Slashdot Mirror
New Bill Would Restrict Sale of Video Games to Minors
RobinH writes: "According to this article at MSN, "A bill introduced in Congress last week would make it a federal crime to sell or rent violent video games to minors," and it "would apply to games that feature decapitation, amputation, killing of humans with lethal weapons or through hand-to-hand combat, rape, car-jackings, aggravated assault and other violent felonies." We know that sometimes kids who are never exposed to alcohol until they are 19 or 21 can go way overboard the first time... is there a possibility of the same thing happening with violent video games?" Here's CNN's story as well.
That rules out just about all video games, doesn't it?
This is a special excite
This
Opie & Anthony, along with little Jimmy Norton, dictate my values system.
They'll pry my copy of Virtual Valerie from my cold, dead fingers, which are incidentally attached to my virgin ears and virgin eyes.
There are a huge number of yeast infections in this county. Probably because we're downriver from the bread factory.
So does a video game which allows you to dope-slap your congressman count as violent or as political activism?
Doug
Venn ist das nurnstuck git und Slotermeyer? Ya! Beigerhund das oder die Flipperwaldt gersput!
killing of humans with lethal weapons
Good, so that Quake-engined game where I bludgeon people to death with safety goggles and old Smith Corona typewriters can still sell over the counter to the local toddlers, then.
Super.
--saint
Didn't we cover this yesterday? And several times in the past?
Michael Loves Me!
I've found myself going overboard on things that are new to me all the time. It might be a new game that I spend 12 hours playing the first day or spending all day driving around a new car.
The problem is when people go overboard on things where someone gets hurt. I don't agree with anyone that says a violent video game leads to real life violent action.
i play grand theft auto 3 quite often and i don't go around car-jacking and murdering old women with louisville sluggers. i've played violent videogames since i was 10. i am 15 now. i've never commited a crime or some sort of outrageous violent act. some of these congressmen need to focus on more important issues than this, like how we are losing our rights and are fighting a pointless war.
while you make pretty speeches...i'm being cut to shreds. you throw me to the lions...a delicate balance.
any different from movies? would the law be the same for both??
R.I.P.
... since it's blatantly unconstitutional, and this will finally get it to the Supreme Court, where Congress can get bitch slapped yet again with the 1st Amendment.
There's a related story here which mentions a Salon article about a Missouri judge who overruled a request for dismissal of an ordinance that would require kids under 17 to have parental consent before buying violent or sexually explicit video games.
As with the sun's light
My mom was magnificent
Unquestionable
I'm not too worried about something this moronic actually going through.
Of course, given the lawmakers current track record, I probably should be...
It is funny how much of an impact a simple 2d game named Grand Theft Auto can have on the world.
Derek
Yeah bold move, it worked really well for tobacco.... NOT! I have yet to be carded for tobacco purchases, and yes I am over the age. Its amazing the complete bad choice of priorities.
I'm sure this won't make a noticeable dent in the games purchased by minors, unless you believe that underage drinking doesn't happen. Reality aside, this is a stupid law. The first time someone discovers a great game, they play it night and day, non-stop. If they are in school (or even better, on summer vacation) this doesn't really matter a whole lot, but if they're 21 and out in the work force, they could be fired for coming in late and being a total zombie.
Bite the hand.
The MPAA and the networks have a lot deeper pockets I guess. After all, tell me why it's not a crime to see someone decapitated, killed, etc. on TV and in the movies? To single out just video games seems a little short-sighted. Something tells me it's not for the benefits of our children. Oh, and define enforcement for online purchases... Are you 18? Yes. Bingo!
You can start posting your rants about how this spells the end of free speach and now adults won't be able to buy ChessMaster 5000 at the local Wal-Mart.
Michael Loves Me!
Thats right, good.
Newer games are becoming more graphic then ever, and there is too much. Anybody who has raised a child knows this. The question is "whats too much for a particular child?" well, the government can't tell on a child to child basis, but parents can. As long as parent get the option to allow there children to play those games, its a non-problem.
The Kruger Dunning explains most post on
Wired [goatse.cx]
The states released a June 2000 Microsoft e-mail that showed a plan for Microsoft's media player to play music files in proprietary formats by rivals RealNetworks and Apple.
"Remember the 'embrace and extend' campaigns we've used in the past," Microsoft employee Frasier Mocke wrote to colleagues, "and personally I want us to rule the airwaves."
Another Microsoft executive, Dave Foster, cut the discussion short: "No more replies," he wrote. "We need to keep all of this off the airwaves."
EMBRACE AND EXTEND!!!
EMBRACE AND EXTEND!!!
EMBRACE AND EXTEND!!!
EMBRACE AND EXTEND!!!
Resistance is Futile!
security through obscurity = modding down anti-linux posts so maybe noone will see them
security through obscurity = modding down anti-linux posts so maybe noone will see them
"New Bill Would Restrict Sale of Video Games to
Minors"
I think adults should be allowed to buy video games if they want to.
some stores (like Kmart, WalMart, and I think Blockbuster) already such policies. It's similar to movies that are rated PG-13 (must be age 13 or with parent), R (age 17 or 13+ with parent), and NC-17 (no one under 17).
Also, responislbe parents are out there. I used to work for Kmart in high school, and have had parents returning the Mortal Kombat III they purchased for their 7 year olds. Likewise people would ask if game blah was too violent for their kid. I'd just point them to the display about the ESRB ratings.
The One Rule Of Chess You'll Ever Need: Don't play someone who carries a kit in their bookbag.
I just saw an ad for Microsoft Visual Studio .Net on Slashdot (up in the banner). Very interesting...
Remember, You are unique...just like everyone else.
First, we have to recognize exactly what this bill would do. It would quite simply regulate the ability of youngsters to obtain video games that contain the kind of thing we already don't let them observe in movies or talk about in public. That is, it doesn't take away any rights.
Further, contrary to popular belief, the First Amendment does not give carte blanche permission for all speech. For example, Article 3 clearly gives Congress the power to limit speech "as is Deemed Apt for the Preservation of a Free and Fair Societie." This has been interpreted by the Wallace court as permitting such devious acts as shouting "Fire" in a crowded theater illegal, and under the Grommet Doctrine has allowed threats against the President's life and other disruptive speech to be further limited. Those who use the First Amendment out of context to support hurtful speech are just that: hurtful, to America.
Lastly, recall that the Constitution does not grant the right of "Personhood" to minors (those under 18). Technically, they fall under the same category ("non-free Chattel") as slaves once did.
In conclusion, let's please think about this objectively; this legislation would not give up any of our current rights, and in protecting our children from corruption would actually serve to protect our rights for generations to come.
Karma: Good (despite my invention of the Karma: sig)
I promise you, during my high school years I played at least TEN TIMES as much DOOM as the Columbine shooters. I lived and breathed DOOM. It was my way to vent aggression.
Most people who know me find me peaceful to a fault. Gandhi is one of my heroes. I've never been in a fight. I've never punched anyone. I don't own a weapon (well, I have a pocket-knife...).
The Columbine shooting was a combination of nutty kids and adults who left guns within their fucking reach. It had nothing to do with videogames. But of course, videogames are easier for a Congresscritter to attack. It makes them look good at re-election time, and the gun lobby is much stronger and stupider (for the LAST TIME idiots, we don't want to take away your guns, we just want to keep them out of the hands of kids!).
Besides, no one ever got re-elected telling Americans they're bad parents.
-Kasreyn
Kasreyn: Cheerfully playing the part of Devil's Advocate to hairtrigger
This will just cause an underground ring to develop for video games. You could even start having games, or mods for games, being developped by people that are only released in an underground.
In the PC world, Warez would become a larger, more dominante form of pirating software. People might start developping kits to copy console games, just like credit card readers are being sold in the 2600 magazine.
If this bill passes, it might create an even bigger problem.
"Imagination is the only weapon in the war against reality." -Jules de Gautier
If you're under 18, you can't collect classic arcade hardware. (And if you're a seller, even for a hobby, imagine the annoyance of asking ID to sell stuff on eBay.) Geeeez.
The Midtown Madness series allowed ppl to (attempt) to run over pedestrians. They don't do anything if you run into them, but is this too much?
z3r0_d
Clerk: "I'm gonna have to see some ID"
Teenager: "It's in the car"
Clerk: "Sorry, no ID, no game"
Teenager: "Then can I get a pack of Marlboros, a sixer of Natural Light, a Hustler, and a handgun"
Clerk: "Will that be paper or plastic?"
But seriously, I hardly see this as much more than more Useless Congressional Crap(TM). Police forces aren't going to want to waste their time busting the Blockbuster guy for letting Jimmy rent Resident Evil. I won't go on about this legislation being introduced by a Democrat, but expansion of government isn't the answer for much of anything, let alone depictions of violence. Are there going to be Contributing To The Delinquency Of A Minor charges put on those who rent/buy these games for a kid?
The worst part about all this legislation is that the people that write it think it's going to be effective, then they go back to sleep and think they've done something about violence in schools.
How many kids 16 and under actually buy the video games they play themselves? I bet they don't buy more than 1 in 4, and so this legislation would just force kids to pirate that one title they would buy.
Why don't we try to control the source of the real violence, real guns, instead of going after these false demons like video games that don't have a powerful lobby to protect them.
It is my job to be the parent of my kids, not the Government's. I want to be the one to choose what my kids can and cannot play.
I know damned good and well that I won't be able to prevent my kids from drinking or smoking or watching Beavis and Butthead. But I do know that while they're in my supervision, they'll behave. The way I see it, if they go out and experiment a little, that's fine. It's called curiosity. If my kid is 10 years old and watches a porno with his friend that stole it from his dad, oh well. That stuff happens all the time. Yet kids somehow still manage to be normal.
If I decide a game is too violent for my kids, then I'll make sure that they're not allowed to in my house. If they still manage to play it at a friend's house anyway, I may frown on that, but at least I know that because of me their exposure is still limited. The benefitting factor is that some of their need to see this game is satisfied, and it's not a big issue.
But what if the Gov't bans the sale of games to minors? That decision places a lot of weight on me that I don't need. On top of that, I don't approve of that decision! What if I write a note saying "Please let my child by this game anyway?" Will the retailer accept it? I doubt it. The law sounds like it's going to be too absolute to allow for things like their parents okaying it.
Let me parent my kids, don't make the decisions for me. If you feel the decision must be made for me, you better convince me that there's a problem that you're really fixing. There is 0 proof that video games have a negative impact on the health or behaviour of a child. Only speculation.
"Derp de derp."
I think this law is just plain dumb. I mean, I guess I can understand people not wanting their children to be exposed to 'Rated R' type games, however, parents should take an active role in their child's life and interests. Trying to legislate morality into the public realm is not the way to solve this, as you tend to blanket-censor too much, and you leave it up to some government committee to decide what your child should or should not view. Take the time to review things for yourself, so that YOU are the one deciding what is right for your children.
When a government forbids minors from drinking or smoking or playing video games, it just makes it that much more cool to do it at a young age. Countries with less strict regulations on alcohol/smoking (most of europe) tend to have a lot less problems with the whole taboo/cool issue associations. When will our government learn that this is not the way?
I drink to prepare for a fight; tonight I'm very prepared. -Soda Popinksi
I didn't write this, but...
Video games affecting people? Come on. When my generation was growing up, Pac Man was the big thing. If video games affected us, by today we'd all be hanging out in dark rooms, munching pills, and listening to repetitive electronic music.
--
Mod up a post Rob doesn't like and you'll never mod again
And some kids get so into drink by the time they're 15 that if they don't get into re-hab they end up dead. Try to at least come close to a rational argument.
TWW
"Encyclopedia" is to "Wikipedia" what "Library" is to "Some people at a bus stop"
"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."
Kristian Wilson, Nintendo, Inc, 1989
Car-jackings, aggravated assault, rape, and killing with a lethal weapon is portrayed all the time on TV and PG-rated movies. The decapacitation and amputation clause may make sense, but the rest of it establishes a double standard compared to other visual media.
The problem is the people who don't know right from wrong and don't know the difference between the REAL world (and not the one trademarked by MTV) and computer games, rap lyrics, tv or (insert scapegoat here)
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
Oh bother.
They already have ratings on games. Why doesn't the game industry just follow through with what they currently have in place and follow similar rules that movie theaters do? If the game is rated M then you must be 17 or with a parent to purchase it. I don't really see why we need to make selling games some sort of federal crime. Will they now start doing undercover sting operations at your local EB?
That would mean banning kids from video arcades until they are 18. How you gonna do that? There are places that still have some of the great old games from the 80's, and there are a ton of "violent" video games in the arcades now. Are the owners expected to ID people? Are they expected to have an "adult" section?
I think America is totally backwards that we outlaw sex and promote violence in our entertainment.
I'd much rather have my kid watch a softcore porno (that doesn't objectify the opposite sex, at least) than an action movie that glorifies killing people. And for some reason, we can see violence every day on Saturday morning cartoons, but not a single image of nudity. If you ask me (I know, you didn't ask) that's f--ked up.
decapitation, amputation, killing of humans with lethal weapons or through hand-to-hand combat, rape, car-jackings, aggravated assault and other violent felonies
Admit it, you just lifted this from an ad for Grand Theft Auto 3.
-no broken link
I don't find this to be any more of a big deal than laws against minors having access to alcohol/cigarettes/violent movies/porno/lottery tickets. If you're OK with your kid playing violent games, you can go into the store and buy it for them.
Of course, it's doubtful that any law would make it much less likely for kids underage to get their hands on these games - after all, look how easy it is for kids to get their hands on alcohol/cigarettes/violent movies/porno/lottery tickets.
