that we are so adamant about denying choice to others?
-er
"Jesus saves, but everyone else in a 10 foot radius takes full damage from the fireball."
This law is putting decisions out of the hands of the parents. I believe that a parent gives implicit consent when they allow their children to be at an arcade.
:)
I am going to be 17 and a sophomore in college in a month, and my parents have made many conscious decisions to allow me to have the same rights of an adult. They allow me to get my own apartment in Manhattan (400 miles from home) and basically do whatever I deem responsible, whenever I want (though i am stuck in the server room 55 hours a week). I have my own checking account, and own brokerage account.
Last week, I paid $700 in income tax... yet I can't vote? I can't play UT or SoF? If the government is so big on parent's rights, why do they take the rights of their children without their consent?
On an unrelated note, has anyone ever seen anyone over 18 in an arcade?
-j
-sigs of the world unite
Now, from what I understand, the governments are trying to "protect" us by separating us from violent games.
Nope. They are giving parents the ability to make the decision. When I was younger (16), my parents signed a waiver at the local rental store, so I may rent non-porn, rated-R movies. I saw nothing wrong with that method of control.
cartoons where characters "should" get killed (eg fall off cliffs, get shot in the head, etc) walk away without a scratch - or at worst a cast that stays on 'til the next scene.
When I was 6, I knew that it was fake. Very little realism was involved in it. The point was slap-stick. Nowadays, with Unreal Tournament, you can pop someone's head off in great detail.
Also, an arcade is harder to control than a television within your own home.
Quite right. It's the fourteenth amendment which has been held to extend that prohibition to state and local governments.
Never take moderation advice from sigs, including this one.
So they don't have the right to love, to kindness, to entertainment? So I guess when they get home from school, you'd lock them in a bare room? I'd hate to be your child, as it sounds like you'd steal my childhood away.
//m
Granted, for this to happen the law would have to be more widespread than Indianapolis, but still . . .
with humpy love,
with humpy love,
humpmonkey
First of all, it is not unreasonable for one parent to stay home with the children in many situations. If you reject the current consumerism trend, you can live very happily on a tiny salary (assuming your kids aren't teenyboppers). If not (hey, some people are materialistic, and some people are single parents), I'm sure many grandparents would love dearly to spend time with their grandchildren during the day (though if grandparents are already considered a necessary twice-a-year-visit evil in the child's life, then this will probably not work).
:).
That said, the causes of this law should be looked at carefully, other than just brushing it off and saying that "it's useful" (which it probably is to a large number of people). There was a time, probably not twenty years ago (well maybe it never happened in big cities, I don't know), when if a child were vandalism something, harassing someone, or even just outside of school grounds during the day, 9 out of 10 adults would stop them and question them and bring them to the attention of their parents. By slapping a law over top of this without trying to figure out what the actual causes are, you are most likely going to make the problem worse in the long run.
Not that I'm saying I actually have a solution
First of all, this law is more than likely constitutional. I don't see how its a violation of free speech or free association. If that were unconstitutional, then not allowing minors into porn theaters would be unconstitutional. It's best to actually read the Constitution and have at least a working understanding of it before using it as a blanket defense.
That being out of the way, I belive that this law is probably doomed to a quick death. Simply put, it will kill arcades throughout the city. Games like Mortal Kombat and its ilk are the bread and butter of these places. Denying the vast majority of the customers access to those machines will seriously hurt the bottom line.
Even should that first supposition be wrong, having a roped off section behind a curtain with a big bouncer not allowing kids in is sure going to be a great draw for families, isn't it? Who in their right minds would have their kid's birthday party in a place like that? Even those who don't play those games will be effected by this asinine piece of legislation.
Personally, if I were an Indianapolis arcade owner, I'd tell the city to frag themselves and move to the suburbs out of the way. Consider the lost tax revenue plus the cost of enforcing the law would be rediculous. There's no way that the city can reasonably expect this law to stay on the books without it having a negative and demonstratable effect on the city. This law is doomed to failure, and anyone with half a clue should have been able to figure it out.
If I were an Indianapolis resident, I'd seriously thinking about a recall petition.
And so the "moral majority" decided that in the best interests of the children, they should shield them from all the nasty things like.. the real world.
No. If you disagree with it, take your children to play those games. This isn't about the "moral majority"; this is giving parents who cannot spend all day with their children supervising them the ability the guide them how they see fit.
Are you arguing that everything should be open to children and that parents have to around them all the time? Many parents are unable to be with their children a good percentage of the time. It is called work. When we farmed, it was possible. Unfortunately, those days are past.
"Those who make peaceful revolution impossible, make violent revolution inevitable" - JFK
It's true. Constitutional protections do not apply to minors. Minors do not have, for example, the right to freedom of speech or freedom of assembly, because the U.S. Constitution does not recognize them as citizens.
I can't see how it's either just or constitutional to deny someone who can vote and die for his country the right to drink and gamble, but since the 18-21 demographic doesn't exactly carry a strong vote, I don't see that changing any time soon.
But let's face it - if you're under 18, you're fucked. You don't have any constitutional protections, and you're completely at the whim of your local/state governments. Sorry. If you don't like it, well, the only the only thing my friends could come up with back in the day was substituting marijuana for beer and vandalizing any institution we couldn't enter. It wasn't a solution, but it was kind of fun.
In conclusion, if you see a video game behind a curtain, and you're under 18, throw a brick at it and run as fast as you can in one direction.
"Beware he who would deny you access to information, for in his heart he deems himself your master."
It orbits the sun directly opposite our Earth, so the astronomers have never seen it. How somebody from Earth-2 managed to hook into our internet, I'll never know!
The goverenment takes children away because of poverty?
news to me.
If you think violence in videogames doesn't affect children, then you are living in a fantasy world. Media, of which videogames are one facet, have an incredible effect on children.
Personally, I don't dispute this. Children exposed to violence at an early age probably turn out to be a little more screwed up than others.
However, the question is whether you are willing to gradually give up more and more personal freedoms and allow censorship in order to prevent this from happening. I am not. You can either decide to take personal responsibility for protecting your children from that which you feel they should be protected from, or let the government dictate to you how things should be. As everyone knows, freedom of speech is not meant to protect popular ideas. It it to protect the unpopular ones -- or in this case, the politically incorrect ones.
The games are put behind a curtain? Doesn't that seem a little ominous to anyone else?
- Scott
------
Scott Stevenson
Scott Stevenson
Tree House Ideas
Except that as you have just pointed out, virtually nobody obeys speed limits because they are completely bogus. That is, they are set not according to saftey principles but to generate revenue. Drivers generally find a balance between driving at the maximum safe speed (generally significantly higher than the posted limit) and not going fast enough to get caught. Yes, I know there are some maniacs who really do drive way too fast, and they should be penalized. But most people stopped for doing 10 mph above the limit were not doing anything unsafe, they are just victims of what is essentially a negative lottery.
How to solve most of our problems: 1.Lots of nuclear plants. 2.Cure aging.
Whats the difference between not allowing minors to view R or NC-17 movies, and not allowing minors to rent violent video games? No one complains when a movie gets an R rating and minors are not allowed in, so why complain about video games?
The difference is that restricting minors from video games is new. Whenever there's change, there will always be people to complain about it. So how long until people see the similarities between games and movies? The line between movie and video game realism is slowly being ereased.
Outdoor digital photography, mostly in New Engl
What right does that give us to restrict access to violent videogames? Imagine if someone produced a game where the object was to rape as many children as possible before taking their corpses back to your house and dismembering them? Most people would draw the line before that point; thing is, everyone draws it in different places. Any age restriction is going to be arbitary, but that doesn't necessarily mean it's a bad thing.
This is going too far. I get carded trying to buy an R-Rated movie, get carded to buy Soldier of Fortune in BC, get carded to play video games in Indiana but don't get carded when I walk into a bar. Go figure where our priorities are.
kwsNI
Mech Warior used to. Or didn't they call it something else when it was in the arcade? I can't remember.
Fsck that. How 'bout the early 80s bloodfest "The Bilestoad" on the Apple ][?
Pictures of a 3-D port to the Mac
I have fond memories of hacking limbs off in the original version, in glorious 280x192 resolution at four real colors and 8 pseudo-colors. It was the bloodiest thing I'd ever seen at the time :)
I first found out about Bilestoad in a full-page print ad in Nibble magazine. I believe the phrases "graphic violence and bloodletting" and "suitable for adults only" were used. I don't think the game was ever released where I lived; I never saw it on the shelves.
One of my happier gaming moments came when someone in our user group got his hands on a copy from some warez BBS in the States. It spread like wildfire. It was bloody, shocked the parents, and more importantly after the first 15 minutes, featured really good gameplay.
Your irony for the day: From the Bilestoad Manual:
The more things change, the more they stay the same.
Double irony: This is the first time in my life that I'd actually read the premise of the game - a society held together by the use of virtual violence as catharsis. I'm doubly impressed by the designers' insight.
1983, folks. The original came out in 1983.
> You have to be 17 (legally) to see and R rated movie.
That is NOT true.
Moviemakers "voluntarily" submit their movies to the ratings board (because most theaters won't show unrated movies), and then movie theaters voluntarily turn minors away from strongly rated movies. (Of course, they do that just to stave off government intervention, but that's another story altogether.)
This is outright government intervention.
this actually has something to do with violent video games and censorship and nothing to do with the hypocrisy of eating meat...
--
Peace,
Lord Omlette
ICQ# 77863057
[o]_O
My feeling is that games have gotten way too violent. It's one thing to say, gee I'd like to blow up a zombie, but it's another to be able to do it, even via computer.
We all know human nature is not chock full of virtue and tolerance. These games only allow people with bad ideas to develop their anger.
Suppose for instance you've got some racist black guy. He says to his friend, hey man, all those zombie's is white folks. They shoot up a bunch, laugh about it.
Violent games do not lead to people becoming more moral, more level headed, people.
maybe violent video games and media provide an outlet for innate human aggressive tendencies & acting such out upon robots & nazis is much better than on your classmates.
Violence existed before video games, & this obsession with eliminating violent games is stupid when you consider what teens could be doing instead.
"someone" did a study (no I don't have the citation) which found no correlation betweeen video games & long term violent behavior. Short term effects were found, but it was attributed to adrenaline, and this isn't about banning adrenaline-causing activities. c.f. violent tendencies caused by H.S. football jocks. No red-blooded American would go after fb, though.
I am tired of seeing video games (and the media in general) blamed when the real problem is elsewhere...whether it be a broken home, poverty, or the old-fashioned "mentally disturbed". And I am tired of the ol' head-in-the-sand "what we hear and what we see as children has nothing to do with what kind of adults we become" nonsense. The movies kids watch and the games kids play has an indelible effect on how they develop. Don't get me wrong, sound parenting and good role-models will overcome this. Id did for me and it probably did for you as well. However, since neither is the norm in this day and age, taking some meager steps such as this ordinance does not bother me in the slightest. As long as it is a municipality or a state that takes this action and not the federal government, more power to 'em.
Don't want to sound like a troll, but how is this unconstitutional? I don't know if video games could be considered protected speech, but even if they could they're not really restricting them (unless you lack the mental ability to pass through a curtain, in which case you probably would have trouble putting quarters in the slots anyway)...
In fact, for all the problems I have with americans sometimes, I would say that respect for people's sexual rights is better here than most places around the globe. If thats backwards repression and not understanding sex, bring it on.
-Kahuna Burger
...will work for Chick tracts...
Hi, It reminds me a lot of the Soldier of Fortune banning - all part of the same trend. Incidentally, I believe ratings for Video Games have been in place for several years now in Germany, restricting children from buying Violent games (in fact, I believe, prohibiting the games' display unless in a seperate 'adults only' section). I am not sure what the law is on Arcades, but I do not see why it should be any different. Basically, if we are protecting our children from material (videos, books, magazines) containing strong language, violence or sexual images, I do not see why the same should not be done for video-games. Many of current video-games are more realistic than many movies! If we say gore is out for kids in one medium, why is it unconstitutional, or a bad idea to apply the same rules to the same content in another medium? Or are you saying there should be no ratings, and children should have access to all the same materials adults do? (What about buying guns and explosives? Children can't do that either...) I don't accept the arguments that 'it is up to parents to watch their children' or 'healthy children aren't interested anyway'. I'd like to be able to let my children out into the neighbourhood with the confidence that society is organized to prevent them from harm, rather than assuming society is going to be bad for them, and not letting them out unless I'm with them. I think segregating overly violent arcade games is a move in keeping with this goal. Not only that, but it may reduce demand quite significantly, (since I am sure the people playing them most are the people who aren't supposed to: kids), which would hopefully lead to fewer violent games. Cool! Richie
I am 24 years old and I think this news story is flamebait more than real news. Oh no, teenagers can't play public violent video games. Yeah, like I really am worried about that.
I don't see any freedom being lost here... at least I don't see any freedom being lost here that is _worth losing_.
You people who are fighting against this notion of restricting violent video game access in arcades need to find a real cause. Fighting over this issue isn't worth it.
Hmmm perhaps, if they are to poor to be fed properly? So I read to quick hehe but the rest of it is right :)
Yeah, I agree. It's foolish to say that children won't be affected by violence, since a young child is about the most maleable thing in the universe.
But by the time that child is 16 (or 14 or 12), if he or she doesn't have a firm grasp on the difference between reality and fantasy, and on the tragic consequences of real-world violence, then it's too late. On the other hand, a 16-year-old 'child' with this fundamental comprehension will not be adversely affected by violent videogames such that they become more violent in real life.
When I was 14 and playing Wolfenstein, there was zero danger of me taking that violence out of the context of being a game. Were I to have played at age 6, that would not have been true.
Does a hard limit of 18 years of age make sense? Do we really need a law to keep 6-year-olds from playing games at arcades? What is necessary is slow exposure over time as the child becomes ready for it, and this is something the government has neither the time nor the competency to do.
Unfortunately, the same can be said of many parents.
The enemies of Democracy are
Strangely enough, all the thong-clad women (and masked men) looked exactly the same except for the color of their leotard...
I never understood Mortal Kombat.
Wah!
Hey hey. I'm 15, and I think i'm old enough to decide weather I want to be able to look at porn or not. Your pretty assinine to be telling me that its ok for me to be driving in 5 months but that its not to be looking at naked pics. If not for porn, I would never have gotten a great computer job and learned anything about computers. My quest for the Holy Porn (tm) brought me to IRC where I learned the art of file transfers first, and then eventually to mIRC scripting so i could get my dalnet pr0n automatically overnight. At the same time as the vids were rolling in, I was learning a hell of a lot about computers. Similarly, I gained much experience with FTP's. Then one day in IRC, i didn't even know existed before i started getting porn, i was hanging out in #linux. A recruiter found me, and now I have a summer job paying 20 bucks an hour. Not bad for a high school kid. So before you start calling me a pr0n addict, i just want you to reconsider what your saying
I dont know about YOUR state, but here in North Carolina, it is ILLEGAL to see R rated movies under 18. Which is funny because you can see NC17 movies at 17. At least, thats the way I understand it; IANAL.
But then we still allow grown men to beat each other senseless, and occaisionally die or suffer permanent brain damage, just for people's entertainment on Pay-Per-View.
Remember though, people who play football are always A-OK, especially when they are violent sociopath's (people figure that makes them more likely to be winners). All non-violent gaming (by this I mean, gaming that doesn't include actually doing violence to a fellow human being) is considered suspicious and evil.
Oh, and bad, tasteless games are becoming ever more violent because of all this media insanity over "violent games warping our kids" (free publicity, they'd never sell on their merits as games. Remember, the people making Soldier of Fortune set out to make the most violent game of all time so they'd stand out from all the similar, better games out there.) while more mainstream games are routinely censored, even if the censorship is of the most ridiculous thing you could think of.
I'd give a source on that, but since a majority of people posting to slashdot these days seem to be trolls or fascists, I won't bother hunting down the URL. God, this place has gone down hill...
