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.
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
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.