Look, all I'm saying here is that laws restricting the rights of minors are just fine, and makes the stuff more legitimate in the hands of adults. If minors can't buy violent video games, there won't be this huge lobby of people trying to get rid of them.
"If at first you don't succeed, lower your standards."
Is it just more or does this seem targeted at GTA 3?
- decapitation and dismemberment,
- murder,
- car jackings,
- illegal drug use,
- rape,
- prostitution,
- assault and other violent crimes.
There's no reason kids *shouldn't* get parental permission before buying video games involving the above material.Parents should be aware of what their kids are doing.
Your article leaves out one important piece of info, the rental cannot occur without parental consent. In my opinion, this changes things considerably. Something people don't seem to recognize is that video games have become a lot more "real" in just the last five years. Real to the point that a person can get their health back by having sex with a prostitute. Beyond the fact that I think this is one of the most innovative ways to get life back, I wouldn't want my friend's three year old to see that. If it is good enough for movies, it is good enough for modern games...
Bryan R.
The price of freedom is eternal vigilance, or $12.50 as seen on eBay.....
It looks to me like the proposed legislation would not make it illegal for the minor to OWN said program merely prevent them from PURCHASING it without their parents permission. I kinda want parents to be involved in what their kids are doing instead of out partying while junior is planning the biggest thing since Columbine. Children are just that, CHILDREN. Just because Johnny knows how to shoot his daddy's gun does not mean he is responsible or mature enough to use it without supervision. Having said that, I have to admit I really enjoy a good game of GTA3. There's nothing like whacking pixel generated people to relieve stress.
"A person is smart. People are dumb, panicky dangerous animals and you know it." - K
> We know that sometimes kids [...] can go way
> overboard the first time... is there a possibility
> of the same thing happening with violent video
> games?
Not really. All you have to do is look at the past 20 years to see this.
When the NES (just as an easy example) released, did anyone who was age 18 suddenly self destruct, rotting themselves in front of the tv for days on end? When Doom came out, did 18 year olds suddenly stop dropping out of school because they spent their every waking moment shooting demons?
These groups of people likely never had access to games before, much less violent games. Suddenly having them available had little to no impact on their ability to function in society.
Self-destructing on games, alcohol, or drugs has little to do with the point at which they become available. Seems to me a lack of proper upbringing or being just plain stupid has a greater effect than anything else.
The FIRST time? I didn't go to college, but I live in Milwaukee, and I can tell you the people I see going overboard are obviously NOT first timers..
I have a hard time with this one.. Sure, when I was 15, my best friend (Hey Omni!) and I beat Leisure Suit Larry 1 in a single night (causing jaws to drop at Egghead when we returned the game). But that was on an Apple II - not exactly the best graphics in the world.
These days it's MUCH more realistic... I'm really on the fence.
We have a ban on kids watching sex, why not kids watching killing?
Is it really that you're losing somethnig you've always had (virtual killing -Ultima/Spy Hunter), or has something new come along that we maybe should restrict -REALISTIC virtual killing? What happens when VR is closer to the "Holodeck", and blood splatters you as you push your fingers through someone's eye sockets?
"I can't give you a brain, so I'll give you a diploma" - The Great Oz (blatently stolen sig)
"And after children are prohibited from buying games featuring all these vile actions, the next logical step is to prevent networks from airing the News until at least 9PM. It's for the children's own protection, they might not be able to handle the violence of the real world, so Government should protect them as much as possible."
What a crock of sh*t.
There is one entity and one entity only that should govern the lives of children in matters like these: PARENTS. It's entirely up to the parents to monitor what their kids are watching on TV or at the theater, or what games they are playing on any given console, or what games or websites they are seeing with their PC. And the "Parents are too busy" excuse doesn't hold water - it's all a matter of priority.
If, as a parent, you don't mind your kid playing GTA3 (or any other violent game), then that's your business, not mine, not the governments. And the flipside is true, if you don't want your kids playing a violent game, then don't let them. Pay attention to your kids lives, don't expect TV or any other activity to babysit or otherwise replace YOUR job.. which is to raise your kids to be responsible members of society.
Yes, it's a big job, but maybe you should have thought about that before you went and had kids.
Remember, if more Government is the answer, then it's time to re-evaluate the question.
Do you believe in death after life?
Do it for the children. They like it, I swear.
I understand about the alcohol thing, but the analogy is flawed, because being drunk, in and of itself, doesn't put images of violence into a child's brain. During the glory days of Half-Life, there were seriously times when I'd go to school feeling naked without my MP-40, and my first reaction going around corners was to bounce a grenade around the wall to kill whatever might be there... Of course I understood the difference between fantasy and reality, but the ideas were there... Some children might have a problem with that.
There's also the issue of desensitization. I'm very much a pacifist, and the idea of real-life violence genuinely disgusts me, but I don't even notice the blood and gore in video games anymore, because I'm too busy either running for my life or chasing down more punk bitches to kill. I once had a girlfriend who was upset because I watched the scene in Dancer in the Dark where she bludgeons him to death with a bank box, without even flinching. I don't know what kind of effect that has on me, but it has had an effect, and I don't think anyone really knows what kind of effect that sort of desensitization has. It's possible it may very from person to person.
Of course, there's the obligatory argument about how children should be raised by their parents rather than legislators and censors...
This would only restrict the sale of games to minors, not whether or not they're exposed to them. I don't think this is would make a big change in anything. Timmy the 12 y/o wants to buy SoF. He shouldn't be capable of getting into his car, driving to the store, and buying it. He has to have a parent get it for him. Hopefully the parent isn't a minor, but that's a separate matter. The only people this would affect are minors who don't want their parents to know they got the game. Instead they'll just get a copy or borrow it from a friend whose parent did get it.
Are you pondering what I'm pondering?
So does this mean everyone should see that goat picture at a young age so they won't have a problem with it later? ;)
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
Oh bother.
- Children cannot be sold violent video games
- But they can be sold paintball equipment
- And there are boy scout camps that teach them to shoot guns.
Hm.
The problem is that is being passed as a law. The industry already has a self-imposed ratings system, just like movies.
Where's the reasoning behind making a law to restrict games when there is no such law covering... oh... say the soft-core porn passed off as teenage comedy these days?
Fooz Meister
big deal.
Parents STILL have the right to by the game for the kid if they feel it is ok to let the kid play it.
so my 13 year old cannot go and get a copy of GTA3. I have no problem with him asking me first.
this is actualy good for parents, as it will require all kids who want the game to talk to their parents about it, unless you have a buddie who has a brother old enough to buy it for you etc.....
I am the Alpha and the Omega-3
....at the same time...
.. Why in the fxck does the govt have to step in and target video games...
.. Could is possibly be because the video game industry isnt a 50 billion dollar lobby-happy entity like the RIAA or the MPAA ... but then again, i am preaching to the choir here at slashdot..
First off, the devils advocate bit : We have something similiar to this for movies, why not video games...
Now critic bit : Why do you want to criminalize something as insanely simple as video game sales. If anything, mandate a rating system ( what the hell is wrong with the current rating system manufacturers voluntarily impose now anyway? )
And on another note, have you noticed how there isnt hardly any real tough legislation against selling profane cd's, or allowing access to R rated movies, to minors ?
<tangent>
we need to rally up normal folks (tm) who dont keep up with issues like these....
somebody needs to organize a good portal to all sorts of different campaigns, causes, letter writing campaigns, etc related to issues we care about. And maybe even have resources like fliers and PDF's of brochures to hand to the normal folk.. sorry folks, but just firing off a letter to Senator CouldGiveAShitLessABoutYou from wont do it. We need to get _EVERYBODY_ involved
</tangent>
I lost my concept of community when my community lost all concept of me.
If this law is past, I think we can watch the video game business collapse. Every study I've seen, and personal experience confirms, that the majority of gamers get into gaming in early adolescence and continue playing into their adulthood. The vast majority of games out there feature violence as the whole point of the game, as anyone who has tried out Quake, Unreal Tournament, Rune, etc. would know.
To counter the argument that game makers just need to make different sorts of games for minors, we just need to realize that the target audience is boys between the ages of 13 and 20, who as a general rule want more sex and violence.
Finally, violence really isn't a good gauge on the harmfulness of a game. EverQuest is far worse than Quake, having some of the same effects as drugs.
I am officially gone from
Okay, so the kid's not been able to play violent video games. Instead, he's been restricted to watching the mutilation, decapitation, rape, violence and miscellaneous other assorted felonies that are the mainstay of TV and movies. Hmm, this bill is going to make a lot of difference, I can tell.
And how exactly do you "go overboard the first time" playing a violent video game? You'll suddenly decide killing is cool and go out and knife a load of people on the street?
Lessee here.
"games that feature decapitation, amputation, killing of humans with lethal weapons or through hand-to-hand combat, rape, car-jackings, aggravated assault and other violent felonies"
Ban those. After all, those aren't free speech, according to our judiciary.
Meantime, kids grow up with the Bible (Mk. I for the Jews, Mk. II for the Christians), and some with the Koran - all three of which feature plenty of all of the above, (OK, with the possible exception of carjackings, though I'm sure the Hebrews ripped off a couple of chariots while hauling ass out of Egypt) - all of a sudden, it's "Congress Shall Make No Law Abridging..." again.
And while we're at it - virtual kiddie pr0n is protected free speech, and so are junk faxes.
So while we wade through junk faxes every day, and our kids have to put up with a flood of spams for "hot lolita incest teen in barnyard", and we've got a whole segment of the population that's raising a generation of kids taught that the extermination of the Jews is religious duty because it's in their "holy" book (at least the Christians and Jews decided the calls for genocide in their holy books no longer applied), but it's a federal crime to sell Grand Theft Auto or Mortal Kombat to a kid because it might warp his innocent little mind?!?!?
What the almighty high holy fuck are our judges and legislators smoking, and would they at least be so kind to least legalize it?
"In conclusion, let's please think about this objectively; this legislation would not give up any of our current rights, and in protecting our children from corruption would actually serve to protect our rights for generations to come. "
The problem isn't about our rights, it's about conservative over-reaction. 'We think games bad' is turning into 'law says games be good'. There is simply no proof that this really needs to be done. This kind of behvaiour 50 years ago would have resulted in a similar law on Rock and Roll music. Do you really think Rock and Roll turned kids into hoodlums?
What happens when this law gets passed? What's the next one going to be? Cell phone ban without the need to prove that they're really harmful? Maybe they'll stop showing Law and Order because it gives children ideas about how to commit crimes.
Sorry, I don't want to live in a world where the people passing the laws think that children should be seen and not heard.
"Derp de derp."
Look, they are just proposing that videogames be subject to the same rules that violent/sexual movies are ALREADY subject to. There's nothing unreasonable about this. They're not banning them, they're not preventing kids from playing them. They're just saying that kids have to get their parents to consent and buy the games for them.
We know that sometimes kids who are never exposed to alcohol until they are 19 or 21 can go way overboard the first time... is there a possibility of the same thing happening with violent video games?
That's the dumbest fucking thing I've ever read on slashdot. Period. There's not even a crazy way to interpret that statement so it makes sense in bizarro world.
Not that I'm making fun of that or anything, after all, check my sig, but I guess I'm just tired of this civil rights circle jerk that I get myself involved in three or four times a day on slashdot.
In unrelated news, and the point of the post, here's my favorite quote from the CNN article:
Yeah 16 people shot dead, yeah that's Germany's worst mass murder since World War II, when 10 million people were killed by the Nazis. A distant second, I suppose.as for a de-stressor... Q3 or the others (UT with a chaos sniperrifle and 100 rounds comes to mind)
nothing beats a regular ole Q3 tournament with 12 bots all set for nightmare and you find a nice spot to camp and create a "guts fountain".. Ahhh!
after only 5 minutes playing like that you are completely de-stressed, (eye's twicthing and fingers shaking... but de-stressed about the people you have to deal with...:-)
Do not look at laser with remaining good eye.
I be given shoutz out to all da fallen homies. I be pourin out da fo'ties on da co'na lata.
When I was a teenager, I read a lot of books... Some of these books, such as many Stephen King books, feature a ton of gory details that are as bad as any videogame.
How can people justify making a federal case out of videogame rentals when the local library is peddling similar material to the same audience? Sure it isn't as graphic, but I know that some books were very effective at portraying the details...
Hey, whatever. Maybe this will get kids to read again, and this will really shorten the lines at the arcade for Tekken...
A store having a policy about video game sales to minors and federal law are very different in character. You don't go to prison when you break Kmart policies.
Yes, it is a big deal. A law that would restrict video game purchases to minors would likely destroy the industry. The video game market is largely supported by teenagers.
Sometimes, I wish all legislators would do is screw interns. We would be much safer as a country that way.
Strange women lying in ponds distributing swords is no basis for a system of government.
I'm looking forward to seeing the discussion on this one. I'm a 35-year old longtime geek. I like this idea. I think between cable, satellite, video games, and the rest of the mass media assault, children have no childhood anymore. I'm of the opinion that children are not little adults and that while, indeed, many 15 year olds are fully mature, rational, ethical beings, many are not.
That said, it has also been 20 years since I was 15, and I really don't know how I would have felt then.
I think soceity has not only a right, but also an obligation to provide a healthy environment for the development of children into well-adjusted adults. To do so, we are forced to make some somewhat arbitrary decisions. We have the drinking age, the driving age, the age of majority. Why not similar limits on "toxic" media.
Now here's the funny thing. I think violence should be limited, and certain exploitative kinds of pornography, but not all. I think children at the mature end should be allowed to see sexual meterial that depicts adult sexual relationships based on mutual love. I don't see how that would be unhealthy. A world with more passionate kisses and fewer gun battles would be a better world indeed.
I don't know what's worse.