All the creatures will die, And all the things will be broken. That's the law of samurai. (Jubai, 1605)
Well you're mostly right. All of Greece didn't exactly join forces to fend off Xerxes. Something like half of the Greek city-states sided with Persia. During the course of the Greaco-Persian wars Athens and Sparta were the most powerful of the Greek city-states and bickered alot about the best strategy for defending greece. Athens being a port city was in alot of danger of being invaded by sea, blockaded or backed up against the ocean by a land force (in fact Athens was evacuated, captured and burned twice during the persain wars) Sparta on the other hand was landlocked and pretty self reliant, lots of good farming land on the Peleponese (sp?). So they disagreed on the best strategy, Themisticles, leader of Athens for most of the period, wanted a united greek navy commanded by Athens. Sparta wanted a coalition army to hold up on the Pelelponese at the ithmus to wait for Xerxes to attack and defend from there.
;->
The Spartans also had a problem with slave revolts. They're slaves wern't happy, and in fact the only thing that kept them under control for the most part was the massive standing army Sparta kept at home. So for politcal reasons they didn't embrace the Athenian strategy. That is not to say that the Spartans didn't play a crucial role in the war. Their most famous battle is Thermopylae, a narrow passage near the sea where 3000 allied greek soliders (300 Spartan hoplites, 700 from other allies, and about 2000 support personal, archers ect...) held off Xerxe's entire army (over 100,000 men, 1,000,000 by some accounts) for 3 days. It could be thought of as the Alamo of ancient greece. Anyway the death toll was astounding, Xerxes lost something on the order of 10k men. Anyway that holding action disrupted Xerxes supply chain and ruined the tight integration between his land and naval forces (the navy could not operate with out the land forces) and likely supplied the edge Athens needed to spank the Persian navy soundly at Salamis and elsewhere.
A couple of good books I recomend about the Persian wars are:
The Greco-Persian Wars by Peter Green.
and
The Gates of Fire by Stephen Pressfeild.
The Gates of Fire is a fictional account of the Spartans involvment at Thermopylea, takes a few liberties but overall is a very good piece of historical fiction. I recomend reading Green's book first (it reads like a novel not a text book) for an overall picture of the war and then reading Gates of Fire for a first person perspective of warfare in ancient times. History was never more exciting
I should also note that shortly after the wars, Athens essentially started extracting protection money from her naval allies and sacked a few island cities that refused to pay dues to her defense coalition. This growing Athenian empire is what led to Sparta and Athens fighting (with Athens losing) about 100 yrs later.
"Listen: We are here on Earth to fart around. Don't let anybody tell you any different!" - Kurt Vonnegut
Also, an arcade is harder to control than a television within your own home.
I agree with this. However, that depends on parents actually controlling what the kids see. The problem is when parents use the TV as a babysitter, which is an all-too-common occurence
I can't say that I don't give a fuck. I've just run out of fuck to give.
Bah. If that were true, then the orphanages and workhouses of the last three centuries wouldn't have been necessary. Or, for that matter, the infant drop-offs for unwanted children during the Renaissance. Even during the most 'religious' centuries of western civilisation, children have been unwanted by god-fearing people, unable or unwilling to take care of their children. God has nothing to do with parenting. Either parents are good at what they do, or they aren't. I was instilled with a believe in God, maybe not -your- God, but God nonetheless and it had little to do with my Mother's liberal, sensible hand in raising me. Get it straight, parents aren't good at what they do because they're lousy parents, not because they didn't drag their children off to listen to some preacher every Sunday or make them say grace before eating their tv dinner.
Maya Divine aka Uber-Vixen
Parents should be parenting, not censoring.
And this law gives them more power to do just that. Monitoring what a child watches on television is much easier than following them around from arcade to arcade. My parents allowed me to rent soft-R movies when I was 16 from the local video store by signing a waiver. This gave my parents the control over the matter as apposed to the child (me).
change how people behave? Are you nuts? Have speed limits changed how people drive? For the most part, no. Not until they pull every speeder over, every time, and pull their license - and incarcerate for driving on suspended licenses, will behavioral changes occur.
You can't compell people. You can bully them, you can cajole them, but you can't compell them.
if it ain't broke, then fix it 'till it is!
These are my friends, See how they glisten. See this one shine, how he smiles in the light.
Accually you don't, ratings are simply a guide, and there is no legal recourse for allowing anyone into any movie, with the exception of NC-17, where an owner can be charged with contributing to the delinquecy of a minor.
Actually you do have to show ID for an R-rated movie if you are thought to be under 17.
Fundamentally, I have no problem with restricting access to certain materials for children. However, I'd love to see our imperfect system replaced with one which truly reflects the philosophies of the child's parent.
The current US system has two major flaws:
In order to allow parents to exert some degree of control over their children's intake of material, yet at the same time allow them to customize the access based on their personal views and reading of the child's maturing, I propose the following system for all media (TV, print, videogames, video, movies, etc.):
I know this is simplistic, but I do think there are some reasonable ideas that we could use to replace the current botched up system.
-Erik
There are always four sides to every story: your side, their side, the truth, and what really happened.
ok what i really want to know is how old you are? Im a teenager and like my fellow teenager friends having your parents go with you into a arcade is "lame" now maybe you have forgotten this sense your not a teen anymore. also maybe it has also been a long time sense you where a kid but kids and especially male teens like violence. violence and things to do with violence have been popular throughout history. kids have played war and have pretended to fight forever and what is happening now is nothing new. but you have probably gotten older and look at things from a non teen view anymore and ill probably become like that as well(i hope not). and finally u need to look at the market that games are sold too there marketed to teens and kids who like violence so there gonna provide it.
I would agree with you that violence most likely does not cause violent behavior. I do think that it de-sensitizes people to it in certain aspects, though. That's pretty much how medics and coroners become used to seeing bowels of puss and brains leaking out of ears, that sorta thing. They just get used to it.
I think the real debate is to what extent does having many young people being de-sensitized to violence and gore. It probably doesn't make then killers, but is it a good thing? Is it better that people are grossed out and put off by blood shooting out of what used to be an eye? Will it encourage people to be a little nicer if they can avoid it? If they see their father beat their mother, should they not mind the blood all over the place, or should they shit their pants and want to do something about it?
I don't know, but I think it's something to consider.
Jason
The thing is that once they are found the damage has already been done, the kids are f'ed up. Unless they get some heavy duty treatment (and you know that is not going to happen what with the absolutely crappy state of mental health in this country) they are very likely to do the same thing with their kids.
It is a vicious cycle, the abused become the abusers, and so on.
Besides, haven't you seen enough stories about teen runaways and abusive foster parents to know that we don't neccessarily catch these scumbags?
Putting these limits on video games ignores the actual cause of the problems with violent kids, HORRIBLE parents.
Q.
But there is no statistical link! In fact, the very opposite would seem to be implied! Child/teen violence rates have dropped significantly since the gaming industry took off in the early 90s. (Another post supplies a reference where you can get the actual numbers, but suffice it to say, the STATISTICS support what I'm saying.)
Why do we get the impression that it's on the rise? The media. The media has, in recent years (particularly the latter 90s) focused in on youth/teen violence. There was a hostage situation at my high school during my freshman year (back in 1991) - it DID NOT get on the national news! Flash-forward to the late 1990s - EVERY instance gets NATIONAL attention! Don't ask me why, I don't understand the reasoning.
Suffice to say, the media can make things look VERY different from the way they really are. That would definitely be the case with teen/youth violence - just because the media's giving it more attention, doesn't mean it's happening more often - apparently they just have nothing else to cover...
_____
Sam: "That was needlessly cryptic."
Max: "I'd be peeing my pants if I wore any!"
Voluntary my ass. The motion picture industry instituted its rating system largely to avoid government intervention. Its also prone to BS political manipulation by politicos looking to score family values points.
The historical justification for allowing the regulation of zoning for adult businesses is that such businesses produce detrimental secondary effects like increases in prostitution and drug dealing and the like. "Adult" video game establishments can't be said to produce such effects any more than other places that cater to teenagers, like coffee shops. There's no comparison.
"If one is really a superior person, the fact is likely to leak out without too much assistance" -- John Andrew Holmes
I have played Soldier of Fortune. I watched the North Hollywood shootout on TV live in all its gory detail. HUGE difference, hell there is not even a comparison, watching that nut get shot then bleed to death on the street was just disturbing (and then having to see it over and over on the news).
I don't even want to know what it is like to witness that sort of stuff first hand, let alone know the person getting killed, but I get a kick out of blowing up my budies over a LAN or taking them out on the paintball field.
Q.
Likewise, just because minors do not have the full constitutional rights of adults, that does not mean they have no constitutional rights at all. One of the classic cases upholding First Amendment rights of minors is Tinker v. Des Moines.
I'm not saying the Indianapolis ordinance in question is necessarily unconstitutional. The rights of minors is a very murky area of the law. I'm just saying that the /.ers who are saying "clearly this is constitutional, minors have no rights at all" are just as mistaken as those who are saying "clearly this is unconstitutional, it violates the First Amendment."
Never take moderation advice from sigs, including this one.
Try Japanese entertainment then.
if it ain't broke, then fix it 'till it is!
These are my friends, See how they glisten. See this one shine, how he smiles in the light.
No, I was talking/complaining about the lack of rights children have. I'd much rather kids were assumed to have rights unless their parents took them away. I don't like the in loco parentis (sp?) decision where the courts ruled that schools were acting as children's parents and therefore could abuse their privacy and liberty. I don't like the government restricting my child's rights. That's my job!
I give my 2 year old son lots of love, kindness, and entertainment. He's not old enough for me to worry about many other rights right now, but that will come soon enough.
Sorry if my tone didn't come through clearly in the first attempt.
Typical zoning laws do not all adult businesses in all but the worst part of town, in the industrial zoned areas, far out of the way of everything, and certainly far away from schools, malls, and kids. Arcades may be forced to get rid of the violent games or see their business licenses revoked.
If they boot the games, arcades may see their customer count dwindling. So wheather by zoning laws or simple fall off in profits, arcades could find themselves forced out of business.
See what a tiny piece of legislation can do?
legislatures cannot restrict access to information, even to minors.
Interesting. I can't recall seeing any cigarette ads on television lately, can you? And whatever happened to that delightful smoking camel?
I'm also a little disappointed that, for all those years, I'd been abstaining from reading the articles in Playboy for apparently no good reason at all.
"Beware he who would deny you access to information, for in his heart he deems himself your master."
C'mon, people.
Everything affects us. Everything that we see, everything that we do, everything that we hear.
We react to things. Maybe we agree, maybe we disagree. Maybe we decide to learn more. Maybe we decide to shut it out. But all of these things have an effect on us. Whether they change our resultant behavior is the important question.
I personally disagree with the law that was passed. The responsiblity to teach children to react appropriately and responsiblity belongs with the parents, not with the government. Unfortunately, over the last 30 years, U.S. society has adopted the idea that the government is reponsibility for "protecting" our children.
The reason it is a bad thing is because the government is then responsible for defining "violence", "sexuality", and "offensive".
I agree completely with you on this. It's wrong for the Federal Government to do this, but as I recall, a mayor of a city (within a state) did this, and States have the power to decide what is moral and what is not.
Ahh, but what you neglect to mention is that the number of traffic accidents in California also fell during that period -- much to the consternation of the hand-wringers who were predicting mass chaos on the roads.
Errr...no. There is no age interval for citizenship; anyone born in the United States or of American parents abroad is a U.S. citizen from birth to death or renunciation of citizenship. Furthermore, the constitutional protections of basic human rights apply to all persons in the U.S., not just citizens (you may dispute this one in practice based on a few human rights abuses committed by U.S. authorities unto its own citizens, but it's the legal truth).
The issue here is not that the right to play violent video games is protected by the constitution but does not apply to children, but that there is no constitutional right to play violent video games. The vast majority of "rights" in this country have been constructed by the courts or the lawmakers based on the principles of the Bill of Rights and the ninth-amendment protection of "unenumerated rights."
Do, indeed, the constitution or the laws of the land mention anything about the freedom to play violent video games? No. The legal question is not whether children have constitutional rights, but whether a municipal government has the power to prevent children from accessing games it finds objectionable in a public place.
The inevitable lawsuit will be a very interesting one to watch, because the current standard for deciding if objectionable material can be restricted by government decree is whether the offending material is totally devoid of either artistic merit or social value. Certainly this is not the case with (most) violent video games, but it will be fun to see the city's arguments to the contrary!
And what if a parent wants a child to be able to play the video games? The parent has to show up in person and sit around waiting while the kid plays. This clearly penalizes resonsible parents at the expense of those who want the government to do their job for them.
It's about who decides what is and is not appropriate. The whole idea of 'too violent' or 'indecent' is a continuum, and having the town hall, or the board of education, or the board of selectmen (who may attend the same church) make that decision becomes a problem. I hope you realize this.
If the line in the sand is drawn within your tolerance then it is a good law, but if that line is a few inches too far to the right, it's suddenly censorship and fascist. If it is too far left, then the law is permissive and lax. If there is a variance in the fairness of the law, depending on your personal view, then that law should be looked at closely.
Imagine a locale where the religiously influenced are the elected officials, and in accordance with their faith, they do not accept the idea of afterlife. Does Pac-Man suddenly become heretical, just because your mayor doesn't want kids to see ghosts on the video screen?
I know this is hyperbolic and extreme, but it is a good way to test the soundness of an ordinance. Walk the law from one extreme to the other, and see if it is continuous in its sensibility. If so, it's a decent law. If not, it's excessive and impinges on the rights of certain non-deviant members of your society. The responsibility of raising children belongs to the parents. If parents fail to do a good job, the Child Protective Services people step in. But who punishes the government for first taking that responsibility away from the parents and then failing to do the job right?
Do red pixels in Street Fighter or Mortal Kombat make the game too violent? If that's the only difference between those games and Clay Fighter, then you need to educate your kids about real vs fantasy, not sanction their access to video games.
Tyrants and deviant freaks come in many shapes and sizes. People throughout history have tried to force their ideals onto an otherwise free society. You would be suprised at the stuff Noah Webster did to the English language.
-- What you do today will cost you a day of your life.
There are many laws that can be at least justified, even if they are a bit misguided. Say' alcolhol: It fucks you up, so therefore you must be of age to drink it. At least that can be justified.
Now this law cannot be. It is said that it combats a "growing culture of violence" in our society. What I ask is: What culture? It is simply not there. If this is needed, why is it that as the number of violent video games increases (I don't have a study on this, but I believe we can reach a consensus), the amount of violence decreases? Don't believe me? Read this. According to the head of the Center on Juvenile and Criminal Justice (Vincent Schiraldi), said deaths in school have had a 40% decrease between 1998 and 1999. Overall juvenile homocides has dropped by 56%.
If there was a connection between games and violence, then it would suggest that games reduce violent acts. So then how can they possibly justify a law limiting such video games?
I fail to see how limiting access to stuff like this is such a big deal.
/.ers to establish porn for kids, slashdot has opposed censoring programs like cybersitter and netnanny.
And I fail to see how one would give up their rights for no reason at the drop of a hat because some slimeball politician told you to.
I have yet to see any strong advocacy movement on slashdot to allow children of all ages to see XXX porno freely. It's about the same issue.
I don't think so. Not all games are violent, not all have laura croft in them, not all games are exclusively killing. How are games hurting children? If they can distinguish the difference between reality and the virtual world? Now ask yourself how porno might hurt kids. Not only is it a completely different issue, but your suggestion that they are the same is irrelavent and laughable. And while there has been no movement by
Many slashdotters have played driving games, right? If the goverment decides that defensive driving during a race is violence/violent, then they could Legally force video game owners to put driving games behind the curtain, even if the games contain no sex/nudity/profanity/violence/dead people.
