Slashdot Mirror
Violent Video Game Protection Act
KidIcarus writes: "Four lawmakers in Georgia have submitted a bill that would make it a criminal offense to sell or make violent video games available to minors. Full text of the bill here. Seems that politicians still don't have a clue, despite indications that video games don't cause violence." This may remind you of the (since overturned) law segregating certain video games from others in Indianapolis.
But of course it's OK for CNN et al to show scenes of mass slaughter of innocents.
Isn't this a double standard displaying a bias against gamers...
Remember kids! Guns don't kill people - Americans kill people.
Don't you just love America!
This was supposed to be a reply to another post on this story..
~RaGe
www.outrigged.com
The above Monty Python line would seem to apply to legislative politicians; a herd mentality that just takes one dumb sheep to create some very stupid laws. Chanting refrains of 'do it for the children' and all that nonsense, in hopes of pulling in one more mini-van mom vote.
On the lighter side, I suspect the sons of these Georgia legislators are probably the guys that do the stupid, violent stunts in the 'Backyard Wrestling' video series (as seen on late night TV ads here in the US).
I'd have a personalized plate on my car, but "toxic bachelor" won't fit into 7 letters.
I'd like to see how they can even think it'll hold up in a court of law. This one should be so simple to beat down, I can't imagine it would even help in an election race.
The reality is that you cannot discriminate towards one particular form of something. Case in point would be pornography. Ok, if we restrict pornography, then we have to do in all forms of media.
The point was made previously, but if the law was non-discriminatory, this would mean that most news publications, not just on television, but also print and web would have to avoid allowing minors to access such things.
Personally, I'd like to see how this would affect demos downloaded off the Internet. Can you imagine id Software getting prosecuted because some kids in Georgia downloaded a Quake demo?
The power of accurate observation is commonly called cynicism by those who have not got it. - G.B. Shaw
They're trying to stop me from playing my violent games? KILL KILL KILL KILL KILL KILL!!!!!!
Dammit, I'm gonna rocket jump over to their house and grenade spam their house, but first I gotta find the red key to get inside....lemme bunny hop over to that building that says central control......
Tim Dorr
Owner/Manger
A Small Orange
Man, this stuff makes me really angry! I hate ignorant politicians like these guys who want to take away our electronic rights! Someone should smash into them with a Hadoken Fireball! Or take the chaingun into the Georgia legislative building corridors! Or jump on top of their stupid turtle-like heads! Or grab an energizer and give them a taste of their own medicine! Or something!
SO YOU'RE GOING TO DIE: The Comic for Dealing with Death
In any event, they tried something of the sort in Indiana if you recall a while back. Court smacked them down like a pimp slapping down a 2 dollar hooker. If I were one of the hypothetical residents of Georgia, I'd be pretty pissed off that the legislature was wasting our tax dollars that way, since they'd have to know there'd be no way it'd survive a constitutional challenge.
I'm trying to teach myself to set people on fire with my mind... Is it hot in here?
Once again, the elected leaders of Georgia demonstrate why this state is still ranked 49th in education quality . It's stupidity that leads to violence. Since this state is chock full of stupid people it might explain the high violent crime rate. Sadly, as more people pass through the public school process in Georgia, the situation will only get worse. We might even sink below Mississippi at some point .
The politicans just want a scapegoat for the violence they see in schools. THey blame video games becuase its easy and noone really understands anyway.. but why are politicans trying to pass a bill? in fact why would politicans do anything? Its becuase they get alot of pressure from people who actually take the time and write to them, complaining. in this case politicans got a lot of letter from ignorant angry americans who just want to se something done more then actually finding the real cause or taking and real responsibitly for their actions. these same ignorant americans are probably the same ones that use proxy parenting, "if the government says its good, then my children should be seeing it" As you've seen, slashdot is noticed and heard. It can become a real political powerhouse if everyone who disagreed with the governemt actually wrote to their senators (americans that is) its as easy as printing your comment and mailing it to your favoirte senator, or assemblymen. (snail mail becuase no one really takes e-mail seriously)
Sun is Warm, Grass is Green
As a parent, I can understand why some people think that playing Max Payne would be like training for the next Columbine. Violence runs rampant in our media.
But it always has. The greatest literature, and some of the most thoughtful movies (Schindler's List and Platoon come to mind) are rife with violence. The difference is the follow-through. Showing a full consideration of the effects, or the struggle against violence is often what sets stories of violence apart as literature.
Would I want these games banned? No. The ratings system that is in place is what I use. Before my kids get a game, I evaluate it. Only the responsible ones get through.
"It remains to be seen if the human brain is powerful enough to solve the problems it has created." Dr. Richard Wallace
Seems that politicians still don't have a clue, despite indications that video games don't cause violence.
Well, that's not really even what the GameSpot article says, and can you guess the slant that the GameSpot article takes on the original Surgeon General's report?
The Surgeon General's report states that violent video games can be a factor, but is not a sole motivator for violent behavior.
If it's a factor, then further studies should be done to determine how much of a factor it is. Put some numbers on it.
I certainly don't have reservations about preventing the very young from having too-easy access to harmful things. I'm a big freedoms-type Libertarian, but young people often don't have the maturity to be able to handle a full set of freedoms. It's why we restrict driving, voting, and other rights that we grant freely to adults. It's also the reason why minors' criminal records are sealed and they're given special sentencing considerations when they commit crimes.
Why are you letting these clowns ruin our country?
Argh!
Such a law has existed for decades over here.
Not allowing ppl under 18 to go to a store and buy such a "violent game" has nothing to do with that same ppl under 18 playing it or not. They can ask an older friend, download from some warez site, make a copy etc etc ......
Besides violent games are really "kid stuff" compared to some TV reports we see :)
Migx
In the voice of Forest Gump,
donch yall knouw that
videouh guns doun't kill reel peiple,
my daddy tells me that videouh peiple
kill videouh peiple
Aaaahhh, GA, GA.
It is discriminatory to target video games.
Television, radio, books, and magazines should
also be media that are singled out for
restriction. Better yet, let's recruit some
Taliban leaders.
Can someone please explain to me why the "Slashdot Consensus" seems to be in disagreement of things like this?
Why is having enforcable ratings on video games a bad thing? After all, we have movie ratings and no one is complaining.
So a salesman will now stop some 10 year old kid from buying Mortal Kombat 7, with ultra-bloody effects. Isn't this better than being stuck with a one-version-fits-all where the blood is replaced by sweat?
Without ratings, all movies would suck. They would have to stay within certain limits. This bill is about enforcing who is able to purchase a game based on content (ie, rating). Such enforcement only encourages developers to be as artistic as possible, and not worry about angry parents. The ratings are here to protect not only children, but developers.
Christ almight. I sure hope that 4 lawyers from Georgia don't know what's best for our children.
What part of "fiction" are the lawyers not understanding about video games? Is it because they look "real"? Maybe it'd be cheaper to put children into sound proof booths, feeding them cool tea and pudding to help protect them from all the evils in the world.
Of course, video games are not the "only" cause of youth violence, there is NO single cause. The media seems to always look for a single "magic bullet" (e.g. bombing Afghanistan won't stop terrorism...no, duh!) But by taking an incrimental approach and trying to get a handle on the VARIOUS factors that encourage any behavior, including violence, you can have a positive effect on the problem.
And since when are we concerned about the old USSR anyway(someone look at an old map first)?
I really hate Dan Patrick.
What ever happend to CRAZY??
they could have stopped Jack the Ripper, Charles Manson & Hitler....
Thanks to file sharing, I purchase more CDs
Thanks to the RIAA, I buy them used...
It simply shows the hypocrisy of a money-and-power-governed state where the leader(s) prefers attacking something that doesn't has a real impact on violence (to show they are doing something) instead of attacking the real problems_s_ (where they can lose some votes)
This is the hell it has to do with the topic
Anyone remember the first couple of years of the Clinton Administration, when Janet Reno demanded that movies, videogames, tv "justify" their violent content or be censored?
Or when the liberal Senator Exxon (call him Valdez) concocted the CDA internet censorship bill?
The threat of censorship comes at least as much from the left as from the right.
We can't forget also the recent "campaign finance reform" bill, favored more by the left than the right, which seeks to censor free speech if it concerns elections for office (Yeah right, as if protecting such speech wasn't the MAIN reason the 1st Amendment was written!)
Everyone here throws a fit about everything!
Look, the point of this law is to put the decision of game content into the hands of the parents. If the parent wants the child to own a Mature rated game, the parent can go with the child to purchase it. Same goes for R rated movies. It's the same damn thing. It's not discrimination, it's not politicians not knowing anything about computers or games or violence. It's the same thing as R rated movies.
The video game industry has finally become large enough to get noticed, and at the same time the content is becoming more realistic - more movie like.
This isn't going to get struck down, people. There's nothing wrong with it. Face the fact that until you're 18, there are some decisions your parents get to make for you. That's always been the case.
Hmm... when I first read "Violent Video Game Protection Act" I thought it was a law protecting game makers from this kind of censorship.... damn...
Right now, a 5-year-old Khan Noonien Singh is playing a marathon online Unreal tournament, Future generations will suffer his wrath.
If I wouldn't let my hypothetical 10 year old watch Saving Private Ryan or Pulp Fiction, why can the local Blockbuster store rent them the latest splatter videogame without my consent? Maybe such games cause violence in kids, maybe they don't. But that's not the only consideration. Maybe I consider graphic violence to be immoral. Maybe it gives the kids nightmares. Maybe I simply find such things sinful. It doesn't matter. I'm the kid's parent, and discretion in these matters is both traditionally and legally given to me.