That this may actually be necessary due to society's (and/or mass media's) ability to avert the blame from the parents to the providers of legitimate content.
Or that Congress is happy to legislate all the responsibilities of parenthood, thus buying the pass-the-buck tactic and negating any sense of accountability for bad parenting.
...must have played lots of "Mailbox Baseball III: Pipe Bomb"
its about time someone did something. not to sound "moral" but really, this is kinda important. the majority of us /.er's are in our 20-30's and were not exposed to this sort of thing. What we had were toned-down versions of reality on TV, video games, etc.. Only Movies were like this, and those were well restriced by age as well. Make the restrictions, and let the parents decide if they want their kids getting "DEAD KILLERZ II". Its their children. let them decide what is good or bad for them.
thelikesofwhich.com
Video Games - Movies - Music -
Books - Photographs - Magazines -
Sculptures - Lithographs - Pottery -
"Functional Art" - Performance Art....etc...etc...
and while we're at it, let's clone Hitler,
make him Chief Evil Overlord (CEO) / President,
then finally ban talking in public and private places.
What a country!
Are they going to ban all violent game downloads too? Or maybe they'll require websites to obtain age verification before allowing downloads. How about p2p? I guess they'll have to ban all those programs too. What about those who make their own video games? Should they be arrested? This is where it's leading to and it's getting very scary indeed.
... car-jackings ...
Does this mean that car-jacking is considered being of the category as rape & killing?
Also, does "killing of humans" mean that Prince of Persia is now "restricted"? What about Sierra's quests? What about Civilization (that's massive killing! sometimes genocide!)? What about Heroes of Might and Magic?
This will do nothing. I'd wager that a vast majority of 12 to 17 year old gamers either get their games from relatives as gifts, or just warez 'em anyways.
Why don't we just stick our young in big glass jars till they turn 18, anyways?
Then they'll be old enough to draft, anyways...
SlashSigTheorem: Humorous, Political, Critical, Constructive- If you have a
Some people just don't want to take responsibility for their own actions, it's the same people who want something for nothing, suing McDonalds because they poured hot coffee on themselves.
Parent's, and our Government for that matter, need to stop blaming everyone else for their problems and do their job (ie - making this country a better place for us, the people they're supposed to be representing).
Okay that made some sense, I think I'm done now.
--quote on from cnn article. ... Do you really want your kids assuming the role of a mass murderer or car jacker when you are away at work?"
"When kids play video games, they assume the identity of the characters in the games.
--quote off
Right, so has this guy played with GI-Joes, Cops and robbers, played cowboys and indians, drew pictures of tanks or planes, or basically ever done what was considered 'normal' play time by parents before video games were invented.
The only real difference between video games and real games is that video games are automated. Video games are like the ultimate babysitter, much better then the TV. I mean for the low low price of 50 dollars you can keep you children entertained for hundreds of hours ( sports, rpgs ). Even the crappiest of games can keep a child entertained for at least 5-10 hours, which is very economical. Cheaper then a REAL babysitter.
Laws like this always remind me the the episode of the simpsons where Marge drops maggie off at the day care center, is about to leave with another parent and says "we should leave them alone". So the other parent goes, turns on the TV, and they leave. (1st season, the Dr. Marvin Monroe Episode)
I've played violent video games since I purchased a NES back in the day when they were king of the consoles. Since then, many variations of Doom, Wolf3d, Tribes, Half-Life, Counter-Strike, Unreal Tourney, and a bit of WW2OL for my sim-side. Am I plottng the death of people en masse? No, not really. Maybe I kill people daily on Counter-Strike. Maybe I enjoy killing them. Does this mean I want to go buy a tactical machine pistol in real life and go on a killing spree? No, it doesn't. I've not once had the urge to go on killing spree's thanks to violent video games. The killing spree thoughts come from just being around people in general, not from video games.
Job? I don't have time to get a job! Who will sit around and bitch about being broke and unemployed then?
So any Christians who want to make a video game of the bible as a teaching tool, I guess their just shit out of luck, eh?
Infuriate left and right
If you ask me, this is starting a very dangerous trend. Scapegoating and populistic politics are attractive to politicians that want to sooth angered citizens, so we can only expect this to go on until the possesion of anything not absolutely necessary is forbidden (...and don't tell me that won't happen.). Hopefully, this insanity will stay in Germany, but unfortunately I doubt it.
I'm glad I saw some intellegent criticism of this law in addition to the usual Slashdot Sheep saying that the government can't take away our rights.
This law probably isn't a great idea. I mean, look how well it hasn't worked in the movie industry. I've been seeing R-rated movies, with parental consent but not always with a parent, since I was about 14. I've been carded once (on my 17th birthday, of all days).
That said, my mom happened to be much more involved in her job as a parent than many these days. She decided I was mature enough to see certain movies before the MPAA thought I should. There were plenty of movies she felt were inappropriate for me at that age, and I respected that. I agree 120% that it SHOULD be a parent's job to make these decisions. The problem is that a lot of parents AREN'T taking responsibility to care what their kid sees.
Is every kid who has lazy parents and therefore plays Doom or Wolfenstein or GTA is going to shoot up a school? Of course not. In fact, I would contend that I was a less agressive high-schooler because I took out agression playing violent video games. It makes me much more uncomfortable that Congress is trying to blame all of the problems in schools on the video game industry than that they're doing parents' jobs.
Maybe if they got some teachers who knew how to teach and paid them a decent salary, we'd have educated kids. Oh no I must be a Democrat!
is that we might not be able to easily download the latest demos and such because of the restricted access for minors.
Sure. Everyone knows that before kids had access to violent video games practically every person grew up to be a homicidal maniac wielding whatever sharpened impliment he/she could find, butchering family members and strangers alike.
Please.
Al Qaeda has ninjas!
"would apply to ... decapitation, amputation, killing of humans with lethal weapons or through hand-to-hand combat, rape, car-jackings, aggravated assault and other violent felonies"
But we can still have this stuff on t.v. and in movies right? Oh and let's make sure we can still legally have easy access to weapons and at the same time criminalize commoditized sexual release (ie. prostitution) too - that wouldn't have anything to do with the desire and ability to commit said crimes, nope it's all because of those damn video games. I mean, that Kent State sniper, Son of Sam, Jack The Ripper, etc., etc. must have had some precognition of Max Payne when they did their thing, because video games are the primary cause of such anti-social behavior - it can't possibly be because our society has some serious problems which video game content is just a symptom of. Let's see, if we outlawed guns, then it's less likely someone gets shot - if we outlaw video games it's less likely someone will get their throat cut by a jagged Doom CD. So lets ban the video games, I can see that logic. Whew, I sure am glad the government is looking out for the kids. With that settled congress can go back to figuring out how to keep people from pirating those wholesome Jason kills and rapes everyone movies on the internet.
"The Columbine shooting was a combination of nutty kids and adults who left guns within their fucking reach"
My memory is a little fuzzy on this topic, but I did get to read why they thought DOOM/Duke Nukem (it was one of those games...) was to blame. One of the shooters left a journal that described in detail how he thought the event should go down. He used a Doom/Duke reference (which reminded me more of the Matrix than this game...) to illustrate how he wanted it to go down. He wanted it to look like a scene in a movie.
The reason he referred to the game was that it provided a visual he needed to illustrate his idea. There was no hint in what I read (not all of it was made public, btw...) that his playing the game inspired him to go shoot up the school. His desire to do that was more about not having any friends than anything else.
No no... some politicians collecting votes out there twisted it into a 'the video game made him do it' story. Afterall, games are the easy scapegoat because they haven't been around that long.
My point is that there was a lot of anti-game crap going on after Columbine that was all based on a biased interpretation of events. That is exactly the problem with this law. They're taking a right away, but with no solid reason why not to do it. At least with alcohol, it's obvious that it's addictive and dangerous.
"Derp de derp."
.. piracy jumps 1600% as teenagers are now forced to pirate games since they can't buy them.
however that is only when my wife isn't home.
Hell, I tried sex for the first time when I was 19 and I'm still going overboard!
I concur. I started with Wolf3d at age 12 and games just got more and more violent from there, I have the same disposition as you. And the only way to keep your kid safe from guns is to teach them how to use them and care for them.
This is my sig. There are many like it, but this one is mine.
I swear our congress-people need some education. Have they commisioned any study on this yet? They shouldn't be allowed to just abitrarily make up laws. Do they think this will really affect things? What about cartoons? They have MANY violent acts per MINUTE, similar to video games.
I'm sure video games can affect some of the personality (have you seen 5 year olds playing a violent video game? Even with out bloodiness), But I think laws limiting this are rediculous. By the time a kid will purchase this stuff themselves they will be of an age where they know the difference between fantasy and reality.
I'm not sure how I stand on this. Movies are already regulated, though I'm not sure of the mechanics, and if/how it applies to movie rentals. The ratings better be similar though - a PG and PG-13 can have LOTS of murder and death in it, as long as it's now shown with blood, and not in a humanistic manner. (Personally, I think it should be the other way around - by trivializing it, it makes it less important, if it was gorey and dramatically, maybe people would be more sensitive to it, trivializing it should require a higher age).
Anyways, my 2 cents. In a way, it makes this more the parents responsibility, because the parent would have to buy it from the "minor" (and in a day where "minors" can be bumped up to "adult" court so easilly, this makes little sense to me as well)
Like with masturbation -- you can go blind if you do it too much. Look, if a kid is ready to whack it then he can play bloody video games in my book.
Better than smoking crack or knocking up the neighbor girl whilst playing doctor.
?sp
The article doesn't mention how this would affect violent open source. Would it be a crime for me to write a GPL violent game and let anyone out there download it? Even if I wanted to comply with the law, it would make it almost impossible to develope an open source game over the net as I cannot verify the age of someone using a browser or ftp client.
not sure if I like this idea or not. While I could jump on it and cry foul, I think it is best to gather more data. However it turns out, I have to say that I get plenty pissed when companies whore themselves by selling all sorts of crap to kids. I get even more pissed when I realize that this whoring causes just the legislation that we see here. Police yourselves and then no one else will have to.
...then this sort of a step forward, but are we locking up shopkeepers who sell/rent R-rated movies, porno mags or CDs with naughty words in them to minors?
If they can present some solid evidence that there's more than merely a perceived relationship between video games and violence in minors, then I've no problem with this bill. Otherwise, I'll be jaded and rhetorically ask if it's an election year and remind parents that if they're scared that their kids can't tell the difference between a video game and real life, they've got bigger problems than Doom III (coming soon) to worry about.
Easy does it!
This comment has been submitted already, 276865 hours , 59 minutes ago. No need to try again.
That parents are buying the games for their children in the first place WITHOUT heeding the ratings?
"All great wisdom is contained in .signature files"
Violators of the act would be subject to fines of up to $1,000 for a first offense and up to $5,000, plus 90 days in jail, for multiple offenses.
yeah cause theres no rapists murderers and car jackers... IN JAIL..
EARTH TO USA who writes your fucking laws people?!? And i thought the fact that potheads were concidered criminals was bad, now all your children are aswell. haha. its not only the whole world that hates americans, now it seems like its your own government too!
i think its time to seriously consider some sort of revolution.
-
"killing of humans with lethal weapons"
Since when did you kill humans with non-lethal weapons?
Pass a law that states that all minors should be kept locked up in little rooms until after they hit the age of 21. You know, because if they are allowed to exist within society there is a mild possibility that they could be exposed to the wrong things.
That would probably also give those parents, that have no real desire to be involved, let alone raise their children, the right to keep their children locked up and safe, just like they want them to be.
--
If you ignore the other uses of a tool, does that make the tool less useful, or you less useful?
There is a big difference WRT the movie ratings: they are an industry standard, supported by players in the industry. It was done because the studios feared the government stepping in and adminstering their own ratings setup. The ESRB exists for video games. Not sure if anyone pays attention to them, but the system is there.
In order to let the ESRB ratings work, the local sellers and rental places need to be afraid of having to keep up with government regulations. If they can self-police, they shouldn't need the legislation.
Jesus was all right but his disciples were thick and ordinary. -John Lennon
'Nuff said.
Technically, that's enough already, and that's as far as the law should go regarding this issue.
Movie ratings are not regulated by the federal government, they are maintained by the movie industry. So you statement about 'simply' regulating the kinds of things in movies is misconcieved.
Federal laws that limit the actions of private citizens in their own homes is anathma to the basic ideas of freedom America was founded upon. We do not need bureaucrats doing our parenting for us.
Me: Hey, I'm not THAT old kid!
Kid: Yeah yeah, here's a cool hundred, I want , can you get it?
Me: Sure thing dude
Or they will do what many kinds do (have I heard ^_~), steal it from their parents. Ehm, I mean get an illegal copy on the internet.
Kids can't handle alcohol. I rather have them die at my mouse in SoF2 or something.
We know that sometimes kids who are never exposed to alcohol until they are 19 or 21 can go way overboard the first time... is there a possibility of the same thing happening with violent video games?
You mean a 19 or 21 year old locked away in some close playing DOOM III non-stop for days ? Uh, sure.
...richie - It is a good day to code.
For several (at least 5) years, this has been the case in the UK - violent video games are rated in the same way that movies are, and as such there are 15 and 18 ratings which mean it's illegal to sell/hire out such material to persons below that age, with fines in the order of £1000s to retailers that break those laws - they're enforced as strictly as liquor laws are. As to whether it works is another question; many parents and older friends/brothers etc. would willingly purchase them on younger peoples' behalf.
Peter Parker's uncle Ben would still be alive if that burglar hadn't played Grand Theft Auto on his PC. Parker wouldn't have seen his uncle die, and wouldn't have been introduced to murder, and the use of violence in the apprehension of criminals. He would be a Jolly Spider-Man, using light humor and his innate sensitivity to help legal-activity-challenged individuals address the roots of their problems, instead of just beating the sh*t out of them.