There is a fairly long standing acceptance of movies being rated PG, meaning that a parent needs to guide the kids to see it. It's about the same issue. It's not really a constitutional issue as far as I can see.
Here's a concept for you. It wouldn't matter if they were PG or not because the majority of little kids need a parent for A)transportation to the theatre and B)Money. It isn't a constitutional thing, it's a censorship thing.
The Constitution protects the expression of speech. And the game companies are still allowed to express the game however they want. They are merely being limited to who their audiece is, to a group that possibly is more mature, and better able to deal with it appropriately.
I've met 8 year olds I trust more than some adults; maturity is irrelavent. Immature people do many things because the majority is not immature. No goverment law can govern common sense. It's been tried and failed time and time again.
As far as a constitutional right, Freedom of speech means nothing if you cannot hear it. The game companies are businesses trying to make cash like the rest of us. Cutting back on who they can sell to would be useless because if the kids really want to see it they'll either 1) get parents to say they can 2) get another adult to pose as a parent and say they can or 3) get a fake ID.
Kris
botboy60@hotmail.com
Nerdnetwork.net
Kris
botboy60@hotmail.com
Nerdnetwork.net
What exactly do you mean by "respect it"? Do you mean when a relitively big busted friend of mine went to europe and the guys thought they had the automatic right to grope her on the subway (this happened to her regularly there, never in Boston us poor repressed bluebloods.)
And south africans. They respect sex so much that the insurance co. I work for started offering a "rape survivor" insurance plan there because a woman has a good enough chance of getting raped that its worth it to spend some money now to make sure she can get counseling and anti-HIV drugs later.
Or Japan where their respect for sex has caused a national hobby of subway groping.
I dunno, either you and I have very different ideas of what a "respect" for sex would lead to, or you don't know much about how some other cultures deal with the actual sexual rights of the people around them.
-Kahuna Burger
...will work for Chick tracts...
Maybe the law should be - no police are allowed to play violent video games; and no person who ever played a violent video game should be eligible to be a police officer, or server in any military capacity.
The effect on civillians is obviously not hazardous. The effect on the storm troopers, however, is.
if it ain't broke, then fix it 'till it is!
These are my friends, See how they glisten. See this one shine, how he smiles in the light.
OK, folks this is Indianapolis we're talking about. A city whose newspaper prints a different Bible quote on the masthead every day. A state that brought us guys like Dan Quayle and organizations like the Ku Klux Klan. Let's just say that this state isn't known for its expansive view of kosher behavior.
If this was going on in LA, I'd be worried. As it stands, its the kind of thing I _expect_ out of Indianapolis.
Remind anyone of jamie's story about age restriction on Soldier of Fortune in British Columbia?
Hmmm... no completely off topic rant about animal rights and vegetarianism... nope, doesn't remind me of jamie's story at all... ;-)
________________________
Corporate Jenga: You take a blockhead from the bottom and you put him on top...
well i wish 17 year olds could rent porn casue i dont know a 17 yearold male who doesnt look at porn and it would really increase sales(to even higher figures then it already is) for the porn industry if the regulations would lower the age to maybe hmm 15... it would sure save the hassle for the teen to not have to either steal or have someone buy it for you
Uhh, I was pulling spines out of photo-realistic people in Mortal Kombat about 8 years ago.
Q.
change how people behave? Are you nuts? Have speed limits changed how people drive? For the most part, no. Not until they pull every speeder over, every time, and pull their license - and incarcerate for driving on suspended licenses, will behavioral changes occur.
Sorry, but you're wrong about this. When California raised its freeway limit from 55 mph to 65 mph four years ago, average speeds dutifully rose from 65mph to 75mph. Drivers, on average, drive at 10 mph over the limit. Even though only 1 in 700 minor driving offences (speeding etc.) are prosecuted, most drivers stay close enough to the limit. The threat of being caught is part but only part of why the vast majority of people obey the law.
Sailing over the event horizon
Please tell me you are not suggesting that violent video games are the cause of the Yugoslav wars or the dozen or wars activly being fought in Africa at the moment. I'd like for you to point out a single war caused by violent video games.
Or maybe you are suggesting that local communities should pass anti-war laws, making it illegal for anyone to wage war in their cities, so as not to expose kids to the kind of brutal violence that could really disrupt their lives and cause them to be deviant violent punks.
Ok maybe your not suggesting that violent games are causing these wars, but perhaps suggesting that the effects of violent video games has the same affect on children as growing up in an active war zone!?!?
Your comparison's have no absolutly no basis. Have you ever been in an actual war? Or even a riot like the above poster? Didn't think so. Neither have I. Games are just games and always will be. Every gamer knows that they always have an extra life and no matter how many times they frag their buddies they'll come back for more. On that same token the vast majority of humans know that death is final, and can seperate violence in games from violence in real life.
"Listen: We are here on Earth to fart around. Don't let anybody tell you any different!" - Kurt Vonnegut
Its VERY different.
With videogames, you are manipulating a (probably) unrealistic character to kill/destroy things. Right then and there that MUST mean that its fake. Kids would think that if you are controlling it with a controller, it cant be real, because real people arent controlled like that.
With movies, you see a real person on the screen with a real gun shooting at a real person. If its taped then is must be real because those are real people. Kids dont realize that the blood is fake. Kids dont know theres no ammo in the guns they use. Kids don't know stuntmen are used for the falls. Kids know that videogames arent real.
I fail to see how a kid who looks at porn on the internet is going to be 'damaged.' Porn isn't and shouldn't be marketed for kids, as well they shouldn't be encouraged or forced to look at pornography. But any kid who is smart enough and curious enough to find himself some porn is going to be all right. Forcing libraries to use filtering software is stupid. A.Costs money we don't need to spend to protect kids from nothing. Any reasonable person can recognize that porn is not something that you're supposed to be looking at while in the library, school, or any other public place. It's just not socially acceptable to get your wanks in public so it's really not a problem. And oh yeah, B. Any type of censorship is bad.
But to stay on topic, when it comes to video-game violence, I've always been an advocate of more realism. I think that it's the lack of realism in violent media that is potentially harmful. Take for instance Mighty Morphin' Power Rangers. Kids who watch this show think they can punch, kick, and throw people around without having any harmful effects. They don't realize that punching someone in the face can cause PERMANENT damage, and could possibly kill someone. Have you been kicked or hit by some kid who was way into MMPR? Sure. Ever been shot by a bazooka by a doom player? hmm... I doubt it. I say, the gorier, more realistic, disgusting it gets - the better. I say push the realism up to the extreme or keep the violence abstract (i.e. Mario brothers - jumping on top of mushrooms and such) Just don't confuse kids into thinking they can get away with violent acts without some kind of consequence.
"America, I smoke marijuana every chance I get."
If it's constitutional to slap an age restriction on drinking that occurs after the age of citizenship and voting, it occurs to me it would also be constitutional to slap an age restriction on anything else. For example, the government can constitutionally say, "No one under the age of 75 has protection against cruel and unusual punishment."
Isn't that weird?
"Beware he who would deny you access to information, for in his heart he deems himself your master."
Restricting the display of violent video games for minors is no different than restricting the display of sexual things to minors.
Neither is right, both go against the 'constitution'. Both are bad.
1\5Athis is no worse. I'm sorry.
Wow, when I first read this I was amazed and outraged. I why I hadn't heard of this before. Then I realized that I had. The big protests around the WTO meeting in Seattle from Nov 30 to Dec 3. The CNN coverage is here. Suffice it to say this is not as cut and dry as the previous post makes it seem.
To summarize, some of the protestors on Nov 30 were violent. They crowded the meeting participants when they left and even pulled some of them into the crowd. It was a serious security problem. The crowd was forcibly dispersed using tear gas. Baton wielding riot police retrieved the delegates who had been pulled into the crowd by the militant protestors. On all subsequent days the police enacted a secure no-protest zone. Anyone attempting to enter it was tear gased. Most of the people were non-violent protestors, but the police couldn't take the chance on them turning militant and threatening the delegates safety again. They also warned the protestors to disperse before they gassed them. The protestors should have been expecting it by Dec 1 (the day mentioned in the post) because it had already happened the day before.
The problem is violent media doesn't really effect the victims, it effects those who commit the crime. Many serial killers talk about commiting their crimes "as if it was a game." Soldiers also talk about killing this way. They shoot someone and are amazed at how easy it was -- "just like training." The most common phrase that came up when Mark Bowden was interviewing soldiers involved in the Battle of Mogadishu in Somalia for his book Blackhawk Down was "it felt like we were in a movie."
Still think the media has no effect on us? Granted much of the relationship is actually reversed. The "experts" look at the data and say "violent offenders listen to violent music so its the musics fault." Actually, violent people like violent materials so they are more likely to possess them. Quite a difference. Its time parents in this country start doing their jobs though.
So far I've gotten all my Karma from telling people they are wrong... :)
OTOH, the "Playdium" arcades are also taking over the business for arcade games here in Canada: They're huge megaplex-style places. Being in large malls I wonder what kind of local political leverage they could have against this kind of legislation. Those places are dead on school days...
Indelible, my butt! Hopefully, as one matures as best one can (me, I'm still working on that, just ask my wife ), one lesson learned is that taking responsibility for personal actions is a _choice_, regardless of outside influences, past experiences, etc.
Indelible implies irreversible, and personally, I don't think that THAT is true...
Regards, and stepping down from my soapbox now,
dj
I don't know if this weak curtaining thing is mandated by Australian censorship -- sorry, classification -- laws or whether it is self imposed, but I suspect the former. There's no requirement for the game to be set apart from other games as mentioned in this particular law: the machines with the curtain rails poking out oddly from the body of the game stand right next to the ones with the exposed screens.
The article in question quotes someone as saying "the law's not going to do any good." Well, duh! It's political grandstanding, same as usual, and the only "good" it's meant to do is to increase the popularity of its proponents with the moral majority -- and it will work in its own small way. It's also yet another law in the ever increasing pile of the stuff that most Western democracies are miring themselves in. That fact, more than "restraint of free speech", is what I find offensive.
proof, n. A demonstration that a conclusion is implied by certain premises and axioms.
I am a resident in this despicable state. I happen to live in the most despicable part of the state as well (Northwest Indiana, the 2nd most polluted area in the country, the people are the worst in the country too). These new regulations are the least assine to come out of our legislature lately. They passed a law allowing the display of the 10 commandments in public. And in most cases the movie restrictions are enforced. And the age of consent is 16 and they got all these other goofy laws. . . Yeah it makes perfect sense. . . -earther
Actually, I don't really see anything wrong with opening up porn to kids - no this isn't trolling. If I were a parent, I'd want to shelter my kids from porn, but I don't want the government deciding for them what is or isn't damaging for them to see. After all, the concept of a healthy psych is a subjective one, and when the gov't making the determination and allows/restricts material appropriately, the spectre of brainwashing looms. For one, as others have said movie ratings are imposed by the industry, although they only came about following some very unjustifiable government pressure. But that aside - just because we've gotten used to some types of censorship doesn't mean we should tolerate it everywhere, or anywhere. The FCC doesn't allow me to say "fuck" on television, but I'll be damned if it will stop me from saying it on the fucking Internet. For that matter, I want someone to rewrite the TV laws.
I was in Indy last weekend. I was staying near Circle Center Mall downtown, so I frequented the Sega Gameworks there a few times. They had all of the racing games in one area, all of the rail-shooters (Virtua Cop II, Time Crisis, House of the Dead, etc...) all grouped together, and then the various other games (Star Wars Trilogy, Crazy Taxi, Alpine Racer, etc...) all off by themselves.
I subconciously noticed the segregation, but I didn't bother to think why it might have been done that way. Now I know.
Games stimulate far more than the boob toob. They don't assert false class distinctions - rich young kids that drive SUVs with no parents but yet they work parttime at min wage.
The TV is far more insidious for other things than violence or sex. Race stereotypes, bad writing, cynical plot structure, sodomizing lyrical devices, etc.
I get on to battle.net or Q3/UT and it makes me feel good after a hard day's work. It dumps my stress when I do feel pissed off. And then I go outside and get some fresh air. I believe the rating system is important as a barometer but banning (outright or to the adult section of XXX) games in my country is a national disgrace.
FLuffs
the government switches from saying "children can't do this without parental consent" to "children can't do this at all."
I can see and appreciate how these laws enable parents to make choices. From that standpoint, they are a good thing. Parents should decide this, not children...
And parents, not the government. The problem is not the law as it stands, but that it could likely lead to the decision being taken out of parent's hands as well. As an example, consider the NC-17 rating vs the R rating. One allows parental choice, one doesn't. And this is in the movie industry, where the powerfull industry lobby tries to make sure that as many people as possible (especially the critical teen market) can see their films.
The enemies of Democracy are
Are you kidding? Has anyone been to the Arcade's recently, I know the big arcade near my house has at least a few games that basically boil down to tetris with a nake woman in the background as the prize to eash level. Those kinds of games should definately be set aside, and so should violent games if you believe in the rating systems used for Movies.
Joseph Elwell.
However, abusive parents and poverty have an even greater effect. Yet we let ANYONE have a kid.
Q.
Ah, much like anti-sodomy laws. I'll thank the government and the mob to keep their morals to themselves, thanks.
Mainly because otherwise your parents would hide their assets in your name to avoid paying taxes.
>American entertainment from music and movies to video games and television has left me stunned.
>PS; If you've ever lived in a neighborhood were you go to sleep hearing gunshots and wakeup to
>sirens you'll know where I'm coming from. Lakewood, Atlanta, GA.
I agree with you, the amount of violence has made people in the US less sensitive than people from other countries (I'm not from the US).
I lived in San Mateo for a while (I had a nice view of SF international airport, and could see
the planes take off).
A workmate lived just on the edge of East Palo Alto, really just 10 miles down El Camino from me.
Almost every night of the week, she could hear gun shots and police cars. She was hardly concerned
about it. I on the other hand was totally freaked out, and needless to say, I never visited.
Anything that can help to reduce to exposure to violence in the US, IMHO, is a good thing.
"The best part? I became an ordained minister while not wearing pants." -- CleverNickName
My guess is he does not/did not play such games, hence the removal of the right/option to choose does not bother him.
Of course, if they remove a right he does enjoy, he should not be surprised to be met with the same "does not bother me" acceptance from other people.
I believe this law doesn't go far enough! We need to protect our children from board games which teach them that enough money will solve all your problems.
Consider Monopoly, for instance. The object of the game is to get as much money as possible and bankrupt the other players. Children see that it is okay to financially destroy other people! And look at the high amounts of money used when playing it. Exposed to routine use of those incredibly high sums, children will see the high sums of money in the drug trade as no big deal!
It doesn't end at board games either! Games like jumping rope and basketball teach children that it is okay to exclude the handicapped. That intolerance is unacceptable! Ban those games and let the eggheads figure out how to make hopscotch ADA compliant!
You are a pr0n addict. You're just a casually employed pr0n addict. :P
Open Source. Closed Minds. We are Slashdot.
logan
Violence, as all rational people know, should receive scrutiny. I'm glad that the focus is on violence rather than sex. Now before you all get your panties in a bunch, this is not about video games. It's about gratuitious violence in videogames that desensitize children. If you think violence in videogames doesn't affect children, then you are living in a fantasy world. Media, of which videogames are one facet, have an incredible effect on children.
-- You see, there would be these conclusions that you could jump to
I can think of a couple.
There's "Bust a Move", which wouldn't be very violent if you were to take out the graphic of tiny dinosaurs being squashed to death.
Ummm...
Then there's that "Pro Skater" game. It includes vandalism and skating, which are both crimes in most cities, but very little physical violence.
"Pole Position" isn't terribly violent, although emulating it would certainly be more dangerous than emulating "Mortal Kombat".
And, once in a while, there are trivia games, although why someone would pay to play a trivia game is somewhat beyond me.
"Beware he who would deny you access to information, for in his heart he deems himself your master."
