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.
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
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 .
This is all typical. Sure, video games may be a factor, but how about legislating against the big, obvious factors first (like say: guns?).
If video games were the problem, Japan would be in trouble.
(for the uninformed: Japans violent crime rates are far below the US)
Here's the question...
did you father or whatever adult that taught you weaponry teach you the basics? Like dont point a gun at something unless you want it dead? Always use the safety, NEVER keep ammo in a stored weapon, NEVER EVER keep one chambered unless you are hunting or shooting?
The basics that are the mantra of the NRA are the most important part of good gun use. My 10 year old daughter has gone shooting (cute little 22 rifles) she loves it, and I am teaching her basic gun safety, Athough I go overboard a bit.. she knows that even pointing an empty gun at anything is dangerous and has a good chance of killing. you never put your gun away without a complete cleaning and inspection, the guns go in their cas and in the safe.
yes, as far as the Liberal Left is concerned I'm raising a gun-toting freak. but in reality I am rasing a child that for the rest of her life knows that guns are NOT toys, they can be very dangerous if you dont use them right.
I firmly believe that EVERY child when they get into 4th grade should be taught basic gun safety and should be taught to respect guns. Maybe we would have less morons running around trying to cap every fool they think diss them.
Do not look at laser with remaining good eye.
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.
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 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.
Where I live, and most other European countries, there isnt this problem with gun related violence. Criminals have guns, but look at the difference in crime rates (especially murder rate) between the US and European countries. Violence clearly does not solve violence. I simply cant go down to Wallmart and buy a gun and what's more; I dont have a need to. The problem in the US is that it is far too late to deal with easily; guns are accepted by society. I live in a society where you cant buy anything other than simple guns (eg. Shotguns, 22 rifles - mainly for farmers and country people), there are also *very* stringent laws regarding the ownership of guns - Guns should NOT be part of society by a 'long shot' (so to speak=) I feel sorry for the responsible citizens that live in the US that feel the need to buy a gun for protection. I am not critisizing you, but societies can do without guns. I am not saying that guns should be banned outright, it will require a long well thought out process to phase them out of US culture. I am just glad that I dont live in a place where I need to buy a gun to feel safe. However, I can empathize with you, if I were in your shoes I would probably own a gun. So not a personal attack on gun ownership, more of a reflection on the problems it gives a society. It is too easy to use hindsight and say it should have been nipped in the bud decades ago, the reality is that they are part of US culture and will be for a long time yet. The solution is not to simply ban guns completely, that would be ludicrous. They need to be phased out over a l_o_n_g period of time, gradually pushing them out of widespread acceptance. I feel that this wont be easily done due to all the pro gun lobbies, there is a hell of a lot of money in guns, its like the Oil business. Money talks. I cannot forsee weapons manufacturers (or a Republican government) allowing guns to be phased out of society without a hell of a fight. That greatly saddens me, that profit comes before people: Weapons manufacturers (and those other people who make big money from guns) will actively seek to make guns acceptable, when quite clearly, judging by every other civilised society, they are not. Gun ownership should be obsolete in a modern society (times have changed since the wild west=), but like I said before, profits come before people.
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)