Isn't restricting access to these evil video games a small price to pay to see Spider-Man with a big, toothy grin on his mask?
--
"Outlook not so good." That magic 8-ball knows everything! I'll ask about Exchange Server next.
No, but we do have laws about what can be SAID to minors. Ever wonder why you don't see alcohol/firearm/pRon billboards across the street from schools? And the self-policing done by the MPAA was created to forestall government getting into the act. When it was being blatantly ignored by the majority of movie theaters (selling R- tickets to minors) there were a lot of calls for government regulation. The vid. game industry tried to put a similar scheme in place, but isn't enforcing it. When self-policing doesn't work, it's a good bet the gummerment's gonna get involved.
This isn't about limiting minor's rights of expression, it's about limiting the expression (sale or rental) of materials to minors. And since it's commercial speach being directed at minors, it gets almost no protection.
1984 was supposed to be a warning, not an instruction manual.
The top-selling video game in 2001, according to research firm NPD Group, was "Grand Theft Auto 3," in which players steal and wreck cars, commit contract killings and carry out other crimes. It has been banned in Australia. and this from the same country that started out as a prison.. i love it! harryk
think before you write, it'll save me moderator points.
I will admit, a child does not have a fully developed mind, and requires guidance. However, it is not the job of the government to provide the guidance, that task falls to the parents. It is not, nor should it be, the job of a government to deem what is right and wrong for our children.
killing of humans with lethal weapons or through hand-to-hand combat,
So a game where the objective is to dissect a live chimp would be all right with your congress? Bunch o' freaks.:)
Is this a sigs-optional kind of place? 'Cause I am totally down with that if you know what I mean.
Hey, doesn't the Bible feature almost all of these? (I don't specifically remember a car-jacking in the Bible, but I'm pretty sure the rest is there).
I live in a country where minors are legal to buy and drink alcohol. When I was 16, I used to get drunk at least twice a week, every week. I got to know the effects of alcohol *very well* at that age. I am 25 now, and I drink less than one glass of drink a week. I was exposed to alcohol at the age when it couldn't do too much harm to me (career, family, drink'n'drive), and I learned to cope with it.
It's the same with video games: I used to be a video game addict when I was younger. I still like to play games, but I can stay away from them if I want.
Take the games away from the kids, and you'll get a bunch of grown up people playing games.
What's the punishment for distributing nethack then?
I guess that would go to the UN.
... and they're called raves!
I haven't been able to find a link to the actual Bill. But you know they're going to extend the wording to include online distribution.
I find it hard to believe that this will have any effect whatsoever on acts of violence from children. I know very few kids that can go out and purchase a $40 or $50 video game. Most of them download the demo, and either search down the warez version, or con their parents into buying it for them.
So, are they going to start levying fines against ID, EA, or Sierra for making demos available to everyone? How about sites like FilePlanet for making it so easy to get ahold of those demos that contain all the violence of the full version?
I wish these stupid law makers would realize that it's the responsibility of the parents to protect their children, and *not* the shop keepers.
This Bill is horribly thought out. Is it any surprise that the congressman's last name is "Baca" which is sooooooo close to "Baka"?
Karma: 0 (But I wield a mean +10 Vorpal Apathy)
I do hope they include an exception for games which can password-protect the bloodshed when the parent first installs it.
Example: something like MythII is a great game, eminently suitable for children, and you can set a password to replace dying soldiers with a twinkle of stars as the vanquished foe just disappears.
Some would argue that it would be more educational to show the deaths though; you'd be more wary of ordering people into battle if you have to watch the deaths. A lesson for those whose wars are fought abroad, perhaps?
A friend of mine who works for a Senator told me this:
Many, many bills are introduced that the introducers have no intention of passing. They are used for only one purpose -- to show to their constituents and say "See? I tried to prevent another Columbine from happening".
They know the bill is stupid. They also know it won't pass. But the attempt will look good at the next election.
The moral of the story? Don't get your underwear all twisted over this.
"You have the option of insanity. I do not. And that makes me crazy!" - Brian to Angela, My So-Called Life
The deal is not that the video games will make you shoot someone; the deal is that they teach you to shoot straight IF you get angry enough to shoot someone AND you get your hands on a gun.
Grossman's hypothesis is that by and large humans are not natural-born killers -- we are like Kubrick and Clarke's apes who stand around posturing and showing our teeth (road rage?) at other apes until we are taught how to kill. In other words, pointing a gun at someone and pulling the trigger is contrary to an animal instinct in us humans not to kill our own kind.
He goes on to argue that Civil War battle casualties would have even higher with the weapons they had if the soldiers could shoot straight instead of mainly over each others heads. He also argues that the American army will kick Third World ass in any kind of fire fight (18 American dead against hundreds of Somali fighters), not because of better weapons but because American soldiers have been trained to shoot-to-kill.
He again goes on to say that shooter games are pretty much the same kind of psych conditioning (shooting practice at human-shaped popup targets) used to train American troops.
With Columbine and now with the German tragedy, not only do you have kids acting on their rage with guns, they have the reflexes and deadly aim of a U.S. Special Forces soldier to kill so many so quickly.
The German tragedy suggests gun control is ineffective (access to illegal guns) and I suppose there can be access to illegal video games. But there needs to be some recognition of the effect of shooter games, not from some Moral Majority bluenoses but from someone who should know (Grossman, an Army Special Forces shrink), that there is a scientific basis to be concerned about their effect.
Oddly enough, most of these deranged violence-crazed kids also have no respect for private property, and don't buy video games retail anyway. I suppose it would be seen as legitimizing intellectual property theft if they required all sites offering pirated software for download to run adult-verification software.
"(Man) tries to live his own life as if he were telling a story. But you have to choose: live or tell." --Sartre
I've never committed any of those either, and just about all of that stuff was present in the Alfred Hitchcock books that I used to check out at the public library when I was in grade school. Lots of murder, rape and mayhem; lots of nasty behavior...it was diverting. Eventually I moved on to other things: science, art, philosophy, music, sex, math, individual sports, computers. Keep raising a fuss: you can't vote yet, but you can write. Write about the curtailment of your rights from your perspective, and keep spreading your message. Reasoned discourse is what you're offering in exchange for their insults. It doesn't work every time, but it always works eventually. Remember Gandhi: nonviolence is not passivity; it is a means of waging conflict. Keep it up!
Think, write, think, edit, think...then post.
You start introducing this kind of legislation, and where will it end? I have a feeling all it would take to limit games like EQ would be for a couple kids to storm into their high school during lunch wielding swords and morningstars and slaughtering other students. And I have a feeling if, *way* back when I was a kid (70's/early 80's) that if a couple of D&D players had decided to act out some scenes at the local mall with the mallrats unwittingly playing the part of the orcs, that D&D would have been banned altogether. And I would have never gotten the opportunity to enhance my creativity and problem-solving skills at any early age (things my parents never understood).
---
Two rights don't make a wrong, but three rights make a left. -Me
and not necessarily an answer to the problems it tries to address. That doesn't mean that the problems are not real. I have recently become a stepfather to two teenagers, and the way they blithely talk about killing and hurting other people with whom they are upset sends a chill down my spine. I know that when you ask them about it they say it's just the way that their generation talks, but the constant anger I see them and their friends exhibiting, combined with the lack of any real indication of caring for others is troublesome.
I don't mean to sound alarmist. I know there were times when I was growing up that people said similar things, but the pervasiveness of it has changed over the last twenty years. I don't remember the last time I heard a teenager say anything complimentary or constructive. Only derogatory comments, and talk of destruction. I haven't seen any desire to build rather than destroy. There doesn't seem to be any acknowledgement of any greater good than their immediate entertainment. I don't know where to start to show them that being able to create something is real power, and that a desire to destroy is a weakness. Also, I know that I have only been exposed to them and their friends and that they may not be representative of all teenagers. The victimless killing does seem to affect the way they and their friends interact, though. Their "friendly" antagonism becomes more akin to cruellty both to each other and the people they talk about after they've been playing for a while.
It seems that much of popular culture has become about anger and victimization and retribution. I see very little about learning to get along with others and seeing things from points of view other than your own. I don't see kids volunteering or doing charity work nearly as much as they used to. Even church groups seem more about going on retreats (vacations away from home and parents) than about doing service in the community.
Somewhere I got off on a tangent. My original thought was that when anger and violence become the background noise to all aspects of your life and thought processes, even your recreation, it makes it difficult to take joy in anything that doesn't give you feedback that feels familiar. I doubt that this move is the answer, but I agree that the problem that it's trying to solve needs to be addressed.
I promise you, during my high school years I played at least TEN TIMES as much DOOM as the Columbine shooters. I lived and breathed DOOM. It was my way to vent aggression.
RIGHT.. but your not them! Get over yourself and remember that you didn't pull the trigger at columbine and you have NO WAY of knowing what they were thinking at the time. Maybe your mental stabililty is better than theirs, then maybe not.
A return to Barney Doom!
DIE BARNEY DIE!!!
So what about reanimated corpses? I.E. zombies?
can kiddies kill undead?
Otherwise that would seem to rule out stuff like
Ultima Online, Everquest, and even Wizard of Wor
(for all you old-school geeks!)
Service guarantees Citizenship! Questions Guarantee GITMO.... Amerika Uber Alles!
whens that last time you played a video game in which someone was raped? I sure as hell have never heard or such a game.
This legislation does nothing to address the reasons why teens commit crimes - boredom, lust, drug use, child abuse, etc... The root cause of violence is not seeing violence, but the perception of being wronged. Anyone who perceives that they are being wronged is prone to violence, and this bill does nothing to address this. I think that this will only contribute to actual teen violence, as it reduces the incentive to play video games (because so few non-violent games are fun to play), and instead provides the bored teen with another excuse to commit crimes.
Granted, there will be bad video games made. But at some point, we will have to trust the judgement and personal responsibility of those who are now teenagers; we should teach teens responsibility before they start to make life and death decisions (like driving, drinking, etc...) The only way to teach someone responsibility is to give them responsibility, and this bill actively undermines the efforts of parents to get their kids to take responsibility for their choices by removing the possibility of choice in the first place. I cannot see how this bill will reduce violence or promote personal responsibility.
The society for a thought-free internet welcomes you.
I can see how this could be a basic violation of first amendment rights. But seriously, "people who go overboard the first time"...what's the connection there? This is obviously an attempt to rationalize our knee-jerk rejection of anything that restricts video games.
why just video games? Why not books? Newspapers? Movies? Hell, let's not even let parents buy these things! That way we'll all be safe.
Actually, if you look at crime statistics of school violence, there is a dramatic decrease in incidents during the same time that graphic, interactive video games were strongly increasing their market share. If anything it signals that violent games may be an important psychological release for children.
#1. As I saw stated before, minors have very limited rights in the eyes of the courts/constitution. There is LESS than a snowball's chance in hell that the courts would overturn such a law.
;) )
#2. The jury is still out about the life imitating art (or I guess not art, if video games aren't speech and art is) in the ways of videogames. But I would think most people would agree that it is an influence, especially on impressionable minors. Maybe not the primary cause/explanation for the violence in schools, etc., but a factor however small.
#3. Most arguements that I have seen on Slashdot complain about the government "parenting." I agree in a utopian society it would be great if the government didn't have to, but there are so many children out there that aren't looked after properly that I would rather the govenement do something like this than an already disturbed child get one of these games and that further him down that road. (Notice, I did not say drive him to violence or anything of the sort. But, I hope that most people would agree a game like GTA III could not be healthy for an already disturbed child.)
#4 (or 3 continued).
I think that the parents of the minor that can enjoy and place such games in the fantasy world they belong could easily make the choice to buy these games for their child, thereby the parents are doing the parenting. (and hey guys, if they have to go into the store to get the game for you, there is probably a better chance they will pay for it also
The more rights you take away from kids, the more they'll grow up to have no respect for authority. Think teenage crime is bad now? Wait until a few more laws like this pass.
What's more likely to end up with violence?
A) Telling a kid he has no right to do something everyone else is able to do freely.
B) Letting a kid purchase GTA3.
YOU make the call
-Riskable
"Those who choose proprietary software will pay for their decision!"
People blame the Columbine massacres on videogames and American culture. Maybe that's true, but even if there were a direct causal relationship here, then Germany is a clear example of why such regulation doesn't work.
...prohibiting the sale of violent (ie: "R" rated) movies to minors?
Same concept, just a different medium.
Problem is that many places don't or won't enforce the rules.
My mom always said, "Jim, you're 1 in a million." Given the current population, there are 7000 of me. God help us all!
You could easily take someone out with a bishop.
You're right. We should expose our children to things like murder and rape when they are young so they don't go overboard with these acts hwne playing "mature" video games for the first time when they hit 21.
Dingus.
you have 3 groups on this board.
1)Kids (the think they have more rights than they actualy have as well as think they know everything)
2)Parents (we know what rights our kids have and I as well as all parents who would like to regulate ther children better don't see a problem with a law that empowers us to do a better job at it)
3) childless adults (they fall on both sides of the issue, but mainly thouse who are against it, I think are so becasue they just don't like over regulation)
talk about setting up a flamefest..sheesh.
BTW....this is a good law, go parental empowerment!!!!
I am the Alpha and the Omega-3
It's the DESIRE to kill. Neither DOOM nor Spec-Forces training give you that. The Columbine kids had the desire to kill because they were more than a bit cracked. Good soldiers don't have the desire to kill, they're following orders. "The greatest warrior is he who does not need to kill".
