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.
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?
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
If I'm reading it right, it doesn't say anything about giving violent games away (including demos.)
What it says is "A person commits an offense if the person sells, rents, or otherwise provides for use for a charge any video game to a minor which contains scenes or depictions of graphic violence as determined by the Entertainment Software Rating Board."
If you're giving it away, you only need to tell people about the violence.
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?
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.
"Gee officer, the law doesn't say I did anything wrong. Sure, my big brother got me the pot, and then my daddy gave me the $50 hooker for my birthday, but _I_ didn't go buy it. I mean, the nice homeless guy bought me those cigarettes too! Really, what's the problem?? I was able to see all of this between the fuzzy lines on the scrambled-porn channel on cable!"
C'mon... I don't agree with this sort of legislation either, but the argument "We shouldn't legislate this because kids are going to do it anyway" wears a bit thin. If public outcry is going to stop crap like this, it sure as heck won't be through this sort of tactic.
Notice: Your mouse has been moved. Windows will now restart so this change can take effect.
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.
They are NOT ignorant... They KNOW that doing that way, they'll have many votes from ignorants ELECTORS
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 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.
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.
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.
and before all this regulation when 10 year olds went hunting with their fathers, how many school shootings were there?
parental responsibility, not legal mandates will stop school killings. Parents taking the time away from their precious TV to teach by example (not just tell) their childern what is right and wrong.
quit blaming objects, there was death and destruction before video games and before guns
Thanks to file sharing, I purchase more CDs
Thanks to the RIAA, I buy them used...
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
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.
Anti-gun freaks unite! It's for the chiiiillldreeen, after all! If we prevent just one death then the law will have been worth it.
Okay, so last year, according to the FBI:
- more than 90% of all murders in the U.S. were committed with 'weapons of opportunity', including blunt objects and knives, even when a gun was available. So hey! Save the children! Outlaw knives and baseball bats! If we just save one life....
- this means that of the approximately 30,000 people who were murdered last year, about 3,000 were killed with guns. In contrast, 5,000 died in falls (mostly stairs, followed by ladders) and 12,000 drownded (mainly in pools or local rivers or lakes). So while you're rabidly making the world safer for children don't forget to ban: all stairs, ladders, stools, pools, rivers, lakes, and all eight oceans. After all, If we just save one life....
- ooooh, and let's not forget that a little less than 50,000 people were killed in car accidents. Ban cars!
- and finally, at least another 50,000 died due to alcohol or alcohol-related diseases. So let's ban alcohol too, it's for the chiiiillldren! Wait, where have I heard that before....
Max
My god carries a hammer. Your god died nailed to a tree. Any questions?
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.
Amazing how you fail to make a logical connection here. By your own faulty rationale, we should then ban stairs, ladders, swimming pools, alcohol, and cars.
Nope. I actually, am against gun control, for some of the same reasons that have been cited by others.
Good going, Jack - you win the door prize for "stupid premise - stupid conclusion".
Quite witty of you, but you've apparently misread everything I wrote. The argument was, "anti-gun legislation has no effect on gun deaths". That is, quite simply, incorrect. It does, and has had, an effect. Now you might argue that it has LITTLE effect, or ALMOST no effect, but that's quite a different logical construction than NO effect.
However, I don't simplify the other side's position so I can put up an easily-knocked-down strawman. Restricting firearms WOULD cut down on gun deaths. The question becomes, is it worth the lessening of freedom required? Some people say yes, some people say no, but both sides come up with poor arguments while doing so. The difference between me and those attacking me on this thread are I prefer to speak with PRECISION.