And if the community deems that blacks are offensive, and should be restricted, what's the problem?
And if the community deems that catholic ministries are offensive, and should have a restricted audience, what's the problem?
And if the community deems that open source software is offensive, and should have a restricted audience, what's the problem?
The problem is that the rights of the individual are being grossly violated to give the average, incompetent parents a way out of raising their child. Not only are individual rights infringed upon, but the rights of the business are also being tread upon.
If individual businesses, chose to separate violent, or sexually suggestive arcade games from the rest on their own, thats acceptable. If individual consumers encouraged the business to do so, and doing so became the only way for that business to be profitable, that too is acceptable. It is unacceptable for the rights of the business, and consumer to be infringed by legislation.
I am not sure why anybody would think that this is shocking. You have to be 17 (legally) to see and R rated movie. You need to be of age to look at "adult material" (ie porn). Why should a video game this is violent or sexual in nature be any different? I am not endorsing this kind of law. I do not think that I should have somebody tell me what my kid can and cannot see. However it is not a surprise to me either. J
In Raleigh, the police apparaently have nothing better to do, so the hang out at the movie theatres every Fri and Sat night, ensuring IDs are checked, and also often stand in front of new and popular R movies to ensure nobody sneaks in.
:)
My brother tried to get an undercover cop to by a ticket for him at an R movie. Boy was he embarassed.
look at it this way, at this point in time with my son being 5 years old, he needs at least 5 more years to be buddied by dad. Kids younger than that alone can see parents charged for leaving them (at least in this country) As far as forgetting to be a teen?? Today im away on business, after supper i hung out with about 10 teens from 14 - 20 in the downtown area. They wanted a few coins (street kids). Instead of shelling out, i grabbed their guitar and busked for them for an hour. Made more money for them than out of my pocket. Of course these kids cant relate to games, although they know them all. Their too busy looking to see where their next meal or pack of smokes is coming from. So before you get all critical, beware of who you are talking to. You'd be suprised how many of us have a teen point of view every day from those we choose to talk and listen to :) art ps: btw i hear your comments! thanks!!
Yup.. Reduced crime rates. According to FBI statistics, rates of serious teenage crime peaked in 1992 and have been dropping since. Notable in this information is that Mortal Combat was released in 1992, Doom in 1993, Quake 1996, etc, etc.
(This data paraphrashed from an editorial in the LA Times, "Punishing Teens to Protect Them", June 11, 2000
Unfortunately, the LA Times has already put the article into their archives or I'd link to it.
This may not count as strong advocacy, although I wouldn't see anything wrong with it. Then again, I live in Denmark, where pornography has been free since 1970, and pornographic magazines (at least of the cheaper quality) are easily available at every station, shop, or newsstand. Whole generation of kids have grown up with this, and no ill effects are to be seen. No increase in sex crime, mental disease, or blindness.
In Murphy We Turst
... from a country where the average age to get a drink legally is 21...
:)
Winton
What?
What amazes me is that people think that by obscuring or forbidding access to such things, we will remove their influence upon those who we assume are impressionable (i.e. children). Children may not see rated R movies alone, but they do. Children may not view pornography but they do (and did long before the Internet ever existed).
Why is it that the solution to bad parenting isn't to improve parenting, but rather to make lots of hard-to-enforce laws?
"Destroy science and religion. Science would re-emerge exactly the same; but not religion." - Penn Jillette, paraphrased
While it's true that minors may have fewer rights than adults, that does not mean that they have no rights at all. The Constitution does not protect minors in the same way that it protects adults, but it does still protect them to some extent. (How much is a very murky area of the law.)
Never take moderation advice from sigs, including this one.
Typical state tactic: under the ubiquitous "for the children" umbrella the government attempts to imfringe upon the rights of the citizenry. It's nearly a foolproof plan: obviously, if you disagree with the policy, you don't give a damn about children, and you're promoting the sort of activity that led to Columbine. Similar arguments have been made in legislation promoting internet censorship, gun control, and a number of other 'hot-button' topics.
Ultimately, it's up to parents to decide which games their children should and shouldn't play. That's especially true in this case, given that there's been no credible link between gaming violence and violent behaviour. The city's reaction is knee-jerk and, of course, is designed to appease or appeal to a certain critical constituency: the Mayor is simply trading policy for votes.
The state has far too much control over our lives, and their level of control is burgeoining. The state hasn't simply siezed control: citizens have increasingly traded personal sovereignity for government legislation that they favor. However, it's a dance with the devil: we may entice government to do as we wish for the moment but, eventually, some other interest group will prevail, and will bend the system towards their ends, and away from ours. The answer is to STOP relying on government of any sort, federal, state, city, as the solution to all, or most of our problems. Remove the power from the hands of the politicians, and place it firmly back into our own. Unfortunately, that's unlikely to happen as long as politicians continue to trade legislation for the votes that keep them in office.
I fail to see how limiting access to stuff like this is such a big deal.
If the community deems that these things are offensive, and should have a restricted audience, what's the problem? You're still even allowed to take your kids to the arcade, if you don't mind them playing. It merely moves the decision to play that sort of thing into the parents court theoretically, rather than letting possibly uninformed, immature kids make the decision on their own.
I have yet to see any strong advocacy movement on slashdot to allow children of all ages to see XXX porno freely. It's about the same issue.
There is a fairly long standing acceptance of movies being rated PG, meaning that a parent needs to guide the kids to see it. It's about the same issue. It's not really a constitutional issue as far as I can see.
The Constitution protects the expression of speech. And the game companies are still allowed to express the game however they want. They are merely being limited to who their audiece is, to a group that possibly is more mature, and better able to deal with it appropriately.
Now, if you want to discuss the futility of a measure like this, I'm on board. I don't see this changing anything in terms of what kids play. Not significantly. I went to R movies long before I was 18, and I fully expect Indianapolis kids to skirt this with impunity. And I do feel for the arcade owners who have to deal with this stuff. It's a hassle for them, and they can't win either way. Either the customers will get pissed at them, or the law will be all over them.
It's a stupid law, I think. But far from a meaningful one.
"Politicians are interested in people. Not that this is always a virtue. Fleas are interested in dogs." P.J. O'Rourke
Children are indeed citizens, and have constitutional rights. In Tinker v. Des Moines, the supreme court ruled that students do not "shed their constitutional rights to freedom of speech or expression at the schoolhouse gate." This doesn't make sense unless they have those rights to begin with. Pornography is a different case, because (though I personally think it's stupid) "obscenity" isn't constitutionally protected. Some cases of government interference with free access to information has been ruled unconstitutional, because a free press is useless if the government can keep you from reading the output.
It's not at all clear-cut that this is constitutional. It hinges entirely on whether playiing a video game is free expression, and if so, whether the government can display a compelling (compelling enough for the court to override the 1st ammendment, which they are at least somewhat reluctant to do) interest in interfering with such expression.
Will something like this just cause a snowball effect where every state will start looking at the possibility of doing the same.
I think it's a matter of time before something like SOF in BC happens here.
Correct me if I'm wrong.
--
I stand corrected. Of course, I don't see that too far off. I mean, there are already video games costing upwards of $1/play. Don't think it will take to long to hit $5/play. (Actually, I've paid $5 to play some VR games when they first came out).
kwsNI
-rant-
Shoot the kids. Or send them off to some island until they're 18. Just enough with the "save the precious children" BS laws. Passing a law like this isn't going to do anymore for kids than passing a law dictating that all children will grow up happy and healthy. It's not like there aren't things that could be done to do all the "save the precious children" BS. I'm not saying that kids need violent video games - I'm all in favor of depriving the little brats of anything good and fun until they're 21. But really, couldn't we (for those of us who live in the US) get our legislators to do better things with our time and money? Like trim the fat out of the budget, get some of that social change action going, and make the world a better place? Bleah.
-end rant-
itachi, who thinks that idealism is a downer
The only reason the MPAA regulates itself is to keep the gov't off of it's back. Had the video game industry decided to do teh same, there would be no law like this on the books....
Think outside the... Hey, where'd the friggin' box go?
How is this any more or less constitutional than restriction "under age" people from R and X rated movies? How is this any more or less constitutional than restricting "under age" people from certain type of magazines?
Edward Burr
Edward Burr
Having a smoking section in a restaurant is like having a peeing section in a swimming pool.
The government is taking the role of the parent for today's youth. Being 19, I know what it's like to have gone to an arcade to play "violent" games. I was a Street Fighter II (and all various flavors) player and my parents knew it. They allowed me to play such games and trusted me to behave myself after playing such games. I find it hard to swallow that the parents of the city of Indianapolis are having that hard of a time controlling their own children. This not only puts a "taboo" effect on violent games as "the games to play" in the eyes of the little rebel wanna-bes. This also puts strain on the parents of the children. How many parents trust their children enough to go to the arcade alone in the mall for an hour, leaving the adult(s) to do as (s)he pleases? I know my parents did. This will get on the nerves of parents as well as make children and teens frustrated at the fact that they can't spend their own money the way THEY want to.
There are a lot more thing which are more harmful to children, for which we have unenforced laws, than video games. Why try to spread the umbrella instead of patching its holes?
I'd rather have someone respond than be modded up.
"I cannot imagine how this is constitutional."
Then you must be under 18. Tell me, is it constitutional to have restrictions on underage drinking, voting, r- (or x-) rated movie rental, etc, etc, etc?
In fact, r-rated movies are an EXCELLENT example. Especially violent/sexual movie get an "R" rating which sounds exactly like the video game example.
--
Linux MAPI Server!
http://www.openone.com/software/MailOne/
(Exchange Migration HOWTO coming soon)
The 14th Amendment has been held to extend the same prohibition to the states.
Notwithstanding the whinging from some "conservatives" (the bogus types who are skeptical of government except when it does something they like, as opposed to the genuine article who maintain this skepticism consistently), it is clear that this is the original intent of the 14th Amendment's writers.
/.
/. If the government wants us to respect the law, it should set a better example.
clearly these people/cultures in your examples dont repect or understand sex (since this is the facet you focused on) either.
And what if a parent wants a child to be able to play the video games? The parent has to show up in person and sit around waiting while the kid plays. This clearly penalizes resonsible parents at the expense of those who want the government to do their job for them.
Have the parents sign a waiver to allow the kids to play those games--I don't know if Indy's law allows this. Otherwise, those kids will just have to do without. My parents signed the waiver allowing me the priviledge (not a right) to rent soft-R movies from the local rental store when I was 16.
And to make this issue more broad, the curfew law was struck down by the court for being unconsitutional. A curfew law is the goverment taking a parent's role. But what this really interesting is that the mayor who passed this "No Violent Games" law is the same mayor trying to create a city ordinance to circumvent the courts ruling that the curfew law was unconsitutional. If I could vote, I would vote against him.
If we can just shelter these kids from violence, they'll never even know about it. Simple as that.
- Where does it end?
- Is it really going to help?
- Who should really take responsibility for your kids?
--
A mind is a terrible thing to taste.
"A mind is a terrible thing to taste."
You know, Michael, had you stayed out of the God Damn "No Protest Zone" you wouldn't have gotten all that nasty gas in your sensitive little eyes.
Your story is blatantly one-sided and you have noone but yourself to blame!
*not intended as a troll*
Yes, yes, and yes. All the points you make are good ones. But when was the last time the world was so blatantly polygontal?
And while you're at it, when was the last time you saw a 7-10/12 year old playing a FPS game like SoF? I certainly remember watching someone play Doom, but I KNEW it was just a game. No nightmares, no wanting to get a gun and shoot stuff.
There are times when I want to seriously mame someone, but I don't carry out the actions. You know why? Because I know that I'd get hurt/incriminated. My mom actually took some role in my upbringing (thanks!), so I know what to do and what not to do. With the bringing of the internet, I'm seeing things in a different light (ex: God's asleep).
I roleplay online. That's because it's fun, not because I see what happens on a computer as real. There is a difference between the real world and online. Just like with the TV.
TV. You know, that box that shows you images of real people most of the time?
Where Pamila Anderson Lee lives?
/me pauses to get a ping reply
/me doesn't get one
Ah, just as I thought, nobody's home. Forget I said anything.
*not intended as a troll*
--
--
Star Trek vs Star Wars. Take a look. You may like it.
They will also be required to only allow persons 18 and over to play them. I cannot imagine how this is constitutional." Um how is this un-constitutional? Kids in the USA do not have constitutional rights. If they could, they would have the right to vote. They do have basic human rights however. And playing viloent or objectional games is not a right by any means.
-Sid
Ok, let's see. Bad video games have to be 10 feet from the good ones, behind a black (we would assume) curtain, and (we would assume again) an employee of the arcade would have to have some way to make sure no one sneaks behind the curtain.
Walk into an arcade (or better yet, local pizza joint), take 10 steps from any game, and imagine where the curtain would be. Then imagine what would need to be done to make sure an employee had the opportunity, at all times, to check ID before allowing someone inside the curtains.
Now, those games that are on the "bad" list are still legal, and you can still get a license for them. But you have to spend extra money to rearrange your arcade, put up curtains, possibly have another person on staff just to watch those machines...which won't make as much money if no one knows they're there, because they can't see them...
Yeah, those machines are still legal. But it quickly becomes so uneconomical to have them, that they disappear.
Of course, the Mayor's office didn't ban them. This is the land of the free, remember?
They just "restricted" them.
That's why this is something to worry about.
Restrictions that become so common that they are
accepted get worse.
Karma only matters to me now and zen.
Tetris is a dangerous product and as such, I believe it should be kept away from the children!
The danger from computers is not that they will eventually get as smart as men, but we will meanwhile agree to meet them
Is it the case that children of any age are allowed to buy hardcore pR0n in the US or something? I mean are you guys getting worked up because children can watch pR0n but not play Soldier of Fortune? Or is it because games are coming under similar controls to films? Because if its the former, your liberalism is WAY out of control, and if its the latter, so what? Games are becoming more like films, so surely they deserve similar consideration?
>>If the community deems that these things are offensive, and should have a restricted audience, what's the problem?
And if the community deems that blacks are offensive, and should be restricted, what's the problem?
And if the community deems that murder is offensive, and should be restricted, what's the problem?
Yeesh. Let's try and keep this thing in perspective, people.
Mat.
If you think violence in videogames doesn't affect children, then you are living in a fantasy world.
I play Counter-strike, a realistic mod for half-life, i play that a lot (i do play other games, but not nearly as much as this one). Everyday i play for at least an hour, maybe 4 (summer, wasted time). And i know playing has affected me. Ever since i got good, my reflexes are much faster, i can spot hidden things. I KNOW there is a difference between real-life and games, While i play violent games, i still support gun control in real world. Violent games are fun, but i still wouldn't touch a gun unless my life depended on it. So, if you think that children are affected, ask them and find out.
Only dead fish swim with the stream...
- Alcohol can't be purchased (for carry out) on Sundays. God does not want you to carry out a beer on Sunday. You can buy it in an establishment that serves food though, god is cool with that.
- The last known lynching of a black man was performed here.
- You may not drive without wearing a seatbelt. In the past a cop could not pull you over for lack of a seatbelt alone but now he can. Hurry, this will soon be declared unconstitutional!
- Until early last year you could be pulled over at a randomly placed 'drug check point' and have your vehicle searched. You missed this one, the constitution got to it first.
- In keeping with our curtain theme, the taps and liquor bottles must be hidden by a curtain in establishments that permit minors. Most ignore this law (notable exception: Macri's deli in Bloomington) because it is seldom enforced.
- You can gamble legally, but only if you are floating on water or participaring in the state sponsored lottery. As with his rules regarding alcohol, god is very detailed, but also very haphazard.
- Our speed limits are 65 mph on the highway, unless you are within sight of a building. We slow you back down to 55 mph because we don't want you going too fast through 'populated' areas.
- In Indianapolis you can see a minor league baseball game. Police officers often attend these games, get drunk, then beat the shit out of our citizens downtown.