Besides, DOOM only teaches you how to use arrow and control keys to cause pixellated images of inhuman, evil monsters to undergo pixellated animations of death. I hardly think that's the same as training kids to kill real people with real guns.
I don't know why DOOM gets all people's anger. IMO Wolfenstein is much "worse" in their viewpoint, because the enemies being killed are humans. I'm such a softy I get a pang of remorse from the Wehrmacht guards shrieking "Mein Leben!". I switched to DOOM because killing demons was easier on my conscience. =P
But blaming things like Columbine entirely on things like DOOM is utterly ridiculous, logically. It's simply the most politically correct thing to attack.
-Kasreyn
Kasreyn: Cheerfully playing the part of Devil's Advocate to hairtrigger
...as the government seems to move faster then my ability to web browse.
Bryan R.
The price of freedom is eternal vigilance, or $12.50 as seen on eBay.....
I'm a little wary of the simplistic "exposing kids to X makes them do X" philosophy. For instance, my mother was an alcoholic while I was growing up (still is) but I've never touched any alcohol myself. Certainly by the "common wisdom" of today's political scene, I should have grown up to drink just as heavily as her. Obviously kids don't develop quite the way we think they do.
I think that if a child fully understands the aspects of a certain activity, all the mystery surrounding that activity disappears and they lose the urge to experiment. My fianceé's mother always had frank talks about sex with her, and thus she never slept around or did other stupid sex-related things. We see the side-effects of shielding our kids from the world all the time; sheltered college freshmen binge drinking at every opportunity, Catholic school students doing goodness-knows-what in their free moments.
Video games aren't as powerful, emotionally, as personal experience, but I don't see why they'd work much different. So sure you can carjack a car and run down a pedestrians in GTA3, but what happens nine times out of ten afterwards? Right, you get hunted down, arrested, or alternately riddled with holes. And even kids know you don't get a restart option in real life.
[PowerPoint] is a tool for capitalist presentation
time to burn off some karma.
Whatever happened to the parents keeping the control?
nowadays, every time Junior gets a fucking scratch, the goverment is called upon to legislate the big baddies that caused it.
Here's a hint: Maybe if the parents were watching what the kids did more closely (in a friendly adult way, not a paranoid, big brother is watching way), and interacting with them instead of letting the computer/tv babysit, we wouldn't be where we are today.
Now, take what i say with a grain of salt. I am NOT pro-child by any means (i don't like em, i don't want em near me, and i dont want to have any. ever.). but i do think that those who take the plunge and decide to have kids should fucking well live up to the responsibility and not pass the buck to the goverment to legislate the whole world. Am i saying that most parents are like this? Maybe not.. but a whole helluva lot are.
i swear it makes me grit my teeth every time i see one of these crying 'mommies' on tv talking about the evils of product x or item y that caused their lil darling precious to do something to hurt/off themselves or others. Guess what mommy... maybe if you'd been there with precious instead of watching soaps or chatting on the phone or whatever, they'd still be around. And if you choose not to exercise your parental responsibilities, don't place the onus on me or the goverment to do it for you. natural selection is a bitch isn't it.
Moral indignation is jealousy with a halo - H. G. Wells
I think this is a great thing. It's going to allow those of us who are over the age of 18/21 access to much more adult content and things that further stretch the limit of free speech, just like movies and other various things.
Remember, the parent can still opt to rent/purchase these games for their children if they don't agree with the morals that the government has put upon us. Not unlike purchasing porn or various other over 18/21 items, like Beer, etc.
For those of you underage, quit complaining, you don't have a say in the matter anyways!
No one is loosing rights here. The government is forcing parents to ok questionable content before their children are allowed access to it. This doesn't limit what games are allowed to be made, nor does it limit you buying them.
Science may someday discover what faith has always known.
We should have nipped this in the bud back when the COMBAT cartridge shipped with every new Atari. :-)
Step into a huge movement. Don't Tread In Me.
There are several things wrong with this bill: If enforced, sales of these games will be devistated; although the material is questionable in taste, other industries are allowed to show more realistic depictions to minors; and despite the seemingly obvious causation between seeing violence and the committing it, there is no proof of that.
While this bill is intended to protect minors, the real effect will be to attack video game manufacturers: How much of a dent in game sales makes their production unprofitable? Place enough restrictions on the sale of a product and you've censored it out of existence.
While computer animation is getting pretty realistic, it pales in comparison to real actors performing the same acts in movies and on television. Just this week, I've watched parents take young children (five years old) to see Jason X; but, even without parental supervision, many of the acts decribed in the bill can be seen in PG or PG-13 movies. Also, I've never seen ratings enforced at the rental counter. As far as television goes, the only comtrols are opt-in parental lock-outs. Imagine the confusion if parental controls were opt-out.
While many groups want to believe that violence in children is caused by exposure to violent imagery, there simply isn't proof. Parenting through legislation is not what is meant by the concept of "it takes a village to raise a child." All adults who come in contact with children, especially parents, need to understand how their words and deeds influence the development of children. Many parents use media as babysitters and take kids to violent movies because it's cheaper than hiring a sitter. Until these parents own up to their responsibility, the only thing this bill will change is that parents will buy the game for their kids.
Deciding what children see is a decision for parents, and restricting sales of these games will only amount to censoring them out of existence.
Some people have a way with words, and some people, um, thingy.
I know this is offtopic, but 420 being a police code is not a myth. My brother got busted smoking pot a couple months ago and it actually said 420 on the ticket. I live in San Diego California btw.
Comment removed based on user account deletion
It doesn't say a minor can't play it, only that he can't buy it. This forces the parent to be a parent, nothing more
When Mortal Kombat first came out on the Genesis, I rented it, and two kids from next door came over and played it. One was 6 the other 7. The 7 year old was getting TROUNCED by his younger brother and started yelling at him "quit hitting me!" After another round or two, the older brother started hitting the 6 year old for real.
It was really funny.
It should be noted however, that the younger brother kept cool, and that the older brother was ALWAYS an asshole.
I don't think that I agree with this law (this kind of stuff should be up to the parents), but just for the sake of argument -
how is this different from movie ratings? You can't rent an R, NC17, etc movie if you're under a certain age.
I'd be curious to hear from those that think the movie ratings system and restrictions are OK but this law is not.
Also, what about CDs with those parental advisory stickers? Anyone think there will be a law about this?
"...games that feature decapitation, amputation, killing of humans with lethal weapons or through hand-to-hand combat, rape, car-jackings, aggravated assault and other violent felonies."
;-)
...it looks live I've been playing the wrong games my whole life.
If all you have are silver bullets, everything looks like a werewolf.
Sound like a new market in trafficing illegal games to teens just opened up to those interested
Besides, if my younger bro wanted a game and they wouldn't sell it to him... I'd buy it and give it to him, or buy it and drop it and hope he wouldn't find it. What non-sense... good idea, wrong reason.
On the one hand, I really do not believe violent video games are harmful. And this criteria for banning games would make almost every game other than Tetris illegal. Oh, and Pong would still be okay too, I guess.
But on the other hand, I'm 18, so it matters exactly squat to me what happens with this bill.
I'm the stranger...posting to
The question should be "How does a particular child get $50 and get to a store without their parents knowing?"
Maybe parents should pay attention to their kids and spend time with them instead of just giving them money and buying them the newest coolest video game.
I don't need anyone to tell me how to raise children (I don't have any at the moment, but I already know that I won't be laxist)
Yet this law is not that unwelcome because:
On a side note, I know of a divorced mother who closely monitors the activities of her only son. At 12, he is currently graduating from Rayman-like games to more challenging ones like Age Of Empires, Civilizations. FPS & gory games are a no-no until he's 16. Did I mention that his continued access to the PC is dependant on his having good marks at school?
Shouldn't we start to actually hold parents responsible of their kids actions?
Fine. When I decide to whip out an arsenal and mow down a bunch of colleagues, I'm going to write something in my journal to the effect of, "And I'll mow those assholes down like a senator mows down civil liberties". That will illustrate my point of view nicely.
I wonder how congress droids will try and spin that one.
"Adequacy.org: Where congenital stupidity is not an option, but a requirement."
If you watch a performance of Oedipus you will have sex with your mother and kill your father.
If you watch a performance of Phaedra you will have sex with your step mother and kill yourself.
If you watch a performance of Europa you will have sex with a cow.
If you watch a performance of Orestes you will kill your mother with an axe after she kills your dad while he's having sex with his girlfriend in his bathtub. Then you will have sex with your sister and die miserably.
There is zero proof that smoking causes lung cancer -- only speculation.
Speculation is everything; everything is speculation. No matter how many studies are conducted (and there are quite a few, if you'd be interested in seeing), it cannot be "proven" that video games cause violence in children. At this point, I think it's very likely that violent video games and child violence are related somehow. Perhaps it's not a direct connection.... for instance, the "liberal" parents who allow their kids to play violent games are more likely to abuse their kids and thus end up with violent/maladjusted kids, or some other connection like that.
Or... perhaps it's the other way around: Conserverative, religious, stable, [insert positive adjective here] homes typically don't have violent video games in them, and children from conserverative, religious, stable, etc. homes are less likely to be violent.
Thank god for those four words! This clearly exempts games like DOOM, where you are not committing any felonies (except maybe trespassing and destruction of property) -- self defense against legions of undead demons ain't a felony where I come from. Oddly, though, killing a lawyer is a felony. Damn double-standards...
"Destroy science and religion. Science would re-emerge exactly the same; but not religion." - Penn Jillette, paraphrased
Just because it may become illegal to sell the game to a minor doesn't mean that a minor won't be able to get the game. The law won't make it illegal for the minor to have the game in his/her possesion, will it (unlike alcohol)? If this is the case, then it may not be illegal to buy the game & give it to a minor, whether they are your child or not (how can it be contributing if it's not illegal for them to have it?).
--something witty
Other democrats such as Joe Lieberman have long railed against hollywood and the entertainment industry and attempted to introduce legislation..if anything, the so-called 'liberal' party has done more action against entertainment than the so-called 'conservative' republicans.
This is why i'm an indepedent. All parties would take away all our rights if they got the chance.
-
The problem with legislation like this is that it ignores
the context of the depicted violence. Certain games like
Mortal Kombat, Resident Evil, etc. depict violence almost
devoid of any rational context. In other words violence
for the sake of violence. Other games like Final Fantasy7,
8,9,etc. and Metal Gear Solid depict similar amounts and
types of violence, but do so within a firm moral context.
These games (and most other RPG's, action games, and
strategy games for that matter) depict violence as a
necessary means to right wrongs and defeat evil. Therefor
such games actually reinforce moral values.
"The moment "pride" is lost, "freedom" is also lost." - Ramza.
"When kids play video games, they assume the identity of the characters in the game, and some of these characters are murderers, thieves, rapists, drug addicts and prostitutes," Baca said in a press release. "Do you really want your kids assuming the role of a mass murderer or a car-jacker while you are away at work?"
This is so retarded. The logic is so illogical I am speechless.
Quote "(for the LAST TIME idiots, we don't want to take away your guns, we just want to keep them out of the hands of kids!)" I suggest before you make statements like this you read the actual bills that they are trying to pass. Do not read the popular press as al,ost all of them are anti-gun. Also do not listen to the pro-gun crowds because if it restricts guns at all the fanatics will go nuts. I actually agree with some of the bills (like the one to close the gun show loophole), but if you read them for yourself the majority of the bills will take the guns away. So it is a little counter to your statement. Of course you are probably one of those screaming liberal democrats who will just dismiss this out of hand and then you think you are better than pro-gun people who do the same to your arguments.
I really don't see how this bill should be surprising to anyone. There are already age limits on what people can see in movies (admittedly this is not law, but virtually all movie theaters follow this policy). It seems to me that there is nothing inherintly wrong with a system that limits kid's exposure to violent content. Again, this is sortta like the 'R' rating: it's not saying that kids can't see it, it's just saying that their parents have some ability to control and limit their exposure to it.
While I'll admit that sometime violence can be used constructively in films (and games), I think it would be nearly impossible to convince me that the violence in GTA3 is constructive. Now, this is not saying that they shouldn't be able to make this game (that's what makes this country great- they can). . . I'm just saying that parents should have the ability to determine for themselves if their kids are exposed to it. . .
I couldn't tell if you were experimenting with poor-man's cryogenics or looking for the orange sherbet.
That is the problem! This bill is a step in the direction of censorship, and, as all educated people should have hammered into their skulls, censorship is the tool of tyranny.
Your post would be valid if it were correct, but people with children have to be responsible for them themselves, and as things stand even now they are not in many respects.
Quote: "(for the LAST TIME idiots, we don't want to take away your guns, we just want to keep them out of the hands of kids!)"
I am not quite sure what you intended by that statement but the only person looking like an idiot is you. Facts to prove this:
1.) Columbine shooters also had pipe bombs. Huh, last time I checked those are totally illegal.
2.) Columbine shooter had a "sawed off" shotgun on his dresser. Parents saw and did nothing. Huh, last time I checked "sawed off" shotguns were totally illegal. So is a child owning a gun you did not give him/her.
3.) Calling the gun lobby stupid/idiots because there are some wackos is a Hasty Generalization.
4.) Charlton Heston Quote: "When gunmakers are responsible for criminal acts and no-one is responsible for OJ Simpson's acts, something is wrong"
I am not even an NRA member or and active gun "shooter".
This bill isn't doing anything that isn't already in place for minors.
You fail to see the irony in your argument. You argue that it is NOT the video games fault, but then argue that it IS the guns fault. Evil happens in this world EVERYDAY. If all the guns were magically gone tomorrow people would still be killing each other.