There's not a thing in the law's prohibitions against renting/selling videogames with strong ratings to minors. (Their data may be flawed, such as when they say, "As confirmed by current scientific data, the repeated exposure to graphic violence and participation in violent interactive games may contribute to violent behavior by our youth and desensitizes them to acts of violence," but the conclusions are fine.)
If a Mexican wants to come to the U.S. and work, let them. Everyone benefits, except perhaps for some lazy North American slob who can't do the job as well as the Mexican. Bring 'em on!
We need a border policy in which every Mexican who wants to come here can come here, as long as they go through border screening to get rid of the criminals, Zapatistas, and stray AlQueda.
Then, anyone caught sneaking under the fence could be shot on site, since no legitimate immigrants would have any reason to sneak.
And we're shocked, shocked that this ignorant morass of old boys in the Georgia legislature is proposing a censorship law?
What's next? Are we going to find out Microsoft is a monopoly?
One CPU cycle wasted on digital restrictions management is ONE TOO MANY.
I'm an avid video gamer and I don't know what to think. I went and picked up my copy of State of Emergency yesterday and noticed the ID check sticker on the box, plus EB had informed me when they called to tell me it was in that I had to present an ID stating I was at least 18 tears of age. I think its def. a good idea. I used to be one of those people who said "Video games aren't the problem".... to which I still think is the case.
What made me realize there was an issue however, was playing Rockstar's earlier release "Grand Theft Auto". I loved that game and it was instant action but I just kept thinking how bad it was, how I would hope no parent would let their child play this game. I dunno about putting people in jail and all but I think some sort of measure should be taken to make sure parents have a little more control over what their kids are playing.
As an example. :-)
.22 Remington Viper with a 4x 1" Scope, Semi-auto with a 10 round clip (I've seen 30's that would fit it). A very sweet little rifle. There is also two shotguns in the house. I know how a gun works, I can take a gun apart and clean it, I know not to point it at someone, and I'm an excellent shot. When shooting skeet, I generally get 9 out of 10.
.6mm BB berettas from Walmart), its extremly fun, I get to shot my friends, and they shoot back, and it hurts too. I haven't tried Paintball yet, but I'm going to get a gun soon.
I'm 16 years old, I've played almost every violent computer game since Castle Wolfenstein (Which I played on my Brandnew 386 at the time
Lets make a short list of some of the games:
Wolfenstein
All the dooms
all the quakes
Max Payne
Halflife/CS - my current addiction
Vietnam: Black Ops
The list can go on, I have a whole cd case full of nothing but them.
I also own a gun, I own a
I also like to do Powerball Wars (using the ghetto
Ok, the point is, NONE OF THIS is going to cause me to want to shoot my friends, my school, or my parents. I may talk about it, I talk about shooting my english teacher all of the time, usually right in her class and within hearing range. My and some friends in English will spend the whole period discussing the best ways to assasinate her. But I never would, I have respect for guns.
I believe that if schools where to make a 1 quarter out of the year Gun Respect class, it would solve a ton of problems. In this class, kids would be shown what happens when they kill someone, they would be taken to a jail and shown around. They should be shown slides of nasty head wounds, sucking chest wounds, and suicides. They should be taught safety, how to handel a knife, a bow, and yes kids, a gun. I think that if the children where taught gun safety, how to properly handle a gun, and yes, even how to safely shoot a gun for their own protection, it would cause the gun death rate to sharply decline. The gun is a tool, a killing tool. Many people who carry them (we shall call them "Homies"), don't know how to properly take care of and use a gun. They see the gun as a problem solving tool. I pull out a gun, the problem is solved. It is not, it is a tool with which to kill animals and to protect ones self.
To me this of little concern considering im not a minor by a long ways... However I do remember back when I was a minor, and I really dont understand why they are doing this. I understand that there is a "de-sensitizing" to violence that goes on from games like this but there is a positive (yes positive) influence that occurs as well. Humans are creatures of stress and tension naturally, and in many of us there is still a urge to cause violence. To deny that urge is to cause problems. Video games violent movies etc help to satisfy that in some people... Granted in some it only increases it, but this seems to be a more profound thing in youth inperticular.
Am I lying when I tell you that im telling the truth? Or am I telling the truth when I say that Im lying?
To which all the TV addicts scream, "we are not addicted, we can watch anytime we want"
Of course, if TV can cause some sort of a hypnotic or trance state, then all bets are off. Of course, then you have these guys who call every focused mental activity a trance, which is a bit off the mark as well
"It is a greater offense to steal men's labor, than their clothes"
What's next? Are we going to find out Microsoft is a monopoly?
It doesn't meet the actual definition, since it is one company out of many.
It might however meet the "legal" definition. However, this is like those who say that there was no "War" in vietnam, since it was legally a "police action".
I will not let my daughter play Soldier Of fortune, Quake I,II,III , UT, Halflife, GTA III .. because she is 10 years old and she is not ready to understand the line between fantasy/make believe and real life. But you know what, THAT"S MY JOB! no R movies, and some PG movies, No the family Guy, Simpsons, South Park... Because she is 10 years old. and you know what? I control it fine. I explain to her when she asks why not, and she respects me and my rules. This is what a parent is supposed to do, Raise their children, teach them limits, and be a mentor/role model. No, I dont say... "Go to bed, the raunchy show I wont let you watch is on, and I want to watch it." Like the trailer trash in the world. I record it for later viewing AFTER she has gone to bed at a regular time or at times she is not here. Same as any LAN parties I host. she is not to be in the house.
The difference between a real parent and the horrible jerks is that a real parent put their children before ANYTHING ELSE. I want to drink some beers friday night, my daughter is puking with the flu... I'm home with her. I'm at her cheerleading, girl-scouts events, play's at school.
If your child isnt #1 in your life above your job and "hobbies" then you aren't a parent. Any law trying to stop kids from buying "bloody beheading fest 2004" wont stop them, just like the law that makes it illegal to sell a kid tobacco.. Oh yeah that one works. and the alcahol laws... those work well too.... NOT.
I dont want any damned laws that are worthless and try to make up for the bad/ lazy parenting.. How about passing a law that punishes parents for being horrible parents? or better yet, you have to get a license to become a parent? we dont let horrible drivers get a drivers license (well, we do now) why do we let people raise a human being without finding out of they can?
Do not look at laser with remaining good eye.
This is from David Cross's HBO Special. I felt it was rather relevant.
... what were the video games he gave to the entire German republic?
"I don't like the leaping logic that it's violence in the media. They act like violence didn't exist before TV shows and Natural Born Killers. Like, you know, the guy that climbed the bell tower in the 60's, in Austin Texas, what was the violent movie that he watched? I can't remember what it was.
"And i'm sorry, what were the video games that Hilter used to play, you know? You know, before he went out and
"It's ridiculus. Here is the thing. Like, look, if you just program Touched by An Angel, and Providence, and Family Practice and that bull shit, I'll fucking kill somebody."
Anyway, violence existed way before video games. I figured most of us would be repeating the same theme, but I thought I would add a little humor in the mix.
My thought, however, is until we start teaching nonviolence and self control through our actions at home, schools or even in our government, how do we expect keeping violent videos games from minors to be the way to start?
In Related news:
WASHINGTON, DC--A coalition of video-game characters representing the nation's leading systems appeared before Congress Monday to decry "the pointless, deadly presence" of spinning blades in video-game landscapes.
"We are here to demand an end to the shockingly casual placement of dangerous blades in our places of work," said Tomb Raider star Lara Croft, who estimates that she has lost more than 600,000 lives to spinning, falling, swinging, and suddenly appearing blades this year alone. "This kind of thing has been going on since the days of Pitfall Harry, and it has got to stop."
Croft, flanked by Metal Gear's Solid Snake, Super Mario 64's Mario, and both soldiers from Contra, called upon Congress to revise OSHA laws to extend protection to the digitally rendered.
"From Pitfall to Bad Dudes Versus Dragon Ninja to Gauntlet, the deadly spinning blade has been with us so long, we no longer even question it," Croft said. "It's high time it was done away with once and for all."
Exacerbating the situation, Mario said, is the seemingly arbitrary placement of the hazards. "I could see why, if you're in a factory, you might find yourself jumping around on dangerous conveyor belts moving in different directions," he said. "But why would you have conveyor belts in a castle? Or in the middle of a forest? Nintendo and these other companies are always talking about how realistic their graphics are. Well, what's so realistic about killer turtles shooting out of clouds and such?"
Added Mario: "It's-a me, Mario!"
In addition to the standard spinning blade, the coalition is seeking restrictions on random whirling fireball chains, falling blocks, spike-pit traps, and invisible cross-corridor laser arrays.
Legislators listened attentively as the digitized characters told of their near-death encounters.
"Just the other day, I was running through the British Museum's Egyptology exhibit when a bunch of six-foot steel scythes suddenly burst out of a sarcophagus," Croft said. "Fortunately, I managed to leap out of the way at the last possible second. But a situation like that could have easily turned tragic."
"We're not so different from you," the blue-jacketed guy from Double Dragon said. "We just want to be left alone to do our jobs--saving princesses, finding lost treasures, destroying out-of-control nuclear-equipped robots. But it's nearly impossible to go about your daily life when you're living in constant fear of some giant, evil mushroom suddenly lunging at you from out of nowhere."
"I mean, would you put up with a row of whirling knives in the cereal aisle at Safeway?" the Double Dragon guy continued. "Of course not. Why, then, should Duke Nukem have to run through a corridor of them to get the health pack he needs need to survive?"