- We have a number of parks, but several are 'Dog Parks'. That means that they are primarily designed for dogs, This was the idea of our video game mayor.
Please visit our state and enjoy all we have to offer.
Icebox
The Gen Con game fair is supposed to be moving to Indianapolis in a couple of years. I wonder if this law will affect that decision at all.
I give up, arrrhhhgg, now waht exactly are they planning to cencor next. will out beloved err the lady from err aaahh the craft lady be forced wo wear sweats and cover alls, nooooo !!! say it aint so. on a serious note though, I've been playing quake, unrealtrourny, dooom, hexen, heretic, castle wolfinstien for over 8 years and I havent' killed anyone yet honest.
sign, prisoner # 7384595
Man, at the arcade I frequent, I doubt there would be many games left in the regular section. Maybe this will help revive pinball. Or it will be a throwback to some good ole pong type games. Really, I am having a hard time placing a recent game that does not involve some sort of violence....
context is everything..
We might as well combine all the evils together:
:)"
"Yeah, give me a fifth of Wild Turkey, a copy of Debbie does Dallas, a box of condoms, and... what the hell... throw in that copy of Quake III. To go please...
But seriously, this is just another attempt to avoid having to actually talk to your kids about something other than their day at school. Sickening....
Do you have Linux and a DotPal? Click here now!
This crap make me ashamed to live in what is otherwise a pretty cool city. The Republican legislature really snuck this one up on us too. They aren't all to blame, since Mayor Peterson (a Democrat) signed the damn thing.
I liked him before. Needless to say, he's lost my vote next election.
I'd love to organize some kind of protest against this, but wouldn't even know where to begin. Heck, I'm well over 18, but look young. The first time someone cards me to play a video game, I'm gonna blow up. Especially since most bars in Indy *don't* card me.
-Wintermute
Or is British Columbia the only place in North America being overrun by retarded reality-based Japanese videogames?
Wah!
Umm. How are these games aimed at YOUNG MALES specifically? Also, these games are rated. Both Xatrix's "Kingpin" and Raven's "Soldier of Fortune" are rated by the ESRB. If parents are allowing their kids to buy these games, and not paying any attention to the fact that they're not intended for anyone under 17, HOW IS THIS *MY* PROBLEM? Just because parents seemingly can't be bothered to keep tabs on their own kids, I'm supposed to let them restrict what I can buy, or where I can buy it? It's just shifting the responsibility from the parents to everyone else.
As others have mentioned, I think the excuse that violent games cause violence is nothing but a cheap copout for the fact that there are going to be a few people who are just plain FUCKED UP. Also, teen/child violence statistics show a very visible downward trend since the gaming industry has taken off. Yet people keep banging the drum of "violent games are the DEVIL!!!! they're evil and bad for you!" - Give me a damn break already. Facts are facts, and the facts show that that reasoning is total bullshit.
_____
Sam: "That was needlessly cryptic."
Max: "I'd be peeing my pants if I wore any!"
I except the ACLU and other organizations to be over this like a group of sharks in a feeding frenzy. The results will probably be similar, as well.
Feh. This merely increases the glamour/attraction of these games for the kiddiez. Just like sneaking into R movies, forging ID's for bars, etc. we now introduce yet another opportunity for kids to see how ridiculous age limits laws are & thus reduce their respect for all of society's laws. If only our society had a sane, gradual ramp up of introducing possibly harmful ideas/substances/tools to children instead of the current "You're a child - no no no" vs. "You're 16/18/21 - do what you want" gate functions (cars, guns & booze respectively; sometimes I think we have the order exactly wrong there)....
I mean, it's not like anyone would be hippocritical enough to claim that American Football isn't violent.
Oh wait, it's US custom to shove football down the throats of all males. Nevermind.
You know.. i was pretty calm this morning. But after reading about this crap.. i wanna go kill someone...
It is obvious to me that we can no longer get upset over laws etc... that supplant common sense.
We have people who try to dry their hair in the show, People who shove forks into running toasters, People who eat KY jelly thinking it will prevent pregnancy. Where is the common sense there? Our country can no longer assume that anyone has common sense because a large portion of it do not.
Laws like this might very well be a weak replacement for common sense. But it is needed none the less. If parents were monitoring what their children were doing, we wouldn't need this law. However, many kids today have little to no parental supervision. So, our government has taken it upon itself to pick up the fumble that America's parents caused.
I would love to see a better solution. Perhaps our government should focus more on getting parents to do their jobs. How do you do that? I have my theories but if I place them here, I will surely be blasted for them.
Indy is a GREAT town. Unfortunately, we have elected an idiot as mayor who feels it is the responsibility of gov't to manage the lives of its people. Remember - the MPAA assigns that "R" rating on the movie, and the cinemas enforce the age restriction. This is NOT a law. But Mayor Petersen wants take my place as Dad. I play these games (well over age 21...), and I have a young daughter who will play these video games. And I'll raise my daughter, not Mayor Petersen. Who determines what is a "violent" or "sexual offensive" game? Surely not the same idiots who foul up public services? Petersen is coming to office after a string of outstanding Mayors. One is now a senior Senator, the other a philanthropist, another a genious who re-invented how government should operate and created a town that is a model for municiple success. Our town is BOOMING, BEAUTIFUL, and kicking butt in the NBA and the NFL (GO COLTS!!) Petersen has nothing to do except enact what would have appeared to have been low-priority gov't meddling in the lives of the people. It might not be unconstitutional, but it ain't right. I would like to see an additional amendment to the constitution that says the gov't can tell me how to raise my children or run my life. What kind of a world do we live in the encourages homosexuality all over the media but at the same time places restrictions on recreation because it doesn't fit the morals of a bunch of lawyers????? That was NOT meant as a gay bash... To the entire gov't - get out of my house, get out of my computer, get away from my guns, get away from my daughter, and get out of my life. And fix the damned roads, you idiots. This is the best my tax dollars can get me?
see the comic
------
Prevent email address forgery. Publish SPF records for y
Naw, you shut the fuck up! Japan has violence on TV(!) that pales next to the US. And not nearly the carnege on their streets. Explain that!
Why? Because the constitution only applies to citizens. To be a citizen, you need to be 18 or older. Sad, but true. And so the "moral majority" decided that in the best interests of the children, they should shield them from all the nasty things like.. the real world.
Want to make a difference? Stand up for your kid, parents.
Here in the UK there have been age restrictions on computer games for ages. Even my latest purchase for the N64, Perfect Dark, has an 18 certificate.
> I'm sure ACLU lawyers are cleaning their guns as we speak
Errr...
If a company like Blockbuster wants to make it its policy to prevent those under 18 from renting rated-R movies, that's their decision. If the GOVERNMENT wants to make Blockbuster prevent people under 18 from renting rated-R movies, then it has become everyone's problem.
"Destroy science and religion. Science would re-emerge exactly the same; but not religion." - Penn Jillette, paraphrased
This still makes no sense. Kids can and will sneak things behind their parents. It's part of learning to grow up into an adult (That's right! An adult must be sneaky sometimes). What if that waiver were not in place? What if you had brought home an R-rated movie and your parents caught you, then what? Would they just have cried, or would they have acted like real parents and set the values straight about what is acceptable in their house?! I know mine did the latter. This is what parenting is all about. Not having the government "help" you or "..giving parents the ability to make the decision." You, as a parent, already make the decision.
Everybody is going to bitch about this. It's all talk. If you want to make a change instead of just spouting hot air WRITE Mayor Bart Peterson and criticize him for the step backwards he has taken.
k .htm
Bitching on Slashdot doesn't make anything happen.
http://www1.ci.indianapolis.in.us/mayor/feedbac
Mayor Bart Peterson
2501 City-County Building
200 East Washington Street
Indianapolis, Indiana 46204
It's 10 PM. Do you know if you're un-American?
Wouldn't I like to know? ;) I think there's a rogue moderator out there who has it in for me... show your face if you dare!
"Destroy science and religion. Science would re-emerge exactly the same; but not religion." - Penn Jillette, paraphrased
I live in Indy. Although I'm 23, this really sucks. What is a recall petition, and where should I start to put one together? Any info you've got would be great.
Thanks!
A bad law is not necessarily unconstitutional. This is a bad law. This is not an unconstitutional law. It should not be changed by the courts, it should be changed by the legislature.
People have different perspectives on "good parenting". The question is: Would you rather have your kids have a nice innocent childhood with lots of fun and carelessness, or give them lots of information about the real world, educating them but taking away their fun?
"The government is taking the role of the parent for today's youth."
Umm, no it isn't. The government is saying "People under 18 are not legally allowed to make certain decisions. They need to have someone older than that to make the decision for them." Far from "take the role of the parent" it is ENFORCING the role of the parent.
--
Linux MAPI Server!
http://www.openone.com/software/MailOne/
(Exchange Migration HOWTO coming soon)
Violent Media is Good for Kids
Children will feel rage. Even the sweetest and most civilized of them, even those whose parents read the better class of literary magazines, will feel rage. The world is uncontrollable and incomprehensible; mastering it is a terrifying, enraging task. [....] Through immersion in imaginary combat and identification with a violent protagonist, children engage the rage they've stifled, come to fear it less, and become more capable of utilizing it against life's challenges.
food for thought...
Restrictions on violent video games sure have my support. For too long we've seen young people exposed to violence in "games" as if killing was fun. We've all seen where that led to.
People do this with movies and even some music. Since games are becoming a popular entertainment medium, It's only natural the beurocracy step in and rustle things up.
"If I were to ask you a hypothetical question, what would you like it to be about?"
"Unless accompanied by parent or guardian..." I remember when I shared my first game of Mortal Kombat with my dad...
Ben Chadwick - Editor, Zero Future/Post-Collegiate Malaise
There is still a law on the books in Indianapolis passed at the beginning of the century forbidding a man with a mustache from kissing anyone.
The rest of the state, on the other hand, resists this sort of silliness.
In the northern, rural part of the state, there is a movement of people who no longer carry their driver's licences, and instead, carry a hand written card declaring that they are tax-paying, law-abiding residents of a certain county. And have passed vehicle operations competence exams, and are free to drive on public roadways.
Indiana born and raised.
T.A.G.* You're IT
Inspired by Heinlin's 'Stanger in a Strange Land'
* - Hint: The "T.A." stands for "Thou Art"
T.A.G.* You're IT
Inspired by Heinlin's 'Stanger in a Strange Land'
* - Hint: The "T.A." stands for "Thou Art"
"The importance of it is that it's an effort to begin to attack the culture of violence that I believe surrounds our young people these days virtually from the day they're born," the mayor said.
So I take it this guy is planning on going after TV next? All those cop shows and what not? Heck, he should watch some old cartoons. Maybe he'll go after our government and the "culture of violence" they practice that helps keep gas prices low.
Sorry, but I just can't help but laugh at people who say things like "We must attack the culture of violence." Shouldn't you be making peace with it?
This attitude (Which also comes into play with the drug war, Kill the Drugs, liquor and cigarettes) of trying to hide the bad things and act like they are not there, only adds to the "cool" factor of accessing them. The motivation for a teenager can be quite simple. q:"Why'd you do it?" a:"You told me not too." and attitudes like this play directly into it. These types of laws also help to marginalize certain individuals, and in this case, it is those individuals that perhaps shouldn't be marginalized any more than they already are.
--
+&x
Welcome to Slashdot today the date is July 18 2035
In a bold move The United Nations has passed a resolution prohbiting entertaining subject matter within a child reach.
This is an extention to a resolution passed last year restricting non-edicational matereal...
UN spokesmen Behanu who has lived in SanFransisco California all his life says "We found far to much entertainment in eductaion sence then we had to do something about it"
Protesters object clamming childhood should not be booring...
Behanu shot back "Parents who let kids play wildly are poor parents. This is a time for them to learn and dam it I'm gona cram as much learnning into childhood as I can"
In related news the rebelion has gainned three more nations.
The surendering nations clame the latest policys are the reason.
For a historical note.. the UN gainned the power it has today just 10 years ago.
It happend when United States policys failled to have any impact due to the Internet.
They asked the UN to take charg and in a few short years the UN was granted the power to do just that.
Many clame it's first mandate... Restricting the Display of Violent Games... was extream...
This eventually banned games like American Foot Ball... International FoodBall (Known in the United States as Soccer) and Golf.
I don't actually exist.
The first amendment prohibits CONGRESS from censorship, nobody else.
Besides, have you talked to anyone under the age of ten lately? I know kids who think that the Matrix is on an island south of Thailand called "Future", and that death is only temporary, you can eat a crystal ball that tastes like chicken to come back from heaven. Violence and sex only poisions their minds. There is nothing wrong with saying "We don't want our youth to grow up and become psychopathic killers."
an unstable person will find a reason to go over the edge when it's time to go over the edge, and they'll find plenty of reasons staring them in the face in everyday life. or maybe they'll fight a little holding action in their head, perhaps a diversion technique like obsessive hand washing, slashdot trolling, killing cats, or, OOH (my favorite) finding religion! this post seems like more of an excuse for you to go off about how super-duper Jesus (tm) is.. spare us.
So, is this another example of society trampling all over the feelings of geeks? Do you suppose that everything that geeks love to do will be deemed "unsafe for children?" Will geneticists develop a laboratory test to determine if a baby will grow up to be a geek? All this and more, in a Jon Katz article coming soon to a browser near you!
If tits were wings it'd be flying around.
What the hell is a "no protest zone"?
Is that like a union job where you can't strike?
It seems to go against the whole idea of a protest...
---
pb Reply or e-mail; don't vaguely moderate.
pb Reply or e-mail; don't vaguely moderate.
Being born outside of America and only having been here for a few years, the amount of violence in American entertainment from music and movies to video games and television has left me stunned.
,3 , 4 , 5 , 6 and 7 is their constitiutional right. Now I do not claim that violence would not exist without violent games nor that video games cause violence but even a blind person can tell that we (in America) are extremely disensitized to violence. Nowhere else in the world is so much violence consumed by the public nor is it as easily accessible to minors as in America.
In a country were the average youth (especially minorities) is disenfranchised, ignored by their parents and has easy access to mind altering substances it is in my opinion a deadly combination to combine that with the current cocktail mix of easy access to firearms and constant daily diet of violence in all forms that children get.
That Americans are desensitized to violence is no longer news, but it amazes me when someone claims that a diet of gratuitious violence and entertainment that consists of 1, 2
In my opinion until there is a movement to curtail the excessive amount of firepower in the community then moves like this are a stop gap measure on the journey to ridding our communities of violence. Yes, I know violence goes beyond violent video games and is more likely due to other factors (abuse at home, poverty, feelings of persecution, resentment) but the fact is that violent video games are not blameless. But two wrongs do not make a right (allow violent video games to minors since they have access to other violence), after all, the Columbine kids didn't play long games of Pokemon before going on their killing spree.
PS; If you've ever lived in a neighborhood were you go to sleep hearing gunshots and wakeup to sirens you'll know where I'm coming from. Lakewood, Atlanta, GA.
That's a touching enough story, but how does it apply?
Here's a real story, too: the Yugoslavian internal war was going on for years before it made the popular press in America. However, one photo did make it out.
In it, three young boys, about aged six to eight, were playing with toy guns, behind the sandbags at the interface zone between the competing factions.
These are children who were watching people being killed. Maimed. Losing family members. Fatherless. Living day in and day out in the most horrific violence.
Is this affecting their lives?
Say, did you see "Saving Private Ryan"? What was your emotional response to the first twenty minutes, as you watched young men being mangled by war? Would you be some fucked up for life if you'd had to experience it for yourself, if you'd been there in the front lines?
I think history speaks for itself. A lot of kids that grow up in Ireland grow up to kill each other in the everlasting Catholic/Protestant war they've been dedicated to for centuries. A lot of kids in Yugoslavia grew up with and became active in its war. The same thing in Angolia. In Rwanda.