I admit that a gun can do far more damage than a knife/club/etc... But can it do more damage then pipe bombs with shapnel in them??? BOMBS are totally illegal but they were still present at the scene. (And are currently being spread around the US. link)
It all comes down to human responsibility. Both you and the congressmen/women miss that.
Make little Johnny have to drag his parents into EB? Or create a new not-really-but-cool-sounding 'black market' where college students sell such games for double the price to high school students?
Or the most likely scenario - it'll turn into another "R movie" thing, where everyone smiles, nods, and says, "Here, kid, here's yer ticket, enjoy the show."
In the end, the only way "violent" video games will be kept out of the hands of children are if their parents actually do their job and parent. I'd say that this bill should be lobbied against as it theoretically could take a large chunk of change out of the gaming industry.. But let's face it. How will this be different than, "No cigarettes unless you're 18!", "No R rated movies for you!" and, "No drugs for anyone!"?
Are they going to Ban the Bible?
Let's have a recap of all but one of these ( I don't think carjacking applies )
decapitation - Deborah one of the 12 tribes of israel put a stake through a man's head. AND David, when he had defeated Goliath decapitated him with his sword. Not to mention John the baptists head being brought on a silver platter.
amputation - Jesus talked about casting your hand from you ( Figuratively ) lest it causes you to go to Hell
killing of humans with lethal weapons or through hand-to-hand combat - Israelite occupation of Canaan. King Saul, King David... etc. etc.
rape - Amnon raped Tamar in 2nd Samuel
aggravated assault and other violent felonies - Various parts of deuteronomy talk about the punishments for a man who hurts a pregnant woman while fighting another man so on and so forth
So. Again I ask. Since all these things are in the Bible are they going to Ban younger people from reading it?
The memory of the Erfurt school murders is still fresh, and the German Government is drafting legislation which will be discussed in parliament soon.
On the one hand, access to firearms shall be restricted even more, on the other, videos and games with explicit violence shall be banned completely so that even adults cannot access them. Otherwise, the government fears that parents might give them to their children, which is currently explicitly allowed by law for works which are considered harmful to children and teenagers.
Some kind of Internet regulation is planned as well to enforce this even for free content you can download etc.
Like I've said in a previous post, I don't think games are harmful. But I do think parents should be able to decide what games their children are exposed to. So long as parent thinks the game is okay, they could always go pick up the game for their kid, with Uncle Sam none the wiser, and no harm done. This just lets parents know exactly what their kids are playing.
I'm the stranger...posting to
(for the LAST TIME idiots, we don't want to take away your guns, we just want to keep them out of the hands of kids!).
So tell me, since I'm an idiot and you're not: what provision in the brady bill keeps guns out of the hands of kids? Hm? Were there not enough provisions in the existing 20,000 gun laws? Oh, yeah, limiting the size of magazines and banning those oh-so-evil-looking "assault" rifles did so much to stop the Columbine kids.
Has anybody here played "Comando Libya" on the Commodore 64?
Nuff' said!
"First lesson," Jon said. "Stick them with the pointy end."
Would it also be illegal to provide "violent" mods for originally non-violent games?
Let's get drunk and delete production data!
It had nothing to do with videogames
....
Cheerfully playing the part of Devil's Advocate...
I couldn't resist...
The issue at hand is exposure to violence and the effects it has particularly on young people. While you may not like that, video games are definitely part of the issue. Maybe you should check out the American Psychological Association website. It contains references and articles which indicate that exposure to violence is a significant cause of violent behaviour.
I've played violent video games since Doom, and I've never committed any violent crimes (actually, no crimes period). So they're obviously NOT the problem. My friends have too, and they're just the same way I am.
Unfortunately, the existance of a counter-example does not negate the value of the research. Nobody is saying that exposure to violence will automatically turn anyone into an axe-murderer. The results are significant, but less dramatic: Could we avoid the typical
*** Where are we going? And what's with this handbasket?
who the hell is coming to my house to enforce underage drinking?
Could a minor get in a bar?
Well arcades have been slowly dying over a decade... Say bye bye arcades.
God spoke to me
Everybody here keeps making the argument of "I play GTA3/Mortal Kombat/Super Mario Bros., and I don't jack cars/decapitate people/eat shrooms" and so on. It's an idealistic sentiment, that common sense would prevail, but ultimately frustrating that so many people would share it, because it simply DOES NOT WORK.
There are two groups of people that get things done in American government today: religious fundamentalists and corporate interests. Obviously, the thought of cutting an entire industry off at the knees-- denying its target audience the product because they don't agree with it on a moral level-- is one that belongs to the parents of the far right. The only way you're going to crush the idea here is-- hold your breath, Slashdot-- choosing the other devil, and supporting whatever legislation the video game industry proposes to cover its ass.
It amazes me that we have an industry that pulls in more money than the film industry, and it still doesn't have the sway of the movie studios. The video game crowd is maintaining the exact same policies toward their product-- voluntary ratings, and the middleman (i.e. movie theaters for the former, Wal-Mart for the latter) has the option of respecting the restrictions of the R- or M-ratings-- but at this point video games are being legislated to hell. Maybe it's got something to do with video games not being a valid form of speech *cough*bullshit*cough*, or maybe it's just closed-minded fear of a new medium from soccer moms everywhere.
But still. Come on, Activision and EA. Take a cue from the film industry and put up a fight. Go hire yourselves some lobbyists. You know money is the only way to get things done around here.
I want a brand new stage for a bill going to Congress.
Here's the current first stage:
Any Member, the Resident Commissioner from Puerto Rico, or the Delegates in the House of Representatives may introduce a bill at any time while the House is in session by simply placing it in the "hopper," a wooden box provided for that purpose located on the side of the rostrum in the House Chamber. Permission is not required to introduce the measure.
(from) HOW OUR LAWS ARE MADE
I want the bill to go before the United States general population before it enters the bill process. All bills to be considered by Congress get posted on a government web site and sit there for a week before they proceed through Congress. Right now there's no requirement for them to tell us a single thing about the bill before it's passed and published. I want to see it in mint form, and I want it to sit there for a week so we can get some input in on the damn thing.
Maybe the state's highest function is to grind out insoluble problems. (Zelazny, Hall of Mirrors)
Police forces aren't going to want to waste their time busting the Blockbuster guy for letting Jimmy rent Resident Evil.
I thought the enemies in Resident Evil were zombies. Do they count as human? They're already dead, right? so, you're not really killing them.
On a GTA3 note...
I'm sure all the little kiddies who play GTA3 will immediately want to go to their local arms merchant so they can start shooting down Police Helocopters with a bazooka for fun. right.
"New Bill Would Restrict Sale of Video Games to Minors" can also mean that the bill allows only minors to buy video games. You really should fix that.
I find myself extremely ashamed to see fellow slashdotters actually advocating the Federal government taking away basic rights based on hysterical rationalization.
How many people have commented that they do it for the movies, so they should do it for video games? My friends, there are no federal regulations on movies. That would be a violation of the First amendment. Anybody can go to a rated R or even rated X movie with no impediments from the federal government.
Video games do not cause violence. There is no evidence of this at all. In fact, statistics show violent crime in this country going down since the advent of Doom.
Choosing to build laws that, in the end, marginalize and punish end-market retailers, and do nothing constructive, is a mindless mob reaction.
Are you the uniformed uninformed masses that the Nazis bottled so well?
For those of you keeping score from home:
Thanks, tps12, for reminding me that wicked sarcasm is alive and well in America!
Jodka's first rule of political extortion: Any successful industry will be placed under threat of legal ban by a governing legislative body.
Jodka's second rule of political extortion: Any threat of legal ban can be removed by a sufficiently large monetary contribution to a governing legislative body.
I don't know what they've been teaching in high-school civics classes these days, but the notion that congressmen introduce bills for the sole purpose of legislating is a bit naive, in my opinion.
In this case, it is extremely unlikely that democratic congressman Joe Baca from California, who introduced the bill, seriously intends to shut down a multi-billion dollar industry located substantially in his own state. Many congressional bills are used only as a means of extortion. "gimme duh money, or yuz video game business gonna take a fall." Apparently congressman Baca saw the fall elections ahead and thought it was time to do a little fundraising, either for himself or his party.
How do we know that Baca's bill is an attempt by the congressman to extort money, and not a sincere attempt to deprive minors of violent video games ? Because the bill which he proposes does not prevent minors from playing violent video games. Read the article. The bill bans companies from selling games . It is targeted at business, it is targeted at those with money. The bill is not targeted at those committing the supposed misdeed, minors who play the video games.
This is the same BS ploy used with underage smokers. In my opinion, underage smoking is harmful and should be prevented by law. It is a pity that anti-tobacco politicians do not act to prevent this, instead lining their pockets with billions from big tobacco on the absurd pretense that this will somehow keep tobacco from minors. "You kids better stop smoking or else we are going fine this extremely wealthy tobacco company." Sure that works.
It will be the same thing all over again with video games. Baca saw how well it worked with tobacco and he's trying to repeat the success with video games. The only requirement is that the victim poll unpopularly. Yes or no: "Do you think children should consume tobacco products ?" Yes or no: "Do you think children should be exposed to depictions of extreme violence". Guess how repondants answer those questions. Baca knows that when you find a public issue that polls as strongly as those, you've hit the financial jackpot.
If we keep the violent games from the kids, they'll be in for quite a shock when we draft them to go kill whoever is the Goldstein^WTerrorist-du-Jour.
"What, you mean you want me to shoot that swarthy guy for real? Won't that hurt him?"
Edith Keeler Must Die
How this billl will going to affect my abillaty to play my favorite Linus game, DOOM? It is a game in which you run trhough a maze and shoot evil monstars and humans. Yes humans say "Hey! Hey!" in slo motion, when you are shooting them. Luckily they are very dumb and they all come running out of a room one at a time, and I can hide behind a korner and blow them all away with teh double barrel shotgun. This is much like real life, scary! but the humans of DOOM are evil, corrupted by demons! It is ok to shoot when corrupted by demon, right?
Also will I be able to run DOOM on my beowulf clusters if I am not over the age of 18.
This topic, and several related to it, has come up several times recently and responses frequently over-look one important thing. It is not the government's place to raise our kids. It is our job as parents - for those /.ers old enough to have little h@X0rz of their own - to raise our kids and teach them what's right and wrong.
I'm yet to see and solid evidence that playing a video game that portrays violence will turn kids into murdering little monsters. Or any of the other 'FUD' the proponents of these laws like to toss out there.
Did we push people off cliffs because we saw While-E-Coyote survive a 900 foot drop - several times an episode? Do we run people off the road because we played a lot of Carmageddon? Did Dungeons and Dragons turn its players into Satan Loving Sinners? Obviously not.
Does Congress think kids are too stupid to tell the difference between a video game and real life?
Do they think they are better suited to raise our kids than we are?
Sorry. If I don't want my kid playing violent video games, I don't let her. It's not the government's place to get involved here. This isn't cigarettes or liquor that have well documented harmful side effects. These are fscking video games, that may not be entirely adorable, but aren't going to cause cancer or make kids go psycho.
And no, I don't let my 11 year old play GTA3. but that is my decision, as her parent.
Never attribute to malice what can as easily be the result of incompetence...
and not also, say, the news reporting of the latest bombing in Jerusalem. Why is the fantasy violence criminalized, but actual violence legitimized? Where is the root of the problem?
As someone who have had (some) military combat training:
Combat, and I can't stress that enough, is nothing like DOOM.
Not at all.
Anyone who have had this type of training, even a few times would agree.
There is a world of difference. In a game you don't learn any of the important things, like moving, loading, aiming at still or moving targets, firing effectively from different positions. Finding effective cover (no a soft wall will not protect you from an assault rifle). Taking cover while fired upon. Covering each others butts while on the move, communicating with signs or as few words as possible. And most of all, waiting and being bored, tired, cold and wet for hours on end.
A game teaches you nothing of that, because if they did noone would play them.
Actually you would learn a whole lot more from watching Heat, and that's still not even close.
Sorry for the rant.
But about the only thing you could learn from a game is a certain amount of strategy.
"First lesson," Jon said. "Stick them with the pointy end."
Maybe this will also remove some of the responsibility from the video game companies. It could stop stuff like this from reaching the courts?
"A plan fiendishly clever in its intricacies"- Homer Simpson
That said, this is not the way to go about keeping kids from playing these games.
I wish game consoles had parental lockout controls so games could be tamed down on a case by case basis, leaving the decision to parents, not to government. I wouldn't mind at all spending the extra time to disable some of the bloodier bits in my game when a lockout was active. Much less harm here, and much more effective.
Why does this NOT surprise me.....a Dumbacrat from Kalifornia came up with this. As for my sons, they can have their "violent" games when they pull them out of their cold dead fingers. Or as I'm sure my youngest would say...."they can have the games, they just have to take the joystick first, up their rear end." You know what this country REALLY needs, is a 3 day waiting period on idiot lawmakers from Kalifornia.
For the LAST TIME idiot, they don't want to take away your games, they just want to keep them out of the hands of kids!
Right? Right?
I've had enough abrasive sigs. Kittens are cute and fuzzy.
I don't see why this is any different from preventing minors from watching "R" rated movies in the US. Certain retail outlets, such as Wal Mart, will not sell rated "R" movies to people who appear to be underage, without proof of age (such as a driver's licence). Video games now have a rating system, just like movies. Why should they be treated any differently than movies? If a video game carries an "M" (mature) rating on it, why shouldn't the purchaser be asked to show ID if he/she looks to be younger than the appropriate age (as prescribed by the video game ratings assoc--can't remember name right now).
"Jesus saves, but everyone else in a 10 foot radius takes full damage from the fireball."
If Pac-Man affected us as children, many of us would be running around in darkened rooms/hallways eating magic pills and listening to repetitive electronic music...