The characters said they intend to boycott their respective video games until Nintendo, Sega, Sony, and other manufacturers take "significant measures" to improve safety.
"In addition to mandatory warning lights and buzzers at least eight seconds before the appearance of a blade, spike, or other health hazard, we are calling for mapping features in all 3D-rendered environments, large flashing arrows to highlight such hidden objects as health and life bonuses, and, in the case of Sonic Team games, safety guardrails on all loops."
Added Sonic: "And would it kill you to compose better music? I almost didn't finish the jungle part on that last one."
I am into the copy and paste.
Maybe this will get rid of all those pesky kids that keep killing me in counter strike!
You lose your liberty. Here in Spain we have videogames ratings BUT is the costumer who decides BUYING IT OR NOT.
IMHO, the parents are responsible about what their children buy.
The story submission says "indications that video games don't cause violence."
That is an obvious misrepresentation of the link. They say that it is inconclusive - that means it doesn't lend support to any hypothesis, one way or the other.
I like playing Q3A etc. as much as the next guy, but it would seem pretty obvious to me that this kind of violence in games and on TV can't help but contribute to violent behavior. Like the link says - there is no one cause - but everything adds up!
I know I am a lot less shocked when I see a shooting or other violent crime depicted on TV now (i.e. not at all), that I was when I first started seeying this kind of thing at age 18. (Australia has - or used to have - much less violence on TV than the US. In addition I lived in the country and never saw a movie or much TV until moving to the city).
/..sig file not found - permission denied.
Most people don't get violent as a result of watching violent videos.
Unfortunately, a few people are "utter nutters" - one viewing of "Gratuitous Death II" and they kill everyone in sight.
Perhaps they don't make much difference in the US, where massacree's are part of the national heritage. In the rest of the world, we try to avoid them with varying degrees of success.
UK has 1/4 the population of the US, and 1/400 the murder rate.
The intelligent people leave. CNN is still there. People like Jane Fonda move into the state.
In past generations, kids brought guns to school and left them in their lockers to go hunting afterwards. No "school shooting" problem.
The problem isn't guns: it's bad kids. Taking away people's 2nd amendment rights in no way "attacks the real problem". Nor does videogame labeling or censorship.
"Perhaps they don't make much difference in the US, where massacree's are part of the national heritage. In the rest of the world, we try to avoid them with varying degrees of success."
You live in the UK, right? Massacres are very much a part of the national heritage of the United Kingdom. Globally, in fact: that is how the British Empire was built and maintained.
It is not just the United Kingdom: can anyone think of any place on the globe other than Antarctica where "massacre is not part of the national heritage"? Name one?
Unfortunately, it is in their rights to declare de-facto war without doing so. Just as it is the rights of the Supreme Court Justices to make up and demand any new law and claim "it is in the constitution".
I recently purchased the PS2, and with it, Grand Theft Auto 3. I am an adult, and I can see the fantasy about this game, as I can also see the humor in it. It's an incredibly violent game, and should not be in the hands of minors. I'm sure there are a pile of games out there that equal or surpass the violence and mature content of this game, and any responsible lawmaker wanting to keep impressionable kids away from the game are OK in my book. Leave it up to parents to decide, and you're asking for trouble. While most parents may/will keep an eye on their kid's game play, some just won't.
Now, I must get back to bashing prostitutes, pimps and thugs with my Louisville Slugger...
Please read:
0 AM US38274.shtml
http://www.shamrockisle.com/bookstore/157098159
.... one of many pages about a massacre perpetrated by the British government on the soil of the United Kingdom in recent history.
Perhaps you are not aware of it, with your government-controlled UK mass media.
Why not pass a law called the "Anti-uncool-kid preppy social clique protection act" instead? That would go a lot further in protecting the at risk kids' sanity.
I (unfortunately) have lived in GA for the past half dozen years. I remember when GA went up from 50th to 49th in education; all the teachers were so happy (which made me feel even worse. They were HAPPY to be up to 49th!) BTW, the GA General Assembly voted about totally repealing the state public education program back when segregation was stopped. The vote was close; greed barely won over that because they wanted all the federal $ that they got for their schools.
Don't panick though.Look at that link; Is that really the full text? Look at how short the thing is! Also look at how they determine if a video game is evil; the requirements will only fit Mortal Kombat. I also see a loophole or two.
My point is this; they aren't seriously pushing this law. They don't even want it to pass; someone just pulled out an old bill from back when Mortal Kombat was sturring things up and is using this for some political maneuver.
"Never, never suspect the dreams within the dreams of dreaming children." ~The Amazon Quartet
Shouldn't things like this be more uniform? IT would be acceptable to say that all games with an M or 17+ rating be out of reach of minors, but individually specifying 'violence', 'sex', etc. is ridiculous. First of all, it shows how dumb these government officials of ours are. Second, and more importantly, I could make videogames that brainwash kids into joining the Skinheads / Nazis / Taliban / whatever, and they would be perfectly legal for anyone to buy.
I can see it now, a game with barney telling kids who they should hate. Or better yet the teletubbies... Everyone already knows they're evil.
Slashdot gets worse every day... Pipedot: News for nerds, without the corporate slant
How long will it be before we will outlaw children using their thumb and index finger to make a "gun" to play cops & robbers? Oh yeah, a child was suspended for school for that already.
If guns (and therefore video games, TV and movies that depict guns) are the root of our violence problems in america why the hell didn't my fathers generation kill each other at record rates? Have you SEEN this roy rogers guy? He carries a gun and used it several times! How about that show gunsmoke? EVERYONE carried a gun, and someone got shot in EVERY episode! Not like todays "Charlies Angels" where none of the heroes are allowed to use guns. It wouldn't be PC, and god knows that if Cameron Diaz used a firearm in a movie I might go Columbine on your ass!
I remember a frontline article that compared the affects of media on young people to a feedback loop. What our PC culture accepts as normal is so narrow in it's focus that normal behavior that has been in children and teenagers since the dawn of time is now somehow so aberrant that you have to drug you kid out of his mind
If society as a whole can't stand simple age appropriate behavior, we are all in for a rough ride. Outlawing video games is just a silly step that some very misguided people are taking for political expediency. If you truly want to stop the violence you have to start early you have to
1. Have both parents involved (which is hard if they both have to work 70 hours a week to make ends meet. Some parents are additionally pretty heavily medicated at that!)
2. You must have a have school system that actually cares about something besides how good the football team is and how fashionable dressed the students are. Not all student problems can be taken care of with a "magic pill"
3. Have a society that kicks silly politicians out on their can when the pull these knee jerk reactions
I don't hold out much hope
"Science is about ego as much as it is about discovery and truth " - I said it, so sue me.
The smashing wood and twanging strings sounded just like it did on "Quickdraw McGraw"... :-)
Anyone here of Native American, Scottish, Welsh, Irish, Frensh, Spanish, Australian, African, Indian from India, West Indies, or American Yankee heritage want to attest to how massacres just weren't the British way at all ever?
The book was an excellent read, Grossman really did put the numbers about through research.
So glad that Pete Townshend could sign on here and let us know about his childhood.
Video games don't cause violence?
In 99% of the population, no. In the remaining 1%, there's nuts who see someone playing Quake and go "COOL!" - Anyone remember that one movie that had a scene with some guy laying in the middle of a street? Some dolts later tried it - and got run over. Was in the news all over quite a few years back.
Yes, video games cause violence. Through improper parenting and possible brain defects.
I maintain the stance that 99% of the population shouldn't suffer through the Darwin-award winning antics of the remaining 1%.
They can take my blood-soaked games when they also take horrific scenes of two jetliners smashing into buildings off the news.
Keep¦digging¦that¦hole..
While I don't feel that making video games is an artform someone would use to express themselves, I do think that if someone wants to run around a made up world blasting the crap out of everything then they should be entitled to do that. Faced with an alternative that could mean doing it in real life, (hint: key word about to appear!) animated blood is harmless.
Also, I'd like to ask what the replacement would be?. Is everyone under 18 going to be forced to play Reader Rabbit Teaches Typing? Or will we be seeing "super hero" Pat Robertson as he throws bibles down the throats of Americans in the next issue of PC Gamer? The thought runs chills through my body...
Video games do affect the individual that is playing. The same with movies. Arguing that violent video games do not increase violent tendencies in a person is like arguing that puzzle games do not increase problem-solving skills.
Atlanta. Perhaps you've heard of it.
Didn't that sink into the ocean in that Michael J Fox movie?
Citing a gamespot article is like linking to the NRA to prove that guns aren't dangerous.
/. you're preaching to the choir, so who cares.
It just won't convince anyone who believes otherwise.
Of course, here at
Note: I don't think guns or video games are dangerous or cause violence. I firmly believe those things can always be traced back to stupid people.
We are arguing this because what goes on in the videogames is not actually violence. It's a smear of pixels that bears resemblance to violence, thats all.
On the video game screen, I've blown away zillions of foes, and I am no more likely to be actually violent in the real world.
so, it has been confirmed that is may contribute to violent behavior, that is BS.
It has been confirmed in scientific data, that the repeated exposure to food
particularly at all you can eat buffets may contribute to eating
dissorders in our citizens.
then they go on to target the tv broadcasts and music lyrics. last night when i was at the bowling lanes, i was yelled at by some guy in a slipknot shirt, who apparently was christian, he was claiming that my friends and i were all Satanists, kind of hypocrytical, huh.