The videogames that are causing all this controversy are not the games that we grew up with. Soldier of Fortune is *extremely* realistic, with detailed human characters that have skeletal framework animation that reacts as a human body really would when shot. It is highly realistic gore.
Twelve-year old boys are fighting in some of the African wars. They are children, killing people. Can they *possibly* grow up to be people who would fit into the sort of society that we want to have?
Can *OUR* children grow up to be people who will fit into the sort of society that we want to have, if we let them "kill people" in deeply realistic video games?
The bottom-line is this:
WHAT SORT OF SOCIETY DO WE WANT TO LIVE IN FIFTEEN YEARS FROM NOW?
We get to pick it, by the choices we make in parenting our children today.
I hope most of you are picking it wisely.
--
--
Don't like it? Respond with words, not karma.
Well, there's one big difference between you and the kind of people who immediately think this law is a GOOD thing - you're actually accompanying your kids, paying attention to what they're doing and where they're going. That's something that all too many parents don't bother to do at all anymore. Thank you for that - I think your children will grow up a whole lot more sane and stable than 90% or more of today's kids.
_____
Sam: "That was needlessly cryptic."
Max: "I'd be peeing my pants if I wore any!"
Now, from what I understand, the governments are trying to "protect" us by separating us from violent games. However, they don't seem to have a problem with TV, where people get killed all the time, or (even worse), cartoons where characters "should" get killed (eg fall off cliffs, get shot in the head, etc) walk away without a scratch - or at worst a cast that stays on 'til the next scene.
Let's not forget the evening news. For example, school shootings. When there's a school shooting, every station covers it. Not just for a news clip, though. We have to see every detail - where the shooter stood, how he did it, etc. A few days later, there's another one.
If it wasn't for the sensationalism that the media puts on these things, there wouldn't be such a large problem. If you want to "control" everything, start with North America's babysitter - the TV.
Or, an even better way. Parents should supervise their children. Period. If the parents don't like what the child is watching, change it. If the parents don't like what the kid's playing, uninstall it.
Oh, I forgot...that would require parents to have some involvement in their childrens' lives. As a person who works with children, I know how often that happens.
I can't say that I don't give a fuck. I've just run out of fuck to give.
Only the same "oxymoronic nonsense" espoused by the founders. The danger is discussed in Federalist Paper #51.
Isn't that, quite literally, democracy?
Yes, exactly. Democracy in its purest, awfulest form. The democracy which can execute a person for absolutely no reason at all as long as a majority says so. Fortunately, we do not live in a pure democracy, but rather a democracy tempered by the guarantee of certain rights. Even if the majority wants to revoke those rights.
If the majority can abridge people's freedom of speech whenever they desire, as you seem to believe, what is the point of having a First Amendment at all? Speech of the minority, you seem to believe, is not protected, but speech of the majority needs no protection.
Never take moderation advice from sigs, including this one.
In America all minors (humans under 18 years of age) are considered to be "wards of the state". This does not imply that they have the same privledges as those over 18. Though, there seems to be some consessions such as driving, etc. If you are a ward of the state, then don't worry, big-brother is looking out for your best interest! They will make sure you grow up in a violence free, sex inhibited, non-educational environment. That is unless you go to school and have to deal with the drug, drive-bys, and chicks who want to "do-it".
kick some CAD
What about downloading a new Quake Arena Demo or something? How would they want to regulate that?
This is really upsetting that some people in Indiana are so stupid they pass this law. Grow up and don't live in the past! This is similar to having the law in one of the states that you can't have doggy style sex.
This sucks!
http://dtum.livejournal.com
SOME TIME! It will be a LONG LONG time before we "wake up" as a people and do something about this. I doubt there will be any major political/social movement in the next 20 to 50 years at all.
It's placing ratings on all games, similar to the ones used to rate movies.
c
If the laws are passed, you will need to show ID to rent or buy games with restricted ratings.
Now, honestly, isn't this redundant? The video games industry already has a rating scheme in place, the ESRB, and other such rating systems for PC games, etc. Why do we (or at least BC) need another rating system? Why not just enforce the existing one?
For more information, check out http://news.exci te.com/news/r/000717/16/tech-leisure-videogames-d
J
It is legal to shield anyone under 18 from material so long as it doesn't restrict those over 18. There is no political element to this... unless all violent games were politically oriented, (or could be) then this is legal. Sexually explicit stuff can be censored. The only reason why the Communications Decency Act, etc. have had problems is because Congress used the excuse of stopping kids from seeing explicit images to put a blanket on things all have a right to see and read, like information on prostate surgery. If the law is vague and stops adult access or political speech, it probably is unconstitutional. But if it is very narrow, as this seems to be... then its ok.
The real question is will it do anything... and of course it won't. It'll be like R rated movies and liquor stores, where the only law is the law of the almighty dollar.
Exactly. Which is why the law should not intervene here either - games are (in general anymore) rated, and retailers should, if there is any question about the purchaser's age, ask for ID, or the presence of a parent/guardian, to buy games rated as too violent/graphic for their age.
_____
Sam: "That was needlessly cryptic."
Max: "I'd be peeing my pants if I wore any!"
Umm. How are these games aimed at YOUNG MALES specifically? Also, these games are rated. Both Xatrix's "Kingpin" and Raven's "Soldier of Fortune" are rated by the ESRB.
Young male, in the game industry sense, is up to 25.
How's this different from a violent newscast, or the violence in X-Men (PG-13)? I'm on a personal boycott of local news media because here (in my town) all of the local news is about the dangers of life (getting hit by a car, car out of control, deadly parts falling off a car, deadliness of a lightning strike), you know, stuff you should know about so you can protect yourself from it. Local news media is no better (nor should it be treated differently from) a violent video game. In my opinion, TV violence is worse, because it is mostly real people getting killed (not the avatar of a computer program). Don't get me wrong, I love video games. I think that as long as a person (whatever age!) knows the difference between fake and real life, they should be able to watch whatever they want. Ratings are good if they are merely used to aide a person in judging FOR HER/HIMSELF, they are a tool of Big Brother when they are used to restrict access (a la movies and indiana video arcades).
-------
Oh shit! I forgot to click "Post Anonymously"...
That is my main complaint about limiting access to children, we assume none of them are smart enough to make there own decissions. My brother is normal so far and if he stays that way I may be able to make an argument againts this type of thing.
-- Any comments seen here are not mine, but a mixture of alchohol and lack of sleep.
I doubt there'll be a long line to play the "fuzzy bunny" game.
Unix is user friendly, it's just selective about who its friends are.
Geez, and to think I was pissed when I was old enough to die for my country but couldn't buy a beer.
Quomodo cogis comas tuas sic videri?
Democrats: Indiana is going to hell because of all the fucking conservatives
Republicans: Indiana is going to hell because of all the fucking liberals
Me: Indiana is going to hell because of you two!
FluX
After 16 years, MTV has finally completed its deevolution into the shiny things network
"It is seldom that liberty of any kind is lost all at once." -David Hume
What happened to my rights? I never wronged.. not like you say I would if I were to play these games, which I have. What happened to the gaurantee in the constution for me..
well.. out of my personal experiences im "underaged" and have been exposed to all that bad stuff (alochol, nudity, violence... etc), and i dont see a problem. is there just something im missing? Hell, i even like most of it, though it can go too far at points, ive learned to control myself at a party from drinking too much, and can still tell dream from reality. All i can see this law doing is preventing a few kids from using the software and driving the rest to warez. Hell, i know if the stores around me wouldnt sell me something because of the esrb (or anyone else..) thinks its inappropiate for me i would find a way to get it. I am sick of people setting limits for me and just thinking about themselves or not knowing me at all.
Maturity does not come with age.
Pardon the spelling and grammer.. ive been awake for the past 30 hours or so, kinda tired now and i really dont feel like fixing most of it.
Yes, I do understand the purpose of government. I also understand that once most laws are passed, they are never repealed. And the longer they are on the books, the more open they are to interpretation. What you get is a long term "solution" to a short term problem. It called a knee-jerk reaction, for lack of a better term.
The government is not in charge of speech, or expression. They are not even in charge of "pretty", though many city governments have begun to think they are.
--- "So THAT's what an invisible barrier looks like!" - Time Bandits
This should be the choice of parents. The parents should decide what games their children play, not the arcades. One thing people forget is that it's not real! Just like movie ratings are a guideline for parents to know about what level of content is in a movie, so are game ratings. Even arcade ones have some sort of warning. "This game contains realistic violence." is usually printed on the game's cabinet. As for the sexual content, can someone give me an example? It's not like there's naked women running around in a lot of arcade games.
-Antipop
With pornography, we've got adult shops that sell the requisite materials to those of the proper group.
I can see a few now-existing businesses expanding to cater to a market that legislation like this will create. (read: Dave and Busters, in my area, which is a combination bar/arcade restaurant; can't get in unless you're 21, and if you're under 21, you can't get in with someone I guess it's time to get into the industry.. :) It'd be extremely humorous to see arcades in the mall that have to have their windows darkened, lest some passing child see a hint of violence on the screen.
Wingchild
if arcades carried more pinball machines.. guy just wants to play Mars Attacks 2000 and can't find a damn table...
He didn't enter the no protest zone. They were attacked two blocks before it was entered!
Shell Scripts? Shell Scripts? We don't NEED no stinking Shell Scripts!
This spring i took my 4 year old who desired a peak at the local mall's (Toronto) video arcade center. Sure i said, after all i sure liked checking out the new games when i was growing up. Sorry to say we werent hanging out long. Most games had warnings of violence on the screens, fair enough. But then again, most young teens, and some younger were there alone, and with no parent to say "well do you really think its right to win the motorcycle race by smashing all your opponents into the tarmak?" Hey, i enjoy obliterating monsters etc as much as the next guy, but when 80% of the figures are real life-like and simulate real-life injuries, blood etc dammed if im going to teach,or let my kids think thats cool. Hey i wont even apologize for this statement. Games that teach memory skills, problem solving, competition dont need to include shooting the crap outof someone who wants to beat you racing or boxing or whatever. If my son wants to go again, sure I'll go with him, if he wants to play one of those games, sure I'll let him, but he'll also know his dad has an opinion and that he'll learn that getting ahead and being the best doesnt require violence, you just have to be wise! Let him make the informed choice, most kids wouldnt know the difference. I love my kids! art
Now, instead of spending $1 to play a video game for 30 seconds, kids can spend their money on something...that isn't such a rip-off.
sup
There's a difference, you know. No matter how many times you see it on television, no matter how many triangles are in the polygons you're blasting, its not the same as the real thing.
The woman you describe is not desensitized to violence from playing video games, she's desensitized to violence because she lives in a violent place.
Can you really see someone (who isn't mentally disturbed) being witness to a shooting and thinking, "Hey, this is just like quake, its not so bad."
Video exposure just isn't the same, and doesn't have a causal relationship with actual violence. As another poster pointed out, the violence on Japanese television and games is above even that of the US, and I understand violent crimes are lower there.
Everyone wants a simple scapegoat to why our kids are shooting other kids and why some of our adults are shooting other adults. People are more complex than that. Our motivations aren't from one source that we can point at and say, "SEE! DEM DE BAD GUYZ!". Its a mixture of social pressures, economic pressures, race pressure, age pressure, and ten others I haven't even listed.
If we want to really solve this problem, we should look beyond video games to the deeper problems of poverty and feelings of inadequacy and hopelessness that are typical of violent crimes.
Zipwow
I don't know which is more depressing, that 2/3 didn't care enough to vote, or that 1/2 of those that did are crazy.
Take a peek at the Bill of Rights, and tell me if there is any guarantee against a local government placing "reasonable" restrictions on certain types of speech. I don't think there is any such prohibition.
I think we all need to be a tad more careful when asserting our "Constitutional Rights" to know what exactly the limits of those rights are. We cannot yell "Fire!" in a crowded theater, and in Indianapolis it looks like a 10 year old can't play a violent game. Big deal.
This sig for rent.
This is great, and will allow untold freedoms just like the V-chip did!
Now, in all places with similar laws in place we can have XXX games with mega-violence in the partitioned "adult" sections, right? Right?
That's not what they had in mind? Oh. Perhaps there is some other agenda involved, then.
Mojotoad
Induction based smart chips will make it so the government can track you at all times and places, you walk through an electric field and the card sends back your serial number.This should make carding people unneccessary.
-"You'll have plenty of time to sleep when you're dead."
Agreed! As my government teacher in high school was fond of pointing out, in most ways, the Constitution does not protect minors in the same way that it protects adults. Over the years, the set of people to whom which Constitutional rights have been extended has grown, but still, not everyone is protected equally. To wit, in the first years of the Constitution, only white male landowners that were 21 years old or older could vote, for instance. Over the years, Constitutional protection of freedoms has been extended to women, people of all races, and people 18 and over, but really, the Constitution protects adults and not minors.
In any case, I don't see how the Constitution factors into this, even if minors vs. adults are not involved. At most, this is a "freedom of expression" issue, but expression hasn't been completely muted here, it's just been moved to the back room.
--Joe--
Program Intellivision!
First of all, for those of you who decided that Indianapolis is an evil little town full of racists and Republicans...umm, well, you're not WRONG. A bit overzealous in your attack, but not totally wrong. I moved to the Pacific Northwest two months ago and you'd have to kill me to get my body back there on more than a visiting basis.
Second of all, this is a step that was taken in Indianapolis for a **political** reason...not a completely random attack on your beloved gore games.
Indianapolis has a new mayor (new as of November...still new). Indianapolis has a new DEMOCRAT mayor. Indianapolis has a new Democrat mayor for the first time in something like 30+ years.
This is a guy who wants to make a good impression on the Republican voters of his state. Plain and simple. Soldier of Fortune and its friends have made the headlines one too many times, and they've become the perfect sacrificial cow for Indianapolis politics.
A Republican mayor probably wouldn't have bothered. He wouldn't have needed to do something visible. A Democrat mayor did, and boy, did he ever pick a hot topic.
As for the guy who said he doesn't get carded in bars in Indiana, he's never set foot in Bloomington (home of Indiana University), where the bars carded (no kidding) my 80-year-old grandparents.
Carpe Ovis. Veni, Vidi, Ovisi!
We have to accept the fact that there are some things that our society deems inappropriate for people under a certain age. Whether or not this is correct is not the subject here. We say that children can only see movies with extreme gore or sexual content with the consent of (meaning accompanied by) an adult. Video games fall into that same category.
I'd rather have someone respond than be modded up.
There should not be an age requirement on anything, but rather a maturity requirement. In a perfect society, the society would judge the individual's maturity level, sort of like the coming of age in indian tribes. After you had passed certain tests you were a man and a full member of the tribe.
-- Ad Majoram Dei Gloriam
"They will also be required to only allow persons 18 and over to play them." This is a restriction, no?
Passing through that curtain will probably be much more of a problem for Mr. Moron, here. =)
Hey, troll, read the article before posting next time!
I believe this actually comes from people not wanting to have to raise their children. So many people today don't want to have to actually pay attention to their children long enough to know what the are doing. The next best thing? Have the government regulate the piss out of things so that the children don't have access to it (supposedly). I think it's a stupid and alarming procedure that is happening all too often because parents want the government to raise their children for them.
I don't think it's right, but until parents start to realize that it is through actual attention (not regulation) that you raise a child, it's going to continue. These kids are then going to hit the "age of consent" and go hog wild with all of the things they were never allowed to even see while growing up. Since they won't have been taught about them at all (let alone how to deal with temptation and walk away from some of it), they will dive in head first. I don't know, maybe we'll luck out and by then the government will have decided it is better to regulate the adults too, then temptation shall be removed from them as well (yeah, right).