Wait a second...
Grossman (who I assume has had military training or if not would be exposed as a fraud) claims that it is really, really hard to kill another human, even if we get angry enough to threaten someone with a gun, not because of religion and social values but on account of animal instinct.
Grossman has been on the talk show circuit talking about how a lot of these shooters have killed or paralysed large numbers of victims by snap shooting, something he claims is hard to do unless there has been some kind of conditioning or practice to make it possible.
killing of humans with lethal weapons
Maybe they should try to kill with non-lethal weapons... might take a bit longer though!
I had to buy an underage kid a copy of GTA3. And for those of you who think I'm nuts, this kid gave me about 30 bills ranging from $1s to $10s, money from lawn mowing or some other shitty young adult job, I think he can handle a video game.
ps what's wrong with killing hookers to get your money back?
Of course, the children derive from this that alcohol must be shit-kicking stuff, and suddenly, they can drink the stuff, so naturally they overindulge.
Contrast this to the french who expose their kids to alcohol as young as 8 years old. Usually, a kid gets plastered once between 12 and 14 year old, and after that, it seldom happens again. When the kid gets old enough to legally drink the stuff, he has no reason to overindulge.
Since when did thirteen year old 1337 Hax0rz BUY videogames?
Mod my comments down. It'll be fun.
The Columbine shooting was a combination of nutty kids and adults who left guns within their fucking reach. It had nothing to do with videogames. But of course, videogames are easier for a Congresscritter to attack. It makes them look good at re-election time, and the gun lobby is much stronger and stupider (for the LAST TIME idiots, we don't want to take away your guns, we just want to keep them out of the hands of kids!).
Ahem, Fuck you. Almost everyone I know grew up with guns around them, LOTS of guns. And then played lots of violent video games while around those guns. And DIDN'T SHOOT ANYONE. The deciding factor here is not whether someone has access to guns or not, it's whether they are FUCKING NUTCASES. Now then, since there is no longer a good reason to be dicking around with my guns. Please fuck off. In all my life, me, my relatives, people I went to school with, all of us, were constantly surrounded by guns. And none of us have been shot. Not a single one.... Wow...
Kintanon
Check out JoshJitsu.info for Brazilian Ji
So, mr(s). the_2nd_coming...
You seem to be supporting both sides of this issue.
Your more recent posts are trying to explain how few rights children really have, describing how parents have the final say, but far earlier you said something along the lines of...
"Get a roomfull of parents and they'll support this because it in fact makes their lives easier." I think I got that right.
As far as I can understand, parents have final say in what their kids experience, but they'll be more than willing to let the government restrict what they can allow their children to experience?
That doesn't sound very decisive on your part.
For your information I am 19, I am not a minor anymore, so you can't dismiss my argument as easily as you can the argument of a 13 year old since, in your posts, you don't think they're important.
As far as I can understand, this legislature is trying to create a video game version of the "No cigarettes under 18" and "No drinking under 21" and considering all of the underage drinking and smoking that goes on right now, I sincerely doubt that passing a legislature that deems about 90% of the games currently on market "not for minors" will make any difference.
In fact, I think it will only strengthen the number of children playing these games. I direct your attention to a phrase, "Forbidden fruit tastes the sweetest." Doing things that are not allowed always have a greater draw than almost anything else. The, "ooh, I could get into a lot of trouble for doing this..." aspect makes it all the more exciting. I should know, I've done a lot of shit like that.
And just think, if this legislature is passed, parents will no longer be able to take their kids shopping. "I'm sorry Billy, but you can't come with me. If I want to buy a restricted game, and you're around, they may think I'm buying it for you."
Sheesh...
Ok...so we can't kill, steal or what have you in real life. Completely understandable. But to make a law to stop it in a place where it causes no harm to anyone, is a waste of time and my tax dollars. We shouldn't make any excuses for bad parenting. Just putting laws like this on video games keeps it out of the hands of minors which can tell the difference between fantasy and reality. Thereby creating more "criminals" and boosting the tax base because of the imposed fines for breaking this law.
Why yes I am paranoid! Thanks for asking!
If you trace back the roots of video games you will inevitably find that the mother of all video games was Pong. It should be no suprise then that Pong is to blame for setting the stage for all the violent video games that would follow. For anyone not familiar with Pong, I will paint a picture for you. Pong was a dark and sinister game. In order to set the mood for this game, the developers intentionally made it so that over 90% of screen is completely black. Don't be fooled by the simplicity of the graphics either. It was all part of their evil genius to lure you into one of the most horrible and violent experiences one can imagine. You and an opponent step into this dimly lit world and hurl a square block back and forth at each other seemingly for all eternity. Just as soon as you think you've won and the end is nigh, some wise-ass hits the reset button and this entire nightmare starts over.
As I said this was just the beginning. The atrocity that would follow in years to come would grow expodentially as time went on. Take for example Super Mario Brothers released by Nintendo in the mid 1980's. We all think of Mario as a harmless plumber who's only goal in life is to battle the evil Bowser and save the Princess. Think again. Mario and his cohorts define the very essence of violence and evilness that we've seen throughout the varios generations of video games. You think I'm wrong? Look more closely at the game next time you play it. Watch carefully as Mario obtains a flower there-by granting him powers that only a great dark magician would posess. The ability to summon fire out of nothingness and throw balls of flaming plasma at his enemies emulsifying them beyond recognition. The horror and torture doesn't stop there either but I can no longer tollerate these hellish images in my mind. I must go rest now.
Seriously, though, the bright side (in my opinion very bright) to this is that it will force game developers to concentrate their efforts on gameplay, plot, bright colors, and - the biggest void in modern VG's - originality(!) if they want to target the younger demographic. They'll also have to take their attention span into account and try to make fast-paced games.
As beautiful as the graphics are in games such as the Final Fantasy series, I don't like sitting through all the video sequences, regardless of how well-rendered they are. I play some FPS games ocassionally, but the storyline in most of them is heinous. Hopefully this legislation will be intelligently and appropriately passed. It shouldn't change the availability of the games most of us here on /. play; it should only increase our options.
"Don't buy them for him..."
That won't even be touched by this law. All this means is that parents can rest assured that their children will no more easilly get a violent video game at the mall than they will a porno mag.
Some parents do give their children porn, alcohol, and tobacco, and teach them how to use firearms to boot. But unless the parent agrees, the child won't get any of these legally.
This law will put violent video games in the same "not without parental supervision" catagory as guns and porn. Sounds just fine to me.
Anyway i dont see why you would want kids being able to get hold of games like the upcomming solider of fourtune 2 (not that this law will stop them anyway), i mean you can blow peoples arms and legs off in that game. From the screen shots i've seen and the demo it looks pretty nasty. why does a 10 year old need to see that? Anyone who says it wont 'change' them in anyway is just being as niavie as the makers of this law. As someone once told me 'what goes in must come out' not to say i think games should be toned done or banned but you have to realise that it does affect people especially young people.
Heck this could mean even more violent games etc (as we've seen in the movies) as games makers can say 'its got an age stamp on it' etc
We also have to put into account the way those
Columbine kids were treated for the years they went
there.
however, i will never forget a couple of years back when i was walking by the mall arcade and i lilterally saw a five year old jumping up and down in front of the mortal kombat machine screaming 'die! die! die!' hardly even touching the buttons, and obviously with no knowledge of how to play the game.
that kind of thing that can scare you for life (and i am not making it up).
myabe this could be a good thing...
You mean you guys still pay for intellectual property...ahahahah!
seriously though, how much easier has the proliferation of Kazaa and other file sharing programs, I have to wonder how hard it will be to obtain these violent games anyway. Kids are smarter than most people realize and given enough motivation such as playing the "coolest video game" on the block, they can do almost anything.
Take this article from Scientific American for example Watching Wrestling Linked to Violent Behavior . Other studies have found simmilar results. Kids are like monkeys. Monkey see, monkey do.
What about magic missle? Can I cast magic missile at the humans?
[Anytown, USA - 1981]
DM: Your party is surrounded by brigands.
Fizzlwhiff: What race are they?
DM: Human.
Fizzlewhiff: I cast magic missile at the first Brigand.
DM: You already cast it at the darkness.
Fizzlewhiff: Crikey! I did. Ok, I cast magic missile using my wand.
DM: Your wand glows and shoots forth a fireball engulfing the brigand for 14 damage thus ending his life.
[Game Store]
Nothing happens
[Anytown, USA - 2002]
*click* *click* *click*
"Your party is surrounded by Brigands"
*click* *click*
"You are out of mana"
*click* *click* *click*
"A brigand is hit for 18 damage. A brigand dies. Your wand is out of charges"
[Video Game Store]
"You have the right to remain silent..."
Nuts!
'Same speed C but faster'
Is it just me or does the bulk of violent crimes come from the lower classes who can't afford the $50 dollar a pop violent video games anyway. I think we should try to fix poverty to prevent crime instead of preventing it where it rarely is.
What signature defines me as a person?
Note: IANAL
My friend owns a video store and has told me, at length, the sales he has lost due to this stupid law that the Tennessee legislature passed years ago. In a nutshell, it prevents the sell and/or rental of videogames marked "M for Mature" on them to minors. If you are reported to have sold/rented these titles to minors, a fine will be enforced and if multiple offenses are reported, thousands of dollars in fines and jailtime will ensue. Note, this law also covers R rated films.
Thankfully I turned 18 a year or two before this law was passed (I'm 21 now), but don't let the vague, and admittedly stupid, argument from the article fool you: this has a real chance at passing and becoming law for the entire nation. Basically, senators/congressmen will say "Look, this state and this state have this law and it works, why not pass it everywhere?" Sad but true.
Even if this get's introduced I doubt anyone will take it seriously. Here in the UK video games have long come with the same content rating system used on films and video. That is the British Board of Film Classification. I'm looking at a copy of Max Payne which has a great big "15" symbol on it which means no-one under that age can buy it or rent it. I know some games come with an "18" certificate, but I can't think of any for certain. Anyway, I don't think the current law actually stops anyone playing these games, simply because people don't really take them seriously. On the other hand, it does at least let parents know what a game might contain so they don't buy it for Christmas or something.
You can't win Darth. If you mod me down, I shall become more powerful than you could possibly imagine
Yes, people who have video games heavily restricted are very likely to go overboard when the restrictions are removed.
A while ago, I was a student at a small boarding school with about 200 students. Due to some unusual circumstances, I ended up with the biggest dorm room (4 person), and no roommates. What to do? Set up a LAN, of course.
We had a fun time playing games on this LAN. Until it got shut down. Why did it get shut down? Because of students overusing it. Specifically, a group of middle schoolers who were playing all weekend one time when most of the students were away on a trip.
The students who got it shut down were not students who had computers. The students who could play video games whenever they wanted didn't let the video games interfere with their other responsibilities. The only students who went overboard were those who normally could not play video games.
So yes, restricting violent video games, especially with that broad a definition of "violent", will cause kids to go overboard when they do get their hands on video games.
Also, kids who can't legally buy games will simply pirate them, thus hurting the video game makers.
You mean to tell me there are video games where you can rape people?!? I have got to get me one of those!
Here's what I tell my 14 year-old son about buying video games/movies/music:
You're a smart kid. You know me, and I know you. If you buy anything I disapprove of, I'm going to take it away and you'll never see it again. So if you want to keep anything you buy, it better be something I don't disapprove of. No bloody violence, no explicit sex, and no cuss words. Just ask yourself if I'd feel comfortable buying whatever it is for you, and if your answer is no, don't waste your money.
It's parental authority, and it's that simple. Stop being your kid's buddy and use it. It requires persistence and a continuing sense of care about what your kid does, but it's better than picking them up at the police station.
The only tool you've got against psychosis is experience.
Look, the government is trying to parent everyone. That is total crap.
I'm not a minor, but I tell ya what: if they want to tell my children what they can play and leave me out of the equation, then why don't they tell me how to parent?
Letting your child play overly-violent video games is simply bad parenting. You should know what your kid is involved in. Also, violent video games affect different children differently. To say that my purchasing violent video games when I was a child was a bad thing would be a hunk of junk.
Games don't kill people; people kill people. Next thing they're going to do is have a background-check for adults to purchase violent video games.
How far is too far?
This won't work for the same reason that the under 21 for drinking and the under 18 for cigarettes--it's up to the store to enforce it, but if the store does enforce it, they lose sales.
So they want it to be a FEDERAL CRIME to sell 1's and 0's to kids, when it's still a state misdemeanor to drive a car drunk? There are more fatalities from drunk drivers in a YEAR than there ever was from all the school shootings combined. I guess it only matters if it makes it on national TV for 3+ hours.
Ok, here's a quick lesson in Con. Law. Most likely Congress is using it's broad power to regulate commerce Article I Section 8 Clause 3. Congress has used its Commerce power from every thing to commerce regulation to teh 1964 Civil Rights Act. Now, you're probably asking yourself, "what does violent videogames have to do with commerce?" Good question. I won't bore you with the history In Morrison v. Lopez, the Supreme Court held that a Federal Law that made it illegal to possess guns in schoolyards. The Court said that there is nothing commericial about guns in schools; Congress didn't do enough fact-finding to support the law under it's Commerce power. That was 1995. If this bill is passed, and depending on the amount of Congressional Factfinding, the law could be struck down. Let's just hope that Congress hasn't learned it's lesson from Lopez. For more on the Congress's Commerce Clause power or Constituttional Law in general, a good treatise is "Understanding Constititional Law" by Erwin Chemerinsky. It saved my butt in my Con Law final this semester.
"All great truths begin as blasphemies." -George Bernard Shaw
So what if the kids had pipe bombs? Did they use them to kill the other kids?