Also stated is that bloodshed should be a factor to limit the game to
anyone 18 or older. So if some cut scene has someone getting a
paper cut and it shows blood, oh no, minors cant see it,
minor don't know that we are all mere mortals, minors can't handle any
discision making or anything that might be emotionaly sensative,
according to them. i have seen minors more capable of
dealing with problems than adults.
sorry, have to stop my self, i feel like talking about fascism,
but that is kind of irrelivent, maybe.
The NRA guys can always hold up the 2nd Amendment to support their view.
Wish we had something like that amendment to defend videogames.....
If you don't live in Georgia let me give you a quick rundown of our political scene. Our Govonor is Roy Barnes who is ultra liberal. He changed our flag (which has been my flag since I was born it represented home to me, nothing else)without letting it go to popular vote ,and he passed an education reform bill which has done nothing to reform education except add in more buracracy and remove tenure from new teachers. Our Assembly recently went through a redistricting session where the Democrat majority destroyed ALL of the Republican's seats in the house and the Senate.
Ok you are officialy "caught up". What I want to do is write the Legislators from my county and who are sponsoring this bill, I would like USEFUL critism and counterpoints for this bill. Also I am making a trip to the Capitol on Monday and maybe I can get a word in with my Legislator (very easy to do if you are a page and 18). Anyway, thanks for helping, if you want some reading to do, here is the surgeon general's report on youth violence.
Summers
There is nothing wrong with being gay. It's getting caught where the trouble lies.
Actually, I'd say that videogames probably PREVENT a lot of violence... check how people are absorbed in Quake-Style games, and how emotionnal they get sometimes while playing (spacebar-tapping harder, moving their shoulders, etc) I mean, this is an EXCELLENT aggressivity release...it disconnect you totally and make you forget all the crappy day I had...
My position is really simple: If someone has to be violent and go up and shoot people at a certain moment in his life, he'll do it, period. Videogames WON'T be what is going to trigger it, look at molesting parents, peer preasure in school, gangs, etc. The problem with americans and Canada (I am canadian) is that they NEED to blame ONE source for all their problems, they need to see it's not THEIR fault, but OTHERS, while it could be true in some cases (being others), it's completely irrationnal to blame Videogames to this extent.
You know what's ironic about all this? When they'll discover it doesn't change anything, they won't remove that law, they'll simply encourage more piracy among younger people (which is, by the way, a great way to educate them into NEVER buying stuff in the future), and helping of killing a part of an industry that sells well and that they are getting buttload taxes from. Sometimes I wonder how a politician thinks, heck I wonder if they think at all when they are pulling stuff like this.
--- Metamoderating abusive downgraders since my 300th post.
"Computer games don't affect kids; I mean if Pac-Man affected us as kids, we'd all be running around in darkened rooms, munching magic pills and listening to repetitive electronic music."
-- Karen Price, Nintendo Representative
-"Hey, Baby. It's not a rash, it's textured love."
and decided to conduct a little test of my friends. Some are AVID gun fanatics, whereas I feel a handgun has one sole purpose (to kill another person.) It was purely accidental that this happened however. I was perusing the gaming sites and http://www.Bluesnews.com had a link to a site that had recently toured the Offices of iD. The person had taken photos of the poster art that was hanging in the building, of the original DOOM and CW releases.
One of the posters for DOOM had the slogan
"There are a lot of people Opposed to Violence. They are all dead"
and it illustrated what appeared to be a guy strung up by his hands and missing half his body. I edited the JPG (to remove the DOOM logo) and sent it to these people. No one recognized it (which absolutely amazed me because I remember seeing these ALL over the place when DOOM first appeared) and one of the "Pro Gun" persons replied with
"Its shit like this that fuels anti-gun tendencies"
My point being, it was just a poster, depicting a man hanging. Nothing to do with Guns was illustrated, yet the first thing this person grabbed onto was how it would fuel anti-gun activity. Maybe the image said more, or hit a certain aspect of his mind, as the others that saw the same picture asked if it was from a Marilyn Manson album.
Draw your own conclusions, as I am sure we all do. I feel the mind makes itself, and while it is influenced by everything around it, there are going to be many times when it comes to a specific conclusion WITHOUT any evidence pointing or relating to that subject.
Maybe we as a people should look at controlling who has ACCESS to firearms (yes, I know....Cold Dead Fingers and all that) and calling accountability to the parents that provide the kids with access. My kid isn't going to take a gun to school unless they buy it for themselves. They won't be able to "raid the gun closet" because Daddy doesn't need a gun to kill anyone. The person who has it on his file cabinet....don't you ever wonder if "little Jimmy" has a bad day...and he decides he wants to take that anger out on someone...that he won't think it through, but would rather "Grab the gun" because he KNOWS how to use it...rather than use his MIND to solve the problem?
You keep going until you die..."Me".
The problem, though, is not those who are recidivist criminals.
The problem is that current laws don't seem effective in keeping the guns out of the hand of children, children who might (and I mean might) be stymied by stricter laws.
The hardcore will always have access to guns, but is it so wise to allow toddlers easy access to high-power weapons? I'm not saying current laws put guns in the hands of infants, but I am saying this is perhaps one thing among many that should be reconsidered. I certainly would include an evaluation of our mores about the representation of violence (imagined and actual), the role of parenting, the authority of the state, the effect of hazing, etc.
msqblog
personally i think parents should take a more active role in the lives of their children. then people will say "we dont have the time to monitor everything our children do". personally i think you should wait until you have time, then have children.
back when i was young, this lady named tipper started something called the parents music resource center (pmrc). she, and a few other senators wives with nothing better to do, started lobbying the major record labels for a rating system. eventually they got the major record labels to comply, but some others wern't all that quick to adhere to their "moral" views (see at).
so what was their solution? picket any stores that sell this music that they dont approve of. this leads to bands being blacklisted because they dont think morals should be dictated to them. one of the bands was the dead kennedys, an antigovernment band whos lead singer didnt have alot of nice things to say about tippers husband when he ran for election in 2000 (not that he had many nice things to say abou bush either).
so who cares right? i do, there is a small subset of the population dictating what is "morally right" and i dont think that bodes well with the liberties given to people by our constitution. this allows parents to be less responsible at a time when they should be _MORE_ responsible. i want parents to stop looking for external excuses for their childrens' behaviour and start to accept that they have to participate in the lives of their children to be a good parent.
-- john
In agreement with Graymalkin, the fact that you would verbally threaten the life of your English teacher within hearing range because you were miffed about your paper assignment means, to me, THAT YOU ARE THE PROBLEM.
You claim to be responsible enough to know how to use a gun, but your mastery of guns gives you absolutely no insight about how to negotiate with humans except to threaten their lives. What you actually intend to do is beside the point. Threatening the lives of people demonstrates your inability to behave responsibly. And, yes, speech is here part of your behavior.
In case you didn't know, it is illegal to threaten bodily harm to someone. The moment you began threatening to shoot your teacher should have been the moment that your guns were confiscated. What's even more chilling is that you actually have the knowledge and capability to make good on your threats. It is immaterial whether or not you would or would not. The logic here can be summed up as mutually exclusive contradictory statements: 1) I will kill my teacher, 2) I will not kill my teacher.
I hope I won't end up reading about you in the papers.
Slashdot are you listening?
msqblog
Does your daughter have friends? Does she ever sleep over?
Her friend's parents are gone or permissive and she plays Quake for hours. She gets intoxicated and follows the imperatives of her hormones.
We don't need laws; we only need isolationist philosophy where we can't imagine that children are raised in a culture that contains millions of others. Nope, no culture here, just me and the nuclear family.
Repeal all laws now. I'm her daddy and I am enough.
blog
If the parent wants the child to own a Mature rated game, the parent can go with the child to purchase it. Same goes for R rated movies. It's the same damn thing [...] This isn't going to get struck down, people. There's nothing wrong with it. Face the fact that until you're 18, there are some decisions your parents get to make for you. That's always been the case.
Nuts to that.
For starters, I'm sick of having to carry around "papers" and pull the damn thing out to prove I'm old enough to do/see/drink something.
Secondly, the ages are absurd. They are so out of line with what kids (rightly) do anyway that it's not even funny--For hell's sake, I was shown R rated movies in *school* quite a bit before I was 17, and nobody thought anything of it at the time! And don't get me started on drinking...
Thirdly, have you ever considered that letting your kids out of the house unsupervised *is* parental consent? I seriously doubt my parents were ever unaware of my location (at least to the extent of not knowing what other adult was watching me) for the hours(?) it takes to rent a violent game and play it, not to mention getting access to an unwatched game console and TV until I was well old enough for that to be the least of their worries, and it's not like my parents were terribly strict at all... Quite the opposite, the psycho strict parents that actually didn't want their poor sheltered 18 year old kids seeing "bad" things kept quite enough watch on them to pretty much succeed at keeping them from developing any social skills at all.
Fourthly, have you considered the effect the "assume no consent unless the parent is present" laws have on the kids' respect for legitimate law? You know *something* rubs off when your parents don't mind their 17 year old son being out after curfew, just don't get caught. Or setting reasonable limits on the drinking habits of a 19-year old, with the obvious disregard for the ludicrously strict rules politicians have decided are appropriate (and the tacit approval of more serious deception, such as the venerable fake ID).
I suppose the last one is a lesson, though. It's not enough to teach your children that there are rules to be followed, but also there are rules to be disregarded, as well...
--
Benajmin Coates
The US has a very violent society. These stupid ex post facto remedies only reflect on how ignorant the law makers are about the situation, they are avoiding the *real* issue. Society itself is failing, this will prove very hard to stop.