If this is the direction we continue to head, will there someday be a "war on video games" something like the current "war on drugs". I can definitely see a black market for video games, and other "undesirable" media if it is outlawed. The question is, how many generations must we let pass before we start to realize that people need to learn respect and responsibility. Not that they are too stupid to know how to act responsibly. Tell them that (they are too stupid to know how to act responsibly) and they will not know how to act responsibly. It's sad, but true.
Bite my yammer.
You're welcome to try to repeal the First Amendment. Until then, freedom of speech trumps the tyranny of the majority.
Never take moderation advice from sigs, including this one.
This will teach our children that when someone is shot, they don't bleed or cry in pain, they vanish painlessly. This can only have VERY BAD effects on kids.
This law hurts children.
A slashdotter who didn't build his own computer is like a Jedi who didn't build his own lightsaber.
hello, everyone, from indianapolis. Most of the year, I'm a student up the road at Purdue, so I was as suprised as everyone else to hear about mayor Bart Peterson's plan to restrict violent video games. However, after reviewing some facts, it's become pretty obvious to me that this new ordinance is not intended to save our children from the evils of mass media, but to shift focus from our mayor's lack of action.
The simple fact of the matter is that in the seven months of Peterson's term, this is the first law he has seen put into action. Oh, and be assured that during his campaign there were many promises of action. This boils down to a politician trying to dazzle the public's attention by cracking down on those with no rights: our children.
that's all i got tonight.
Tetris rules.
I was in a Software ETC. buying diablo 2 and got carded. The clerk told me a state, I believe it was Indiana, was trying to pass a law that went after the retailers selling mature rated games to persons under 18. The fine for the offense was 10,000$! This is absolutely insane...
I don't think so. And its a comparison as valid as many other. For example:
Can legally vote.
Can legally drink in some states.
Can legally own and operate a firearm in some states.
Can get married.
Can voluntarily join the military. (although the comment about the draft stands. see link. as long as the government is tracking people, if there's a significant conflict, there may be a draft. If, for example, China invaded Japan...)
I don't need an excuse to blast age limits like this one. It's one thing to stop 10 year olds from drinking. It's another thing entirely to say a 17 yr old can't look at Mortal Kombat alone.
This is simply yet another example of unjust and unjustified age discrimination.
I doubt that anyone actually believes it would hurt someone under 18 to play these games. But it is an effective way to put them in their place and show them who is boss.
Human beings seem to have this psychological need to subjugate others. Any excuse to do so is latched onto and played for all it is worth. Things like race, sex, religious affiliation, sexual orientation, and of course age, these are all used as justifications for the mistreatment of others, especially the systematic mistreatment of them as a group.
But what sets age discrimination apart in my mind and makes it doubly reprehsensible is that its victims become it perpetrators. The things that older people do to younger ones today are the same things which were done to them when they were younger.
There also seems to be a double standard for older people and younger people. When an older person flips out and shoots a bunch of people, his actions aren't blamed on what he watches on TV or what kind of music he likes. He himself is held accountable for his actions. At most he is declared insane. But should some teenager do the same thing then any number of supposed causes are fingered from the clothes he wears to the fact that he knows how to use the internet.
Make sense to you? It doesn't to me. These kinds of things didn't make sense to me when I was a teenager and they sure as hell don't make sense to me now at 27.
Kids aren't stupid and their psyche's aren't so fragile that we need to protect them from much of anything. But the myth which says they are "impressionable" and so forth gets perpetuated because its an effective excuse to step on them and punish them for being young.
Sounds like a simple case of jealousy to me.
Lee
Muslim community leaders warn of backlash from tomorrow morning's terrorist attack.
This is no different than keeping pornography away from children. Ultimately, not everything that is good for adults is good for children. At the very least, parents should be able to choose what their children are exposed to.
As video games grow as a medium, don't be surprised when it begins to recieve the same kinds of scrutiny as other mediums: movies, magazines and television.
This gets into the hairy area as to what is acceptable for kids and what isn't. But I don't think an eight year old should be able to buy a copy of Hustler or go see Pulp Fiction unsupervised. The fact that some games may be inappropriate for children is a sign that the medium is progressing past being just for kids.
But to tell you the truth, I suspect the "adult" video games are some of the most juvenile in the arcade. Getting your jollies from buckets of blood is not the most sophisticated type of gaming, IMHO.
HipNerd
Hipnerd
I live in New Brunswick [that's in Canada for those of you who don't know, and I've met many who don't] and with all the talk of censorship, and age restriction, I still haven't seen much around me (save the NB Dept. of Education HTTP proxy/filter, but there's a story for another time, and place) Ratings, especially movie ratings are at least 2 or 3 levels lower then anywhere else I've ever seen (except Alberta). I don't know the last time I saw a movie rated "R" by the theatres. Nobody cares as far as I'm concerned. Yes, we do have the one or two souls crying "But, Think of the children!", but, oh well...
First, for my original posting, c/Albania/Afghanistan/
... because what we get is going to depend a lot on what we do with our children.
Second, your response:
I say that the brain habituates to violence, just as it habituates to anything else; and that children's minds are particularly pliable, such that viewing violence will affect their social skills as adults. Read on:
Games are *NOT* just games to children.
When you play "peek-a-boo" with a baby, it's not a game. When you disappear from view, *you do not exist* for the baby. Your repeated coming back teaches the child that out of sight is not out of reality.
When kids play dress-up and house, it's not a game. They are learning about real life, based on the models they experience at their home, others' homes, stories and television. Their play teaches them to become adults.
Children's play wires their brains for adulthood: what they play is, in large part, what they become.
The brain takes a long time to fully develop, if it ever does. Take morality, for instance: there are moral conundrums (is it wrong to steal a drug that will save your dying wife, when you can't afford to buy it?) that children will *reliably* respond to in different ways at different ages.
It's not until *well* into the teenage years that children will provide the same response that most adults provide.
The brain is still struggling even into the late teenage years, trying to develop a moral structure that will allow the child to become a useful and surviving adult.
What is also true is that our brains learn to accept what we frequently experience. It's part of surviving: if we were startled by the sunrise every morning, it'd really make for a long day.
Viewing realistic violence *undoubtedly* builds a tolerance for viewing violence. A lot of people are really squeamish when viewing SoF the first time. Play it for a week, and it just sort of becomes background noise: the violence is acceptable.
Just to make sure you're following me here, let's review:
1) The brain doesn't just automatically know reality from fantasy. (peek-a-boo)
2) Games aren't just play for children: it's how they learn to become adults (playhouse, clubs, teams).
3) The brain is still developing well into teenage years (morality response test).
4) The brain becomes used to what it frequently experiences.
Can you connect the dots now? Can you see how repeated depictions of realistic violence becomes seen as 'normal' by the brain, with the inevitable consequence that, for children, it becomes a model for adult behaviour, seen as acceptable?
Games are *NOT* just games, when it's children playing. Up to a certain brain maturity level; children *can not* distinguish the fantasy from reality (and that age is certainly into the mid-to-high single digits); children *learn* to accept violence as normal, acceptable behaviour; and children *learn* to become adults by what they experience.
And once again, it comes down to this final point:
What kind of society do we want to live in fifteen years from now
Feed them a steady stream of realistic violence, and you can *bet your life* that the daily carnage we see spewed on the newscasts will be getting a whole lot worse.
Myself, I'd prefer to see children taught that human lives are sacrosanct: that there is no greater wrong than to take someone's life without their permission.
--
--
Don't like it? Respond with words, not karma.
Librarians have taken the position of unrestricted, unfiltered access to the web, even for children. If children under 18 found violent games on the web and played them on library computers, could Indianapolis libraries be in violation of this ordinance, or does this only apply to businesses? If the latter, how can the city justify penalizing private companies for what is allowed in public buildings? If the former, will librarians denounce this ordinance as 'censorship'? Interesting questions.
...that they're only going to breed a new wave of youth with pent up aggressions and such. I play all sorts of violent video games, and I maintain high honors in a private Catholic high school. Sometimes, a good round of Unreal Tournament the night before is the only thing that keeps me from going insane in that long, dull mass. And now I would like to relate all this to slaughtering cattle, if I may...
Fight crime, shoot back.
As for violent video games, to say that a game would cause a child to be any more violent than before is rather rediculous. A child who is so taken by any game to follow a game to any harmful extent is mentally unbalanced anyway. Even children with the most imaginative imaginations know the difference between what you can do in reality and games. How often do you see children jumping out windows because an Angel could fly in a movie?
The 2nd worst part is that this Mayor probably did little to squat research into the actual psychology of the subject, and is making the law to placate a group of lobbyists, or voters. If he wrote a 10 page essay, citing all the evidence he had found reguarding the topic, and carefully examining the views presented, both sides, then I might accept a law like this.
The worst part is, as usual, the only people this law affects is people who have absolutely 0 say in the making of the law. What was that about Taxation without Representation? Should Censorship without Representation somehow be better because it reflects extremist Puritan ideals that have affected our country? Anyone who has been out of this country, i.e. Europe, knows that it isn't simply religion or morals that is a reason for this. Dern the Puritans. Dern the Censorship.
Give me 1 good reason why *anything* should be censored, and I'll give you 10 reasons why not.
- Wedg the Disgruntled
Jake
Dating: while( 1 ){ call_girl(); get_rejected(); drink_40(); } return 0;
I mean, these games are supposedly gratuitously violent, but most of them can't match that early 90s bloodfest "Time Killers". Why's this going on?
Oh, right, election year.
And chew on this, also:
In Vancouver, BC, three sets of teenagers in seperate high-end sports cars were racing down one of roads at speeds in excess of 200KMH late at night. One struck a pedestrian in a crosswalk, throwing the body several hundred feet.
They snuffed someone's life because their fantasy ("it's okay to race our cars in the city") didn't jive with reality.
They fled the scene, because their fantasy ("we don't have to take responsibility for our actions") didn't jive with reality.
Will "Grand Theft Auto" make children into irresponsible murdering teens like the pack that was racing in Vancouver?
Hell, no. It won't *MAKE* them do these things.
But the question you want to ask yourself is will it make it easier for their brain to *allow* them to behave in such a manner? Will their brain disregard the real risks (the risk of hitting someone because you're moving too fast to see them) because it has been taught by the realistic violence of the game?
Every day, someone in the country is shot to death, deliberately, by a stranger who "made a mistake."
Will playing "SoF" *make* our children want to kill other people? Hell, no, of course not.
But the question you want to ask yourself is: will the realistic violence teach their brain accept that shooting people carries no real consequences? Will repeated depictions of realistic violence teach the brain that violence is acceptable? That it solves problems?
Quite simply, the consequences of our decisions today are going to smack us in the face fifteen years from now. It's going to be a shocking wake-up call... but it's going to be too damn late to do anything about it.
Let's make the right decisions, right now.
--
--
Don't like it? Respond with words, not karma.
Does your First Amendment trump card allow you to proclaim the safety of smoking cigarettes, or show pornography to my children while they walk to school? Wouldn't the latter trample on my right as a parent to teach my children what I want them to learn, and the former trample on my right to learn the truth?
"Tyranny of the majority?" What is this oxymoronic nonsense? Isn't that, quite literally, democracy? What would you rather have? Anarchy? Is that more fair?
I think way too many people apply the First Amendment protections where they shouldn't belong. There's a man I know of that sets up p0rn shops just to make a statement. He claims First Amendment protection, and is expecting everyone in the cities where he puts his filthy shops to sit and take it. Is this man's business practice covered by the First Amendment? Does he have an inherent right to make money? NO! Should the people around him, who think that his wares are perverse and have a right to teach their children be allowed to kick him out? Does his corporation have the same self-evident rights that a person does?
Do gaming companies have an inherent right to sell games, no matter what kind? Does the MPAA have an inherent right to sell movies to everyone, without restriction?
In the first place, the First Amendment existed to ensure that every person was free to express his political views without fearing the State. At some point, we started applying it to too many other things, and started trampling on people's rights. This is where the delusion starts.
Take two doses of reality, and call me in the morning.
Be nice to your friends. If it weren't for them, you'd be a complete stranger.
Oh great. Now the under 18 crowd can walk down the hall from the mall arcade to Electronics Boutique and buy Doom 57, WarCraft 106 or any other violent game on CD, DVD or whatever.
Then if thats not enought they can watch any number of Colts games and watch the "hard hitting" action. But still if that doesnt curb their appitite a friendly "Indianapolis Ice" hockey game can possibly fit the bill (Hockey is SO known for it's gentle sportsmanship).
Hey lets not forget Indianapolis hosted boxer Roy Jones Jr's title bout at Conseco Fieldhouse a couple months ago. Hummm......none of those had an age restriction??
So, lets eliminate so called "violent/sexual" video games to those under 18. This way they can tell the judge they didn't have anything to do when they get caught smashing mailboxes or shoplifting for kicks. Or better yet hang out at Bart Petersons office because they get bored.
Sigh...
P.S. Does this mean Roadrunner can't blow up Wiley Coyote on TV in Indianapolis anymore??
Sigh...
Integrity is what you are when nobody is looking.
What you're saying about the prevalence of teens doing "bad stuff" is very true, but I don't think I agree that it just shouldn't be illegal.
The idea is that before you're 18, your parents get to chose what you pollute your mind with. If you reject that, I think you also have to reject laws about drinking age and smoking age...all kinds of laws that "everybody" thinks are good and apropriate.
You say that a 15 year old should be allowed to look at violence. Should they be allowed to rent dirty movies? Should they be allowed to buy cigarettes?
As geeky as I claim to be, I don't see a difference between a video game and a horror movie just because it's a different medium.
Slashdot 's editors are dickheads
Cut-with-a-spoon-komma
How crazed. Children can go see Basic Instinct with their parents, but this article doesn't mention kids being able to view such games with parental permission or accompanyment.
It's barely worth pointing out that the TV industry only escapes this because they're consolidated mega-corporations, where most video arcades are small businesses (although a shrinking number).
Even this aside, its no wonder some adults have such a legislate-everything, regulate-everything attitude. And each generation, every year even, grows up with more restrictions, more regulations. Meanwhile, we're legislating conformity. Parents should decide what's appropriate for their children, not the government. And it should be pointed out: parental concern has impacted the industry. You won't find a Mortal Kombat VII at your local Chuck E. Cheese pizza -- you'll find redemption games and plastic toys, and singing animatronics. Why? Because when parents want a safer, more child-friendly environment, they'll get it. Consumer demand.
Meanwhile, you have to wonder what will be an "age 18" thing next. It seems ridiculous to me that you get to play a "violent" video game the same day you can be drafted to go die in a war.
About SOF? I dont remember that...I remember one he posted about the evils of dinnertime and how we should fight evolution and not eat meat.
Remember it, write it down, take a picture, I dont give a fsck!
Ahh. Little explanation needed for the joke.
The ACLU doesn't believe the 2nd amendment protects individuals(i.e. the regular people, like them).
"Cleaning your gun" == (male) masturbation
---
GetSystemMetrics(SM_SECURE) == FALSE
I remembered the day when I reached 18.
It was amazing. In a sudden flash of enlightment, it was clear to me what is wrong and what is right. The Moral Code materialized in front of me, and a booming voice read out the wonderful ethics engraved upon it.
I knew....I KNEW......what is GOOD for me and what is BAD for me. I knew GOODNESS and I knew EVIL.
It was the most soul-blasting, mind-blowing, gut-wrenching experience of my life, when I turned 18.
(Now, I talked to JC and tried my very best to ask my young friends to WAIT....WAIT UNTIL YOU ARE 18!)
Mode (3) smart-aleck mode. Press * to return to main menu.
Ahhh, hate is a good word. You see, America, which is almost the youngest country on planet Earth in terms of government and social policy, is also the most ass-backwards in terms of social policy. You believe that it's the laws responsibility to protect and educate your children so that you aren't faced with the awful burden of having them ask too many questions that your Roman Catholic upbringing made you unprepared to answer with any serious reply (explain to your child "God says it's Bad! Don't do it!" Hahahahah).
/Azure Khan/
The point is, if Americans (and I am an American), weren't so totally backward in every respect socially, to the point where we are the rednecks of the free world, then we wouldn't HAVE to protect our children from seeing violence and sex, because they would UNDERSTAND it. They would respect it.
Worthless cattle.
--- I'm going sane in a crazy world.
When are people going to realize that many video games are made for adults. Not for twelve year olds, so keeping the kids away from the games makes perfect sense to me. After all we don't let kids into R rated movies, why would be let them play the equal in a video game? "15% of games made are rated for teen or mature, but they account for 65% of the sales." Was a statistic on CNN about violent games. This must say something about our culture, because I'm sure that most adults aren't the ones buying those games. As teens continue to shoot each other and commit other violent crimes we need to look at our culture. I'm not saying that video games are responsibile, but they need to be looked at as a contributing factor.
Kate
_________________________ Visit me at http://pornforcomputers.com
The good side is that we are less likely to see yet another Mortal Kombat clone designed only to really steal your quarters as fast as it can. There might actually be some quality and content put back in to the coin ops.
"What are the three words guaranteed to humiliate men everywhere?
In Republican America phones tap you.
IANAL, however there is plenty of basis for barrier restrictions. Minors can be restricted from buying alcohol, going to "R" rated movies, buying guns, etc. We hold the suppliers responsible when parents make a reasonable effort, expecting them to do the same.
We have been telling parents to stop complaining about the environment concerning music, movies, video games, etc. for a long time. They are told to "PAY ATTENTION" you are "RESPONSIBLE FOR YOUR CHILDREN".
They are now setting the same expectation across all adult activities. If we are watching our children do not drink, we feel the bar up the street has an obligation not to solicit there business. If this is an "adult" movie, or video game, or activity we do not want them providing it to children either.
This is just common sense, the laws get made because a few people fail to use any. It is not radical or exteme or new.
I have a hunch that piracy will increase drastically in Indianopolis. See topic of this message.
What does a child of under 18 years have to gain by playing a Violent video game? I don't see any reason to be opposed to this. We don't let 17 year olds rent porn. We don't allow 13 year olds to see rated R movies. So why should I be opposed to a 13 year olds inability to play a violent video game? True, 18 may be a bit tough. I'd lower it to 16 personally... but that's besides the point.
That said, what this actually does is puts the decision making right back into the hands of the PARENT, where it belongs. As a responsible parent, if I want to allow my kid to play these games, that's my decision. This law would make me accompany my child and make sure that what they are doing is appropriate by MY standards.
That's why I'm not opposed to any "laws" that restrict what kids can do ... I think that children SHOULD be limited. Parents in America need to take more responsibility for their children and find out what the hell their kids are doing!
I mean, when a couple of kids can assemble a full-fledged arsenal in their Garage, right under their parents' noses, then go on a killing rampage ... who's fault is that? The parents were OBVIOUSLY absent in their kids' lives.
More restrictions on what minors can buy, or participate in, in public places helps parents get more involved. If it doesn't, then there is another problem here.
Personally, I think kids have just a bit too much freedom. I think it has to do with the very young driving age in most states (16 here in Washington). That gives a child the ability to go anywhere, without the parent having to know what's happening. There are more issues than just these, but as far as this particular statute is concerned ... I don't see how it's anything but a good thing.
As everybody knows, when you try to ban something, people get more interested in it and do it even more... This is especially true for teenagers... While it might have been merely fun to play violent games at arcades before, now it's even more exciting because you're doing something you're not suppossed to.... And this law seems pretty hard to enforce.. I doubt that police officers are going to be actively patrolling arcades.... While this does pose a threat to constitutional rights (in theory) I don't think it will really affect most teenagers who want to play violent games.... $.02 11oh8.
Parents should be the only ones who control what their kids see. Some parents don't have any problems with their kids playing Soldier of Fortune or the various verions of Quake while others are offended by Super Mario Bros. (My wife's step-mother was that way.)
I assume that if I teach my children correct principles, they will usually live by them. OK, I'm realistic and know that that's not always the case, but as a general statement, I feel that it is valid. Parent's need to teach their children to take responsibility for their own actions.
On the other hand, I don't my two year old to come telling my "Look Daddy, he cut his arm off!" I don't see a problem with having the "violent" games sectioned off so that while I'm their with my kids, they don't have to see the violence. When I'm not there, I'd still rather they aviod them, but if they're old enough to be at the arcade with out me, their old enough to deal with the violent games.
There have been plenty of discussions about the coorelation (or lack therof) between violent games, movies, etc. and youth violence. I just want to say that if parents will take an active role in their children's lives, the children will be less likely to be "harmed" by the violence.
PerlStalker
If only they had this policy when I was a child. Instead I was allowed to play fighting games all I wanted. As a result I ran away from home and joined a cross dimensional martial arts tournament run by an evil wizard. I was forced to fight and decapitate burly marines and thong clad women in order to protect earth from invasion. In the end I had both legs broken by a large speedo wearing Russian dude. The cops found me in the hospital and sent me back to my parents. I am sadder, wiser and crippled and I wish that I had never been allowed to play video games a such a young age.
This law is needed.
--Shoeboy
I love violent video games. I grew up playing Street Fighter (in all it's incarnations), Final Fantasy, Doom, etc. Although I tend to dislike violence in games for the sake of violence, if it's a good game, *and* it's violent? Hell, I'm interested...
Now, that would mean that after uppercutting, shooting, stabbing, slicing, and kicking digital people my whole life, that I'd be desensitized to violence, right?
Wrong. On December 1st, 1999 in downtown Seattle, I was engaged in a peaceful march with locked-out steelworkers. As we marched, we chanted "Assembly Is A Right!" with peace signs in the air, and moved towards the "no protest zone". About two blocks outside of the designated zone, we found ourselves trapped by urban control vehicles and black-clad riot police. And then the tear gas came.
Oh, but this wasn't regular tear gas. They had run out of that stuff, this was military grade tear gas. It didn't make you cry. It fucked you up. Potentially, it could have killed somebody.
I did my best to evade the gas, running down alleys, kicking canisters back at the police. My adrenaline was pumping, so I wasn't doing much thinking, until I saw this guy sitting on the sidewalk...
He was around 55 to 60 years old, and he looked anything like a typical protestor. He looked homeless. He was sitting, slumped against a parking meter, almost completely comatose. He was spitting up a kind of mucous that definitely looked unnatural. People were trying to wash his eyes out with water, and see what was wrong with him. He either was having a major allergic reaction, or he had gotten a full-on dose of military grade (CN gas, I believe) tear gas.
I turned around, and saw a group of people running past me. Two more urban control vehicles had moved up to us, and I heard three or four loud bangs as more tear gas was being shot at us...
A canister fell right at my feet, and I ran down an alley faster than I ever have before. On the other side were people being pushed towards Pike's Market by riot police. Among them was a woman with a baby in a stroller, desparately asking a private security guard where she could go to be safe...
I started crying. Sobbing, really, like a little kid. The kind of uncontrollable sob you remember from when you were six, where even talking isn't an option. I don't know how long I was crying and wandering in and out of the police riot (as best I could), but eventually this young woman (and I wish I remembered her name) came over and calmed me down. We took some time to help people who were injured, but eventually decided it was time to find a way out of there.
We walked through Pike's Market in order to escape, and on the way out, I saw a woman with her hands out, sitting on the curb, bleeding from the mouth, her chin burnt from what I can only assume was a tear gas canister that had hit her directly in the face. The only thing I could do to stop myself from crying was to repeatedly hit a stop sign with my bare fist...
I grew up watching violent television, movies, playing violent video games. And when I was attacked with chemicals, when I saw people being beaten and terrorized, I couldn't take it. When I was finally confronted with real violence, Mortal Kombat didn't mean jack shit.
Michael Chisari
mchisari@usa.net
Yes this will be struck down. No matter how well intentioned, legislatures cannot restrict access to information, even to minors. It's the parents job to do that.
Comparisons to the movie rating system is a bad analogy. Movie ratings are fundimentally private, enforced by the industry. Kids can't go in, not because some cop will arrest them, but because the theater itself doesn't let them.
In a certain way this can be compared to the RBL. The government can't decide to target specific sites/companies for spamming (it would be an unconsitutional Letter of Attainder, among other things), but a private party is perfectly able to.
Please also note that with all the hoo-ha about the big old bad "federal gov-mint", it's usually states and local municipalities who are the ones that actually overstep constitutional safeguards.
This is a laughably simplistic legislative "band-aid solution" for a much deeper problem -- as if throwing up artificial barriers will rid the adolescent mind of all vestiges of promiscuity and anger.
To the child, Curtains and Walls only further interest in the prohibited.
When I was a smaller Vergil, I was fascinated by what lay beyond curtains/ walls, and schemed endlessly to circumvent such barriers. To me, the object locked away was incidental to the gratification I received by overcoming the obstacles containing it.
I can imagine my younger self entering a video arcade and staring, entranced, at the bells and whistles bleeping and blinking from behind the black curtain.
Even more interesting is this proposal's attempted segregation of video games according to violence. What 13-year old would want to squander a quarter on a non-violent arcade game, anyhow?
Vergil
Insects and Grafitti Photos
I am not sure whether I think this is a bad law or a good law.
On the one hand, it seems a bit heavy handed and may be impractical to enforce. In addition, I am not sure that I like the government taking over the role of parenting. If anything, it gives bad parents an excuse to do even less.
On the other hand, when I go with my (young) boys to arcades, I often find myself trying to steer them away from games like this because they don't need to see stuff like that at their ages. Also, there are many parents that I have seen that are just totally irresponsible and let their children do and see things that the parents shouldn't even be doing. I understand the need to do something to prevent children with bad parents from becoming problems to society.
As with all things, a balance must be found between limiting the rights of the responsible with the need to control the irresponsible and incompetent. That is really what most law should be about. For example, drunk driving laws exist to limit the ability of the irresponsible to do harm at the expense of convenience of those who might be able to handle it. The same can be said for movie ratings, game ratings, speed limits (to some extent), seat-belt laws (ie don't make me pay for your medical bills if you choose to be stupid), helmet laws, etc.
That is my $.02
Those who open their minds too far often let their brains fall out.
I cannot imagine how this is constitutional.
Oh, get off it.
<rant>
I don't know what the deal is these days, with Slashdotters and seemingly everyone else, but it seems like if someone doesn't get to do what he wants when he wants with no consequences or restrictions at all, this person starts to scream about the United States Constitution, and all the rights it gives him.
How about the right of the general public to see what they want to see and hear what they want to hear? That right (which, as far as I'm concerned, should be given equal footing with freedom of speech) is looked down upon as oppressive and shallow-minded. Hello?
What if somebody wanted to open a p0rn shop near a very religious suburban area, and the general consensus is that the people don't want it there? Do those citizens have a right to control what goes on around them? Should they be able to kick that (I'm sure) well-meaning business owner off, and get him away from their community? I hope so.
The problem is that people have lost touch with the central idea of government - that it's supposed to be an extension of the will of the people. (I don't know why we have to polarize ourselves against the government all the time.) If the people in general decide that they don't want their kids doing something, shouldn't they be able to enforce it?
The consequence of living in a governed society is that you have restrictions placed upon some of your actions to keep you from infringing upon other people's rights. This is the crux of the idea we call censorship. If you don't like it, find a desert island and live in your own little happy anarchy.
</rant>
Be nice to your friends. If it weren't for them, you'd be a complete stranger.
As much as I hate to admit this, some companies in the game industry have seemingly been working toward making regulations like this occur. Some notables in this regard include Xatrix (Kingpin), Raven (Soldier of Fortune), and Virgin (Thrill Kill, which was cancelled). With all of the anti-game press swirling about, releasing games that use *extreme* violence as entertainment for younger males is completely irresponsible. Note that I'm not referring to Quake-style frags here, but games that go to great lengths to make horrible, realistic deaths a reward for the player. Did the developers really expect these games to go unnoticed in the current video game crackdown? It's like an artist, protesting the objection to public funding of weird fetish art, taking a crap on the steps of the white house and claiming to be artistically inspirred.
Yes, freedom of speech, blah, blah, blah, but repeatedly trying to push your luck is just plain stupid. I don't know if the developers of the aforementioned games were trying to profit from controversy, or if it was just an example of the juvenile attitude that the game biz is getting to be known for, but it showed poor judgement.
The reason these laws are passed is because no parent wants their 5 or 8 year old child watching the graphic display of a man writhing in pain and screaming while bleeding out after having his testicles blown off by a high power machine gun. The people who protest game violence are quite literally *your* parents, assuming your my age (21). I was 5 when I got into gaming, starting with pretty tame PackMan and BurgerTime games on Intelivision. Mario Bros. 1 for the NES took over when it came out. My parents think of games as being for 5 to 8 year olds. Soldier of Fortune is not a game for 5 to eight year olds. Every review of that game basically says 2 things about this game. First, the degree violence is offensive even to people used to defending game violence. Second, the game is just not that much fun once the novelty of the violence wears off. Most parents dont take too much time to look at a game if they are not buying it for themselves. They just pick it up, and then sh*t themselves when they get a look at their kids laughing at a man whose insides are twiching outside of the body the belong to. Such parents do not want their kids playing these games at arcades. The simplest way to do this is to have a law passed making this not possible. Its much easier then watching your kids actions 24/7. The only reason that the age is at 18 years is because some parents are more restrictive then others. END COMMUNICATION
Timothy, I think you made a typo in the header, I think this is what you meant:
"Remind anyone of jamie's rant against the meat industry in British Columbia?"
Because if I remember correctly, this is what it was all about...
This law doesn't make sense Because a kid can go to any retailer (online or brick and motar) and purchase the same game the government is trying to "Protect them from" It just seems silly to me that is all
So how was this posting flamebait?
The problem with this law and most other policies that attempt to shield children from violence and sexual content is that it uses age (and usually 17 or 18) as the meter stick for determining maturity. Even from a common sense standpoint, it is clear that this is a poor way to go about things. I know that there are plenty of 12 year olds who can deal with violence and sexuality maturely and plenty of 30 year olds who cannot. While I will agree that very young children 10 or so are more susceptible to the influence of pop culture and the portrayal of violence in it, the differences between a seventeen and eighteen year old are based not on age but on background, parenting, education, and other factors. What legislation like this does is actually more harmful to young people because it stereotypes young people, teenagers in particular as irresponsible and immature. More importantly, however is that it absolves children and teenagers from having to deal with the ills of our society maturely and responsibly. Legislation like this lulls parents and society into a false sense of security. The key to responsible children is to teach them accountability for their actions and to teach them to understand the repercussions of their actions and the real world implications of violence and sexual impropriety, not to futily attempt to shield them from the aforementioned evils. We can never control what children are exposed to, we can only temper their response.
Our increasingly connected world isn't bringing us all the good things, it is allowing politicians of all different countries to steal each others bad ideas.
Just because it CAN be done, doesn't mean it should!
Movies are restricted by age, porn is restricted by age, tobacco is restricted by age, alcohol is restricted by age. As the video game generation grows up, some video games are going to fall into the catagory of "adult". What has been done here is not illogical, but perhaps a bit extreme (and expensive), considering most people who frequent arcades (IMO) are under 18. It is really too bad the many americans think that video games are the problem with our society.
-- Moondog
...OK, good point. On the other hand, a restriction doesn't have to be a "law" in order to be judged constitutional or unconstitutional. That is, if a restaurant had a restriction about not letting blacks in, that would be unconstitutional even though it wasn't a law.
--
Linux MAPI Server!
http://www.openone.com/software/MailOne/
(Exchange Migration HOWTO coming soon)
Hmm... ya... most people would think we're in the year 2000, but if you actually know anything, it's really 1984.- ----------
------------------------------------------
-------------------------------------------------
So what's next? Are they not going to allow me to rent a car just because I'm under the age of 25? Oh wait. They already do that.