The U.S. has the highest percentage of its citizens in prison of any country ever, in the history of the world - About 3% of all adult Americans are in prison as I write this. What's worse, is that the prison population growth is still rising. The U.S. has about 6 times the percentage of its citizens in prison or gaol (US: jail) as the European countries. More evidence of social breakdown in the U.S, is its alarmingly high murder rate.
The US is a society of extremes. There are many fundamental issues regarding its social breakdown that need to be seriously addressed. The 'Violent Video Game Protection Act' is sort of like King Kanute (sic), trying to get the tide to stop. There is no point in creating acts such as this when people can still just go down to WallMart® and easily pick up some serious weaponary. The *right* to have a gun may have been handy a dozen decades ago; but now it is quite obviously having a detrimental effect on US society.
Apparently, folks feel pretty strongly about allowing their kids to aim a flamethrower on a Nazi in Return To Castle Wolfenstein, or to snipe the SS in Medal Of Honor. OK, that's cool - these are the parents that can afford to give their minor a computer and other amenities. (Less fortunate kids don't have this option and have to join a gang and plink at each other with a 9mm.)
Meanwhile, the real-life brown-shirt baddies are living in the United States and have an open policy of violence and hate. And don't gimme that free speech crap, either - the Aryan Nation lost it's main HQ last year due to criminal activities (nicities such as assasination and firebombing - I don't think free speech covers that). Now they're trying to set up a new compound in Pennsylvania - and some of the community leaders are advocating a policy of "ignore them and they'll go away".
Check the broadcast story out (RealPlayer) at NPR's All Things Considered. It aired yesterday. Creepy, man...creepy. Didn't we, uh, fight a war to stop this idiocy?
OK, that's what I get for taking myself so seriously.
But you weren't so clear about the nature of your threat in your original post (which I'm still not sure gets you off the hook). Maybe your English teacher has a point?
msqblog
I heard that on NPR last night too. The scary part is that the same kids that are are attratced to viloent video games are also attracted to Aryan Nation groups.
I've got another study...how many middle class boys have a problem with video game ratings?
I have a really good idea... Its amazing how noone else thought of this before...
Lets make parents live up to their responsibilities!
Dont punish those people who enjoy playing video games because you dont feel like bringing your kid up right and with proper values.
Brielle
It does not really mention videogames much.
They attribute a noxious combination of drug sales, gangs, and access to illegal firearms (Which were already so (It's been illegal as long as I can remember for a minor (under 21) to own a handgun save via inheritance, and even then they can't use it without adult supervision until that age...) before any new legislation- keep that in mind folks...)- it isn't what they're pegging as the problem.
Just like most clueless politicians- go for the quick, easy, unrelated fix that won't do a damn thing for the real problems.
I am not merely a "consumer" or a "taxpayer". I am a Citizen of the State of Texas
I am personally a huge free speech person, and if this were happening in my state, I would join whatever local political group was trying to make sure the bill did not pass.
However, I think it is Georgia's right to do this if they really want to. I am conservative, and conservatives believe that local and state communities, not the federal government, should be in charge of most things, including community standards. I greatly oppose acts like the CDA or COPA because they are mandates from on high that completely ignore the fact that some communities do not want it.
But if Georgia really believes its community does not want the sale of violent video games to minors, and the citizens want that (by not joining groups to oppose it, electing conservative politicians, etc.), then I see absolutely no problem with the state of Georgia enacting this community standard.
It is not as if they are even banning the games (which I think I might still support). They are for sale. Adults can buy them. If parents think their kids are ready, the parents can buy the games for their children. What is the harm? Parents are able to make a choice about what they want their kids exposed to, the community is protected, free speech is protected, and it is a decision made by the local populace for the local populace.
On Slashdot, we often complain how the federal government is doing this or that, and how parents are no longer able to make the call. Here is a situation that should make us all happy. Recognize a good thing when you see it.
Lawrence Lessig is my personal hero.
If anyone of my kids had violent tendancies, I'd give him a good beatin'. Yeah, I sure would learn him good that violence is bad.
For example, in my country the both "Harry Potter" and "Lord of the Rings" have supernatual themes as part of the rating (what kind of person considers wizards and elves as supernatual, anyway), clearly something put in to please some conservative group somewhere. Hell, perhaps they could put in, we think this movie sux's cause Julia Roberts got paid 11 million dollars and is hardly in it, If they what to put in stuff that is just someone's opinion.
Worst, is that ratings are starting to be used as a marketing device, for example, Black Hawk Down was given a R rating in my country, later to be downgraded, giving the it free spill on the news since it was now a "controversial" new movie (How dumb do they think we are).
Perhaps, in the future video games could have labels like, playing this during your SAT will stop you going to the university of your choice, or comic books "Collecting these will make you end up a forty year old virgin living in your parents basement", bibles "reading this will make you stand out side clinics acting like a dickhead", Perhaps the best one, Big Macs could have "eating these will make you fat".
At the end of the day do we really want/need a nanny state.
Pianist : Some jerk whos taught themselves how to type in rhythm
Are you seriously suggesting that anti-gun legislation has NEVER prevented guns falling into the wrong hands?
I would be suggesting exactly that. There is quite an element of truth in the saying "If you outlaw [illegal item], then only outlaws will have [illegal item]." Witness prohibition in the 1920's. It just made alcohol harder to get, lower quality (higher methanol content increased rates of blindness dramatically) and more expensive. Plus, it allowed the Mob to become more powerful because you could only get your liquor from the Mob (incidentally, most of the Kennedy family fortune was alleged to have been made through liquor-peddling). Same thing with guns. You pay more for weapons because they are illegal. And since they are unregulated, you don't know who has them and you can't track their use. Great if you want to commit a crime like armed robbery or murder because illegal items have no paper trail. The original poster has a point because kids or criminals who want to obtain guns, firearms etc badly enough will find a means. What outlawing does is tip the supply in favour of criminals, who don't care about the law and don't operate inside it. Ergo, it doesn't matter to them, only to us law-abiding folk.
I'd instead argue that the main objection to this legislation by this forum is not because 10-year-olds won't be able to get SOF2, but that this is yet another piece of legislation politicians are introducing to "improve" our lives. We are objecting not to the regulation of our lives, but to the overregulation of our lives. We expect laws to provide reasonable limits on our behaviour, not to dictate our lives.
----------
When the pin is pulled, Mr. Grenade is no longer our friend.
Ratings are, bout what is in the things and not meant to reflect someone opinion.
Pianist : Some jerk whos taught themselves how to type in rhythm
Who would vote against something called the "Violent Video Game Protection Act"? If you vote againat it, everyone will think you're against video games since you want to deny them protection. 200 video games per year are threatened by wackos who want to ban them, and they obviously need protection. But in spite of the name, this bill isn't about protecting video games; it's about censoring them!
What's next, the "Baby Protection Act" which, once you read the fine print, specifies that all babies must be flogged and then fed into a shredding machine?
Has it ever occurred to anyone else that Gran Turismo and Need for Speed have more to do with people getting killed than Half-Life or Quake[I,II,III]?
Think about it: how many kids actually go out and buy BFG's, RPG's, and Shotguns? Probably none. Ok, how many kids buy souped up little imports and go freeway racing? A whoooole bunch (at least in southern california). Yet racing games get rated E.
Why is that?
http://www.masturbateforpeace.com/
Next is slashdot going to persecute the evil movie theater owners that won't let minors into violent R rated movies?
Law's like this will actually make mature-content video games More prevalent in the marketplace. As just like other mature media, laws restricting access to minors will further legitimize the Adult market for these products. By and large, mature content video game manufacturers are actually in favor of laws of this sort. In fact, yesterday saw the release of Rockstar Games (maker of GTA) newest mature PS2 game, and on the cover is a (voluntary) label that plainly states "Card Under 18".
So why exactly aren't the Manhattanites at Rockstar games as evil as those "hillbillies" in Georgia.
The ESRB and MPAA ratings and the enforcement of their ratings are not currently mandated by law. They're self-regulated, ultimately voluntary systems.
Enforcement of the MPAA ratings is done mostly through economic means and trade association pressure, and not by law.
There's a big step between a voluntary, self-censorship system and a legislated restriction on access to speech.
Even Jesus hates listening to Creed.
It's interesting that while retailers have voluntarially tried to restrict sales of "violent" games to minors, developers are not required to have their games rated by organizations like the ESRB. So, what is to happen? Require every game software title to be rated by the ESRB? What about independent game developers? Last I heard, having your game rated by the ESRB isn't cheap.
What's amusing is that I submitted this story - twice - yesterday morning. And it was rejected - twice.
Guess I must've pissed some dork off.
Max
My god carries a hammer. Your god died nailed to a tree. Any questions?
I agree with you on the topic of limiting a developer's creative freedom, but the only problem is that the more violent it is, the less money they'll get for it. At Wal-Mart, they choose which games go on their shelves and which ones don't. So if a company decides to make an ultra-bloody game, chances are it won't end up at Wal-Mart (btw Wal-Mart is a huge retailer that provides a large amount of sales for devs--it can't be ignored), and so it won't sell as well.
as much as we'd like to think, developers aren't in the gaming industry just to make great games--they're in to make great games that sell. so if they have a game that's rated M for Mature, it porbably won't sell as well as an E-rated game (for Everyone). do you see the problem there?
No one can put you down without your full cooperation.
Consider: I'm a parent, and I don't want my kid renting one of those fishing games (maybe I'm a nutty PETA wacko). Legally there's nothing I can do to stop stores from renting these games to my kid.
Consider: I'm a parent, and I give permission for my kid to rent Max Payne. Even if I'm in the store with my kid, and I tell the clerk up-front "please rent this game to my kid", it would be illegal to do so. Even though I've okayed it, the clerk would still be "rent[ing] ... any video game to a minor which contains sense or depictions of graphic violence ...". Think about this for a second: even though I, as a parent, give full consent, it's still illegal. Does this sound like "discretion in these matters is ... given to [the parent]" to you???
This is NOT about empowering parents; it's about DISempowering parents. It's about taking the power AWAY from the parents and giving it to the rating boards (the ESRB in this case). When you REMOVE the OPTION from the parent, it's moving closer to a nanny state. It's also a good way to silently implement a protectionist economy (ever wonder why most foreign films are rated R in the US, even though they would easily be rated PG if they came from Hollywood?).
It's about time we had some legislation to protect our violent video games!!
Why are you all staring at me like that?
You realize, this could easily make it more difficult to buy a video game then to buy a gun.
God forbid that our children should be exposed to fictional violence. We ban them from the movies, from computer and video games...but what about books? Books are incredibly violent and worse, the violence takes place in the unrestricted space of the imagination! Who knows what damage takes place when a child *imagines* violence spurred on by a violent story, without the limiting effects of graphics technology?
Yes, friends, it's time to start banning books. At the very least they should be labeled as to their violent content. God knows the parents don't have time to judge the content of a book, so letting strangers do it for them is perfectly sensible.
Max
My god carries a hammer. Your god died nailed to a tree. Any questions?
No laws like this won't prevent 13 year olds from Grand theft Auto 3.
Yes events like Columbine will occur in the future.
No laws cannot replace parental responsibility.
How do either of these facts make an argument that laws similar to this shouldn't exist? Consistantly people who post here, post out of personal experience and nothing else. I've read post here that state things like, "I parent my daughter", "Who needs ratings on movies"... some of you seem to miss the point that some of the laws in place facilitate you in being a good parent. SO why don't we just get rid of drinking ages, driving laws, whatever.
Some of you parents apparently don't remember what its like to be a kid. Don't mistake the effects of your child rearing with good fortune. Still don't understand my point?? Take five girls, all different parents. Lets say they all have protected, premarital sex. One gets pregnant, the others don't. Does this make four sets of parents "good parents" while the future grandparents aren't?? No it makes four of them fortunate.
Just because kids can get there hands on violent games even if you police the sale of them, doesn't mean you should give them all access to it. I love playing these games.... but in the future when my son or daughter is old enough to even know what a game like GTA3 is, I don't want them to play it. Hopefully that will be enough, but if not, I certainly would rather have them jump through hoops to get their hands on it, rather than having it handed to them.
first off, you are quite mistaken. i for one am complaining, and i'll take this opportunity to do so. the rating system is an arbitrary piece of shit, that is based on ancient puritan/victorian values. values that i for one do not subscribe to. i believe that nudity is not filthy, and i object to having these values foisted on the next generation including any offspring that i might have. i think that much important storytelling involves violence and lust. i think these stories are important to tell children. i don't think that letting them imagine the world as all flowers and candy till they have to deal with it is a good idea. i think it's kinda twisted.
now that's not to say i don't think there are things i would rather not have my children see. for example anything promoting racism, anything promoting feelings of shame and inadequacy over perfectly normal and healthy behavior are not appreciated by me. the christian ethic of not touching another person until marriage by a catholic priest is sort of disgusting to me. i would rather my children not be taught these ideas by the media.
now you may not exactly agree with me, or maybe you do, and that's exactly the point. no system will keep all children from seeing stuff that their parents object to. while one film might bother some parents, it might be a wonderful learning experience as far as another is concerned, and vice versa. the only way to keep a child from viewing any objectionable media in an objective kind of a way is to not let the kid view anything at all, and keep him in a little box with a lock that only the parents can open to let stuff in. i will assume that total sensory deprivation of our children is something that nobody wants.
so now that i've complained about movie ratings, let me complain about video game ratings. what will we decide is violent? is shooting down planes in jet fighter games violent? is killing aliens in invaders violent? are hunting games violent? (as a vegetarian i think so, a family that hunts might think otherwise) and if we even defined that, who says that violent games are bad? and how do i cast my vote to say that they are not? where do i have some choice in how my child shall be censored by default?
this seems to leave us with only two objective choices: censor nothing, or censor everything. i personally say we should not censor anything at all. individual parents will have to do that, and they will have to decide how to accomplish it. ultimately it comes down to how much control you have over your child, which you shall find out soon is not as much as you hoped. that is unless you are caring, explain your reasons for disliking a specific kind of media, and respect your child's choice in the matter.
to me the most horrifying factor in all this is how much parents and the government are eager to "protect the children" without even freaking pausing to ask the children themselves what they think on the matter. most young adults over the age of 13 probably have valuable oppinions on the matter, and i can bet you they don't involve being "saved." children are eager to take responsibility and to grow up. if they see you watching violent movies with mature themes, they will be eager to take up this habit. if you think there is something wrong with this then why do you do it. if you think there is nothing wrong with it, then why are you teaching them that there is?
this entire moral mode of protecting children from real life has gone on since we stopped sending children off to apprenticeships some centuries ago, and started sending them off to kindergarden. this represented a grave error on our part (i believe), and we should consider allowing children back into the real world. instead of trying to protect them from the evils of the "adult" world, let us do our job and help bring them into that world, it's where they'll be spending most of their life.
Last time I checked, the first amendment didn't have a age-clause attached to it. If there is a willing buyer and a willing seller, I don't see why the any government, local or federal, should have any say on whether the transcations.
If stores don't want to sell 'M' games to minors, based on their own opinions, that's fine.
But to charge stores with a crime because they don't buy the "game violence causes real violence" horse shit is heinously immoral.
Got Freedom?
Thinking?
We currently have a wonderful game rating system in place. It's called parents. From day 1, their entire responsibility is to raise up their kid with a well instilled sense of morals. Laws that make it illegal to sell violent video games to minors just take more responsibility off the parent.
Many parents say they can't monitor their kids all the time. I say that's bull. When I was a wee lad, arround the age of 7 or 8, my parents always knew who I was with and where I was at all times. Even if they weren't there, they knew exactly what the plan were ahead of time. And you know what I did? I played pretend games of violence
with friends. War, Ghost Busters, Cowboys & Indians, all of these games I played. I watched Bugs Bunny (one of the most violent shows arround), I played with nerf guns and with dart guns. But my parents always taught me reality from fantasy. I knew not to point guns at anything but inanimate objects. I knew that killing was bad. I knew the difference between pretend and real life.
When I started hitting early teens, I was indeed given more freedom, but still nowhere near what some parents give their teens. For example, the video game system was set up in the living room. The computer was set up in the same place. My parents watched what I played. I was allowed to buy games for myself, but they always watched me play it, and if they didn't like it, they got rid of it. Simple. When I brought home Mortal Kombat, I thought it was the best thing I had ever played. My parents thought it was too violent for my age, and the next day, back to the store it went. However, I was allowed to go to summer camp and take the riflery course
Now as I prep myslef for college, I see the results of the restrictions my parents put on me. I was restircted so my parents could ensure I had appropriate friends. They limmited my access to certain games, until, they felt I was capable of understanding it. Currently I have almost no restrictions on me. I am allowed to choose what movies I see, based on my views. I am given my own computer and the ability to buy the games I see fit. And my parents trust that I can make proper decisions. When I voice my interest in takig up paintball, my parents sat down with me and discussed it at length. We looked into the rules and the structuring of the game, and they also looked at my ability to handle the game. IN the end, they determined I was able to play the game.
My parents understood that my view on life start very early. These kids who are 16 and 17, who play violent video gmaes and then go shoot up their schools have other things wrong with them. If at age 16 you don't have a firm grasp of reality, and can't distinguish moral rights and wrongs or fact from fantasy, than there is somethign fundamentaly wrong with you that goes deeper than just a video game.
Censorship belongs in the hands of the parents, not int he hands of the government
T Money
World Domination with a plastic spoon since 1984
I was wondering if any of the people that posted the negative comments on the bill have any sort of education on the topic. Maybe the only education they have is actually playing the games. I mean, all you have to do is read any social science literature on the topic to find out two points:
(1) Video game/ TV violence has a negative effect on the behaviour of children/people.
(2) There are many different factors that can effect the behaviour of people. For example, video games+low supervision of children may lead to increased violence in children.
In conclusion, video games may lead to violent behaviour in children, but the effects may be counteracted with other social factors.
Even if gun safety is taught, that still won't stop morons picking up guns and shooting them. There will always be morons, and guns need to be kept out of the hands of morons - hence the need for tighter gun control.
Any practitioner or student of psychology will tell you that there is rarely one single cause for violent behavior.
Destructive behavior is more often tied to indulgent-permissive parenting. An example of this that most people may be familiar with is Ned Flanders' behavior as a child in a certain Simpsons's episode. His parents, beatniks, refused to punish him and so he ran wild breaking things and hurting others. The character may be fictional, but the model is valid.
I've played some of the most violent videogames on the market growing up, from the classic Mortal Kombat to the more recent Max Payne, and I'm a vegetarian pacifist with leanings toward the teachings of Buddhism. You don't get much more anti-blood and violence than that.
By their specious reasoning I should be driving down the street mowing over pedestrians with my car.
I believe I turned out as I have because my parents took an interest in me and raised me well, and research backs that up. If parents are faltering in raising their latch-key kids, it is not the governments job to step in and take their place.
What the government should be doing is investigating into how some double (ha!) income families are becoming dysfunctional because mom and dad are too worried about keeping a roof over their kids heads, clothes on their backs, food in their stomachs, and paying off debt to actually raise their children.
We all know that the WTC thing in september was all because of Quake 3 and it's guns. And Microsoft Flight Simulator because it has a plane.
Oaklahoma City Bombing wasn't because he was insane, it was because of Bomberman and the use of a bomb.
Columbia Shooting had to be derived from, none other then, Unreal Tournament. You know how you have a huge plasma gun? Yeah that's where the kid got the idea.
you are inferring that it should be the retailer that decides instead of the parent.
Just a heads up. infer means to draw a conclusion from some information. imply means to express something indirectly. The two are often misused interchangably, but they do mean different things.
For instnace: You imply that you dislike violent video games. I can infer from this that you have never played Cliff Yablonski: Freedom Fighter.
But...
A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.
It's from memory so bear with me if I'm not 100% accurate. Seems to me the second amendment states you have a right to join the national guard. One weekend a month, two weeks a year.
I'm all for RESPONSABLE people owning guns, and being a REASONABLE person, I've no problem with the government determining who the reasonable, responsable people are.
--Jimmy has fancy plans; and pants to match.
When it comes to video game violence and movie violence we are all children. When we watch this type of "content" our behaviour becomes costly to the government. It is also dangerous for "we the people" since it teaches that a violence can be a solution for problems!! Now what kind of world would this be if we believed that! If we are ever going to construct a peaceful and amiable society it is imparative that we start feeding this kind of bull to our children. Then taxes can be raised without worry.
hey who stole my nic?!?
Comment removed based on user account deletion
If videogames had any effect on our youth, then there would be a bunch of kids running around in dark rooms listening to repetitive music while eating pills and running from ghosts.
;)
Oh, wait, ravers. Nevermind.
I'd oppose this bill. If parents aren't watching what their kids are playing as it is, then the government shouldn't have to force them to give a damn. If you can't explain to your kid that what he sees/plays isn't real, and effectively control what s/he plays, there is probably a bigger problem at stake than s/he seeing a pixelated decapitation.
This bill also seems to propose that anyone who loans out a game is bound by the same regulations. For anyone under 18, this could end up to be pretty dumb. I wouldn't be half surprised if some kid loans GTA3 to his buddy and ends up getting sued by his parents. Can you imagine the maze of disclaimers at online retailers? Hell, even warez sites have another excuse to get shut down.
Dumb.
Yet another Clinton legacy, this time Hillary.
Curious how the wording only pertains to the sale of violent games to minors, it has no mention of what the law will be for possession of a violent game by a minor will be.
Sounds similar to tobacco laws to me.
(it was Hillary Clinton who made the push for video game ratings)
we need an act to protect violent video games from being scapegoats for violent acts
Um. Okay that came out wrong. I mean no shit huh.
Last Thursday I had my first class of a subject called Perspectives on the Media for my journalism degree. Some discussion went into censorship. The lecturer asked who of us believed any kind of censorship in the media was a bad idea, and I confidently poked my hand up. I admit that while I'm aware of how few people have really considered this topic, I was still taken aback to be the only one to put my hand up. I got some weird looks too.
Explaining to these people about precedents and who-decides-what's-bad-and-what's-not didn't make a lot of difference. Examples were then given by other students, regarding not wanting their five year old to download lesbian porn online. I gave up at about that point, considering that there is no State censorship of online material in New Zealand, and that I would then have been going into slightly off-topic areas like decent parenting etc.
It's just a bit disturbing that most people don't even think twice before advocating censorship of a subject that is "generally regarded" as being "damaging". It's curious how few people even think to examine the other side of the coin. And yeah, mod me down as redundant; I'm well aware that aside from the unique example, this is a ME TOO!! post.
Here is the contact information for the people sponsoring the bill. I looked up their names on Google and then through this site:= lookup&checking=
http://www.vote-smart.org/multiple.phtml?flagtype
Carolyn Fleming Hugley District Address - Columbus Post Office Box 6342 Columbus, GA 31917-0269 Phone: 706-685-8065 Fax: 806-687-5582 Capitol Address 412 Legislative Office Building Atlanta, GA 30334 Phone: 404-656-6372 Maretta Mitchell Taylor Capitol Address 412 Legislative Office Building Atlanta, GA 30334 Phone: 404-656-6372 District Address - Columbus 1203 Bunker Hill Road Columbus, GA 31709-6718 Phone: 706-687-8105 Valencia Seay District Address- Atlanta 5240 Joan of Arc Place Atlanta, GA 30349 Phone: 770-909-9912 Capitol Address 404 Legislative Office Building Atlanta, GA 30334 Phone: 404-656-0109 Lynmore James District Address - Montezuma 108 East Railroad Street Post Office Box 601 Montezuma, GA 31063-9530 Phone: 912-472-5064 Fax: 912-472-5060 Capitol Address 508 Legislative Office Building Atlanta, GA 30334 Phone: 404-656-0213 I don't know about you, but I think it's time to get on the phone or write a letter. Patrick Clinger
It doesn't seem overly enforced, but then again I didn't try to push it when I was a youngin'.
Video game retailers cannot sell anything rated "Mature" to anyone under 18.
Big friggin deal, folks. So you have to ask your mom to buy you a copy of GTA3. Chances are she doesn't know what she's buying for you anyway.
Either that or rent it...rental's usually more lax about this stuff (then again, I work in a video store, and we're also not allowed to rent R movies to anyone under 17).
(I also think there might be an age limit on "Teen" rated games, but it's probably only age 13 or 14, or something.)
As an, um... experienced, gamer, as well as a person in the target age range of this law, games have shown me a thing or two about violence in the real world.
They have NOT promoted it in my mind.
They have NOT trained me to kill real people.
They have NOT desensitized me to murder.
They have shown me that war is hell.
After quite a while in virtual battlefields, I can tell you now, with stronger conviction than before, that I never want to experience a battle outside of a game.
Soldiers come back from battle, knowing the fear of war. Simulations allow us to emulate that lesson, without having to kill anyone.
-twb
Everyone keeps throwing out the movie rating system as the true success story of child protection from the big bad world. Now, I see something different going on. Theaters in my area (L.A.) are requiring adults to be present with minors when viewing R rated movies. Not just buy the ticket -see the show! when I was a minor (26 now) you could have a note from your parents if the theaters cared enough to make a fuss. Not anymore. I do not have kids in my life yet but I do like to think that when the time comes, I will be able to make a decision for my child and not have a theater or a videogame clerk go over my head.
In the US, most of our R movies aren't that adult. Studios are afraid of the nc-17 rating from the mpaa because theaters won't carry those movies. Therefore, even R movies don't go that far. (BTW, if you ever go to IMDB, look at what other countries rate our R movies - often for ages 12 and above!) And in terms of what I would want my child to see (when of appropriate age, not exactly 18), I would avoid action violence, not give a damn about most sex and maybe allow (with my accompaniment (sp?)) real life violence in the black hawk/private ryan vein.
why?
1. most action movie violence is gratuitous - what kid needs to see that?
2. I see sex as a natural human experience that doesn't need to be shamed. So my kid sees some boobs. uh oh! I believe (with no evidence) that kids who don't have sex hidden away from them will do it responsisbly and when they are ready - more important to me than being of a certain age.
3. violence shown in a realistic way can healp to teach - especially when the parent can encourage discussion.
now, I know this is mostly off topic but my views apply the same to games as they do to movies. Especially the idea that I have to be there all the time to allow my child to take steps in life. Why must we not let kids develop at their own pace instead of setting lowest common denominator age restictions?
They can take away my gamepad...
...when they pry it away from my cold, dead fingers...
Men believe what they want. - Caesar
"It is not as if they are even banning the games (which I think I might still support). They are for sale. Adults can buy them. If parents think their kids are ready, the parents can buy the games for their children. What is the harm? Parents are able to make a choice about what they want their kids exposed to, the community is protected, free speech is protected, and it is a decision made by the local populace for the local populace"
The thing is, it's not the government's (of any form) job, it's the parents. If the parents don't want there kids to have it, don't let them get it. If they do, then let them. What's the harm? The governments getting too big. This doesn't help things.
Are you telling me that you don't see the connection between government and laughing at people? - Interviewer
The real reason that CNN shows violence is to make sure that you understand what is really going on... it is a journalsists duty. NOTE THE DIFFERENCE:
1. (Voice Over with Map) "There was a slaughter of 10,000 Cambodians today under the Khmer Rouge."
-OR-
2. (VIDEO OF THE DEAD BODIES IN THE STREETS) "These mothers are crying. Crying because there children got caught in a crossfire of a mortar attack when Khmer Rouge forces clashed with political dissidents. 10,000 people were killed, 2,000 of them children."
Which would you rather have? The sanitized version, or the truth? I suppose you're not getting it, are you?. The Holocaust can be denied in a few generations without pictures and film. So can all other slaughters of innocents. Think about the Russians under Stalin. Where are the pictures of them? That was one of the worst bloodbaths ever, and the world saw nothing.
Don't blame the media when they are showing injustice to the world. They are trying to let everyone know THE REAL TRUTH and then let them decide what to do. My boss just got back from Afghanistan, I was the alternate... he was sleeping in a ditch at night so you could make an informed decision about what is going on.
I wish Christiane Amanpour was in front of you so she could slap you. Not that she ever would after all she has seen. You need to show some respect to all of the dead photographers that bring you war footage so everyone can remember that war is murder.
Funny...you just gave my description of Dancer in the Dark...
Anywayz, I like Aronofsky's thing. I like how he films people taking drugs...its interesting to look at.
But whatever, we're being offtopic...
You can't take the sky from me...
killed, 2,000 of them children."
Why make the distinction that 2000 of the were children? Are they somehow more important than the 8000 adults? Why not just leave it at 10 thousand people? Or mention how many women and men were also killed? It's not like the children are any more important than anyone else.
This has gotten me so mad I need to go blow ppl up, Quake time!
Kintanon
Check out JoshJitsu.info for Brazilian Ji
I perfectly agree about the double standards -- I don't know that it's particularly healthy for us all to become 'used' to seeing 20-30 murders/day (depending on your viewing habits).
... Can you honestly say no?
To the person who said Video games don't cause violence, people do. Anthrax doesn't kill people -- people do. But if I just want to keep some anthrax on my kitchen shelf, or as a mantle place keepsake (perhaps in 2-3" thick hardened and rubberized polymers), like -- gee, why not? I know -- let's all go out and buy a nuke. No home should be without one...no? Nukes don't kill people -- people kill people.
I'm sorry for my sarcasm, but why do you think the army is using violence-based video games for training? Because their soldiers need some R&R? -- No -- because it is effective. Studies done ages ago, on children under 10 showed that children were more likely to act violently in a controlled tense situation after they watched cartoons with multiple violent solutions vs. watching more along the lines of Fantasia (I dunno, those broom sticks got awfully out of control in the wizard snip). Children learn by imitating. There is no magic age -- say puberty, or hitting 13 or 18 or 25 at which you are suddenly immune to brain washing and/or new learning.
Each individual is unique -- full-grown adults join cults -- with such faithfulness they will commit suicide for the cult, it is *hard* to make blanket judgments. But I know of someone who played a DnD game I wrote back in the 80's -- it was in ASCII graphics, said he felt it was similar to walking around the cube-mazes and after spending entire nights w/o sleeping playing this game, he commented that sometimes he felt like he was still in the game at work. Would he have committed violence -- I doubt it. Were their any violent depictions in a text-based ASCII game...? *Nep*.
Do most people suffer significant harm from violent video games? Probably not. Do some unstable types?
Think of the regular torture that passes for play among juvenile boys in school -- "rights of passage", does giving them training in worse horrors seem right? Girls can be equally evil but more often inflicting motional/psychological harm rather than physical.
Lest you think I'm conservative -- I'm not. I loved Matrix, for example -- or most sci-fi violence which is pretty removed from reality -- but training individuals in the 'first person' -- having them doing the killing and carnage...I'm a bit more uncomfortable.
If it were up to me, I probably would *not* ban such games, but I would *attempt* to control distribution to people who might be able to control themselves. Age is a poor determiner of maturity and mental-stability -- can you think of a better system -- I'd like to see one in many areas, since people mature in different ways in such vastly different ways.
Like the idea that you can be drafted and trained at age 18 to kill, but can't buy a drink seems ludicrous. To allow alcohol and tobacco with known attributable deaths ranging close to 500,000 per year in the US, while banning drugs like marijuana that has no such record is another sign of a brain-damaged government control structure. MJ may or may not have health risks, but compared to the documented problems with *legal* drugs like alcohol and tobacco -- there is nothing to indicate they cause even a fraction (as expressed as a percentage of those who might be using) of the harm -- ok, off topic rant.
If "we" were in charge, how could we devise a system that would be better? Note that we do not live in a perfect world where each child is loved and cherished and given attention during formative years. Heck -- even during pregnancy, a mother's consumption of choline will permanently affect a child's mental abilities for *life*. (Science News, Vol 160, p282, Nov 3, 2001). Note that taking choline in your diet now in the range of 500-1000 mg/day is very beneficial for brain function (note that higher levels can cause nasty side effects).
So we have all this data -- about affects of drugs and media and environment -- environment effects are *profound*. There was the case of the LA woman, kept locked up and never talked to for most of her childhood. Experts say she will *never* be able to learn language at the level of a normal English speaker.
I could go on and on with examples, but I've probably already lost many readers at this point.
The point is that environmental factors and training (like first person action-violence games) do affect development, mood and personality. It affects each individual uniquely and there is no great formula for determining in advance who should be trained as a "killer" (in a mostly peace time society) and who should not.
Remember the Voyager Episode where they visited the planet where violent thoughts were 'illegal', even trafficked in like illegal drugs? It was a commentary on an extreme form of social control -- but if it worked for them, and the people were happy, who are we to judge their paradise.
Pretend that crime is not a *given* in any society. Pretend for a moment that it is a controllable variable controllable by deliberate planning for children's education from near birth.
It's like we assume that 2-3 years to be potty trained are 'normal' -- but in most other countries its 1 year. Always check your biases and societally taught "common knowledge". It is suspect and it is flawed.
-l
Yes, children are important, because children in a case like that are guaranteed non-combattants. They're a little more innocent. They should never be shot at. Nor should anyone else. I take it you don't have kids yet. You'll understand a little better when all of your effort is spent on them.
But I do understand your point about human is human... if only others felt the same way.
I do not think CNN as a Commercial station cares that much about TRUTH, I think they care more about how much viewers the get. Watching CNN and some local (The Netherlands) news sources, always shows me how blatantly ignorant CNN shows only the American point of view. Let alone the incredible UNtruth they promote.
Make a man a fire and he will be warm for a day, set a man on fire and he will be warm for the rest of his life
How about restricting the sale of this evil book to minors? I have a really hard time keeping this garbage out of my children's hands. This very definitely one of the most damaging books in existence today.
"A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.
It's from memory so bear with me if I'm not 100% accurate. Seems to me the second amendment states you have a right to join the national guard. One weekend a month, two weeks a year. "
There seems to be a problem, IMO, with this interpretation. Namely, there exists no requirement, explicit or otherwise, that the right of gun ownership be tied to participation in a militia. The quoted amendment's wording about a milita is separated from the remainder of the text without a conjunction, thus rendering it void of meaning with respect to the rest of the amendment. In short, "A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state," could just as easily read "My name being Brian," without altering the effect of the Second Amendment.
Did you sit in a ditch in Afghnistan?
Do you know what is really going on?
Because I am five feet away from one who did, and who does know. Really... did you even read what I wrote before you labeled me "American Swine?"
Next time you want to talk about journalists not wanting to tell the truth, then you go F'n talk to the ones that slept in a ditch in a war zone. Cause I have a feeling that they care more about honesty in their jobs than you do about computing or whatever you do. Its so damn simple to just say "Stupid Americans," that it doesn't even register with us anymore.
Personally, as I said before and I WILL SAY AGAIN, it is an insult to those that go through hell to bring back footage and be branded as a propaganda machine.
If you want the European Version of this, petition Reuters to be like CNN. Better yet, start up "NNN" or Dutch NEWS NETWORK or something like that.
A Reply:
A: I did never call you a 'American Swine.
B: I have personally been to Bosnia, as a Service engineer for the dutch military intelligence.
C: The issue here is not what I think about Americans in general, I do have a lot of american friends, specifically in the armed forces.
Please read my replies as careful as you want yours to be read.
Make a man a fire and he will be warm for a day, set a man on fire and he will be warm for the rest of his life
And now you go on and make the assumption that I will someday have children, that the automatic desirable condition is one in which I possess children. I am afraid you are incorrect. I do not desire any children and my wife and I have taken the necessary medical steps to insure that we don't have any.
Children are not necessarily noncombatants, the vietnamese used children to deliver bombs to enemy troops primarily because the children were 'harmless'.
Personally I don't think ANYONE should ever be shot at under ideal circumstances. But the relative value of a child versus an adult isn't part of my evaluation and shouldn't be part of anyones. Humanity is humanity.
Oh, and you are hopelessly naive if you think children are innocent. All children are inherently evil (where evil is defined by being completely self centered, selfish, and self absorbed). IF you leave 5 2 year olds in a room together they will all be fighting inside 10 minutes. The ability to function in society as a polite and courteous human being is a learned one, and a lot of parents aren't teaching their kids anything.
Most of the young children I see today not only have fouler mouths than I do, but will actively torture each other to extremes I never saw until high school. I've seen kindergarteners kicking the CRAP out of a kid because he had on the wrong colored shirt. And yet everyone always claims that their child is innocent and precious, well you're all wrong. You're kid is just as much of an asshole as the rest of them until you train them out of it. Not the school, not their friends, not the church, not TV, not video games, not music, it's up to you to make sure the little hellbeast turns into some kind of presentable human approximate that has respect for the people around him.
(note: The above rant was not directed specifically at you El Camino, but directed at the general population of pro-natalist bastards that believe being a child automatically makes you better than everyone else and capable of doing no wrong)
Kintanon
Check out JoshJitsu.info for Brazilian Ji
If/when this winds through the courts, and if/when it gets similarly slapped down Indy-style, it will allow the local yokel politicians/officials to bemoan that "them Godless liberals won't let us protect our children".
No matter the cost, they're prepare to declare victory or victimhood.
Mod Karma -1: I sed bad wurds. If I cep my mouf shut, I wud be at riyses.
"Seems that politicians still don't have a clue, despite indications that video games don't cause violence."
Right. We're going to base our society on indications. We're going to invest a lot of money in producing high quality, highly attractive and very violent games which we know will sell like hotcakes - and then we're going to have research projects and university studies that try to prove there is no correlation between Little Billy cutting someone's head off onscreen and in real life.
Ask yourself this - are there any indications that "games" that actually provoke thought and have no vestige of violence cause it?
Get a clue yourself.
Rickster/
radsoft.net