Here's how it can be "the guns' fault": If the kids didn't have access to guns, how would the other kids have died? The pipe bombs were intended to blow up the school after they were already done killing everybody with the guns. You can't very well expect people to stand still while you wire pipe bombs to their ankles. No guns = fewer dead kids.
And how, exactly, are pipe bombs conceptually different from guns? They both use a trigger and explosives to shoot projectiles at people. How can it be OK to use a metal tube with a trigger to shoot chunks of metal into a burglar, but not be OK to use a metal tube with a trigger to shoot chunks of metal into a burglar?
The "human responsibility" factor is totally useless as a preventative. All humans are prone to irrational behavior. And I'd rather my crazy neighbor be armed with a frying pan than with a gun when he or she goes off the hook one day. That's why murder is a relative rarity in nations where guns are strictly controlled. It's hard work to kill someone without a gun.
I won't even go into how stupid the "people would be killing each other anyway, so they should be able to do it more easily" argument is.
And when normal people are elected to congress, they assume the persona of one who is concerned about the nation's kids.
The difference is, kids know games are not real, and stop the role when the game is over.
Save the world, ban imagination.
Parental advice will only go so far. I am 20 years old and I believe I have a much better perception of how the youth thinks than the vast majority of adults, some even their own parents. I speak for myself, but if anyone agrees, please say so. All we're ever told is what we CAN'T do, not what we CAN do. From infancy, we are bombarded with "NO"'s. It reminds me of the way state laws work: make a law and force them to follow. If they don't abide, they are punished. Rather than acting high and mighty all the time, how about a different more compassionate approach? Maybe somewhere more along the lines of giving us the knowledge and guidance to make our own decisions based on whats right and wrong. If you raised us right, then we'll make the right decision correct? Otherwise you're merely putting off a problem that will only manifest into something more tragic in the future. Guess what? With proper consideration most of us will realize it's just a game, enjoy it for what it is, and leave it untied to reality. I'm sick of parental authority. I may piss people off here, but it's bullshit. Parental guidance would be a hell of a lot better. Keep teaching us to follow and we'll end up exactly like the ignorant masses who work like drones just to survive today. Give us guidance, teach us to lead, and eventually you need not worry about video games because we will no longer need your decisions. And the way I see it, it's far and few between that the right decisions are made anymore, so maybe it would be better to let us decide anyway. (OUCH! So am I going to be flamed here?)
Most kids get their games through piracy anyway, as they can't afford to shell out for every half-way decent game that's released, so it won't affect them.
I know, I know, it's the principle of the thing, but I dunno, I mean it's not like letting this become law will corrupt our virgin body of sensible laws which contain no fascist nonsense already.
graspee
Both of these groups are accompanied by a female of some sort. In the Rebel case it's usually a wife or a girlfriend who is shoping with the guy. In the 14 case it's the child's mom who is actually purchasing the game and does not know what the game is actually about.
Personally I am glad when my register beeps at me to let me know "Must be >21 to purchace" when I scan one of these games. The person who accompanies the perchasee is startles and asks "Why does it say that?" In this case I read off the ESRB rating and the endorsements (Sex,Drugs,Violence, etc.) Sometimes the purchaser(The acompnier) will buy the game after I explain why it's a restricted purchasing. Other times they just say "Mabe we'll come back later"
If we can't let our kids kill things, beat people with large/heavy/pointy objects in virtual reality, how are we as a society going to populate the Marine Corps??? (BTW I am a big fan of the military, but those Marines are nutz)
This will just cause an underground ring to develop for video games. You could even start having games, or mods for games, being developped by people that are only released in an underground.
of course the unspoken part of this statement infects the death of quake mods (q3f, urban terror, et al) shareware/freeware games such as druglord et al. and all of their ilk, as organized groups making these mods could be easily targeted and prosecuted. how do you think extridition treaties would work in this respect?
makes you feel 'patriotic' or something doesn't it?
-tid242
With a few exceptions, secrecy is deeply incompatible with democracy and with science. --Carl Sagan
The decapacitation and amputation clause may make sense
Will it be illegal to make a game whose main character is a legless boy? "You see, Your Honor, even though you don't see any legs getting cut off in the game, the fact that he doesn't have any legs most surely implies that there was an amputation somewhere. Ban it!" And watch the bought-and-paid-for judge conveniently ignore the fact that the boy is from a race of people born without lower appendages, as was explained in both the manual and the help file.
Will I retire or break 10K?
you forget that *99%* of the news in this country is provided via 2 huge corporations (excluding internet news, which bumps it up to like 3). they will never be censored, they *own* too many people *we* vote into positions of power...
-tid242
With a few exceptions, secrecy is deeply incompatible with democracy and with science. --Carl Sagan
Oh yeah, the same teenager that can no longer buy GTA3 can still rent/buy the Scorpian King? And hey, they can get their fill of murder, death, rape and violence from the evening news. Wanna bet a WWF wrestling game depicting people being smashed by Grand Piano and still continuing to fight would make it past regulation? Yeah, regulation is the answer to everything!
You need a FREE iPod Nano
>>> Something people don't seem to recognize is that video games have become a lot more "real" in just the last five years. Real to the point that a person can get their health back by having sex with a prostitute.
This is news? Health-restoring whores were already commonplace in 1988 in Zelda II! It's true:
1: Walk into any town.
2: Talk to any scarlet woman outdoors.
3: If she invites you in, follow.
4: She'll give you her "special medicine" to restore your life!
While the graphics weren't very realistic, it still got the point across to everyone who played Zelda II. Let's be glad that legislators took 14 years to get the message!
Did I miss something?
At Target, we card people buying certain "M" rated (ESRB rating for Mature) games. I believe this is because of federal law already in place. In the past 7 months I've only had 1 time when a minor tried to buy an M game. It was the Diablo 2 expansion pack. More often, parents will come through with their kids and buy the sex/profanity/violence ridden Grand Theft Auto 3 (top selling game I heard) for PS2.
And the weird thing is, we DON'T card if a 13 year old girl wants to buy Resident Evil or some other rated R movie. That makes a lot of sense. I guess the feds figure as long as its not interactive then its OK?
Hacking the Network
We know that sometimes kids who are never exposed to alcohol
until they are 19 or 21 can go way overboard the first time...
So that's why my mother used to give me bourbon when I was 3...!
Some people just have to go around planting their dynamite in one place when it should be in another, much more obvious but more politically dangerous place. (We need an engineer! Disarm the dynamite!)
Your argument was well thought out but fundamentally flawed. The issue at stake here is not what rights the constitution and other legal safeguards acknolwedge but whether or not these rights are inherent and therefore independent of any government or legal system. I would argue that they are. The fact that the government does not recognize the rights of those under 18 does not mean that said persons have no rights. Our nation was founded upon the belief that all free people have inalienable rights. Our constitution is not something that grants rights to the people the way a monarch once granted indulgences. The constitution RECOGNIZES certain rights and freedoms and it stands as a testament to their being an innate aspect of man in the natural state of freedom.
So when some politician or another comes along, smiles for the camera, and proceeds to practice the age old art of fooling enough of the voters enough of the time to stay in office, don't tell me that its alright based upon flaws and loopholes in our legal system.
I can guarantee you that if the voting age in this country were around 12 that bills like this would never ever see the light of day. Politicians like picking on the young because its a good way to generate publicity and most older people have lost so many brain cells that they don't remember what THEY THEMSELVES were like in their younger days. Instead they buy into this sterotype that says anyone under 18 is barely able to wipe their own ass. Its the same with the curfew laws and ordinances, they don't do anything to keep anyone safe, but they sure do get people elected.
I turn 30 this year and the BS that I had to put up with as a teenager makes even less sense to me now, and it didn't make ANY sense back then. Actually I take that back, it makes more sense to me now. I now understand that trying to understand this kind of crap in rational or even knowledgable terms just won't work. The only context in which any of it makes sense is ageism. Like racism and sexism, and any other form of irrational discrimination you care to mention, ageism is a very real thing. People of all ages are hit by it, but the young and the old are hit the most. The same prejudice that says the average 15 year old is "impressionable" also says the average 75 year old is senile. There are immature idiots of any age and the teenage years hardly corner the market on that. Senility is also not a normal part of growing old but the sign of a serious problem such as alzheimer's disease.
Anyway I'm getting off track here. What I mainly want to say is that the rights and freedoms that your legal points say don't apply to the young are in fact not bound by the law nor by any government. They exist regardless as they are a innate and inalienable aspect of human sentience. Only through oppression and volence can they be suppressed, but they can never be dissolved or destroyed. If someone is old enough to make the money to buy a video game, he or she is old enough to play that video game. If you don't like it then the next time you're under 18 you can exercise your right to not buy those video games. Also if you have children you can exercise your power over them to steer them away from those games. But never shall the government or any other third party have the right to dictate what people can and cannot choose to look at.
Lee
Muslim community leaders warn of backlash from tomorrow morning's terrorist attack.
i agree, i get pisssed at a kid in school cause hes a fucking jock, come home sit down at my computer and frag sarge into last tuesday, it reallly helps with anger management
EX-CU-U-U-SE ME! *I* screen the videos, games, TV shows, movies, music, etc. to which my son has access. He surfs the Net; *I* am responsible to monitor his usage logs. Me and his mother, not some bunch of idiot politicians or appointed guardian-of-morals commission.
This is more crap because too many parents are just too damn ignorant to do the job they signed on for---raising their kids themselves---and too damn lazy to learn how. Yes it's easier to dump your responsibilities on someone else (oh, please keep me from doing something I know I shouldn't be doing...). DRECK!
Left-wing and right-wing; all y'all suck. The magic words are "I am responsible." Sorry that scares you so much---deal with it.
'Scuse me while I puke awhile (sorry, Jimi),
Thumper
Besides, no where in the Constitution does it say that persons are afforded free and clear access to any content or media they want.
The First Amendment says we have it by default. It is an unrestricted liberty until a law denies that access. "Congress shall make no law ... abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press ... "
It seems pretty simple to me. Congress is not allowed to make laws abridging these rights. In the courts' interpretation of the "spirit of the law," other media unforeseen by the framers may be considered as part of "the press." Notice the amendment says nothing along the lines of "except for dangerous speech and obscene books."
Previous courts may have ruled these exceptions as constitutional, but that doesn't mean the Constitution itself makes these exceptions. The Constitution says what it says; no more, no less.
That said, I agree with you that any such legislation belongs at the state level.
- MFN
"Slow down, Cowboy! It has been 3 years, 7 months and 26 days since you last successfully posted a comment."
I remember time, when I played Galaga on arcade. It was game about killing people with lethal weapons (they were in flying in ships, just like me).
Then I remember River Raid on Atari, it was about killing people with lethal weapons (they were in tanks and helicopters).
Then I remember Prince of Persia, it was about killing people with lethal weapons (swords).
Now I like Civilization 3, it is about killing people with lethal weapons (tanks, fighters, rockets, nuke).
Looks like all my life I was killing people in computer games. I am really sorry. I should play only solitare (and NOT minesweeper).
So I'll guess we can say goodbye to Pacman. Here we have a cheese who get more power, when eating pills. That sounds like drug use to me.
I simply argue they should be kept out of the hands of children. I don't have a problem with adults having them. I live in a state where nearly every adult owns one (no, not TX) and I've been to NYC where almost no one has them, and guess what? People are a lot more polite here, as could be expected.
Maybe I spoke hastily, but also where I live there's a large proportion of gun-owning hicks who think ANY firearm legislation means "the guvmint's tryin' ta take our guns!"
Guns don't kill people, people kill people. I agree. But children would have an awful harder time butchering their classmates before being stopped, if they didn't have access to the guns in the first place.
-Kasreyn
Kasreyn: Cheerfully playing the part of Devil's Advocate to hairtrigger
Just because you and I were sane and responsible children, doesn't mean others are. Columbine is a case in point.
We don't let kids drive, because they might go off the road and kill someone. They're immature and inexperienced. Is it so much of a logical leap to decide that they shouldn't be entrusted with small, portable, concealable weapons which give untrained children the ability to kill?
-Kasreyn
Kasreyn: Cheerfully playing the part of Devil's Advocate to hairtrigger
Ok, this (or maybe it was a different ruling, same topic) says that (some?) video games are not protected speech. Correct?
As in, not protected by copyright, kind of unprotected speech?
As in, Code is protected, binaries (that don't convey a story?) aren't?
As in, MS Word can't be considered copyrightable?
Ok, I know this doesn't mention non-games, but isn't that a logical conclusion?
... at most GameStop locations.
Nearly every video game available for purchase today depicts death in form or another; at least minors will still be able to purchase Office 2002 or "Barney's Great Adventure."
Someone may have done this already, but why don't console manufacturers build in a parental lock facility to their h/w?
This would be particularly useful for parents who can't (for whatever reason) monitor their kids use.
So, junior's [console] is subjected to a unique button press combination by his ma and pa which renders it incapable of playing anything above the selected [ERSB/ELSPA, etc] rating. Short of him developing l33t 5kill5 the console would be as safe as the password. This could alos be extended to time barring (i.e. set it to only allow 2/3/4 hours of play per day).
Given that most consoles have a fair few controller press combinations it should be a pretty secure method of deterring younger kids.
Needless to say, this would rely on the software industry putting some sort of "rating" identifier on their products.
Personally, I'm against all of this sort of stuff but I can see that there are lots of situations where young kids can be left to their own devices, unsupervised, for long periods of time.
As an aside, a friend of mine recently borrowed a copy of GTA3 from one of his mates for the weekend. As it turns out, his two nephews come to visit for the weekend (both well under 18 years old). They immediately head for the PS2. They find out he has a copy of GTA3. They beg to play it. My friend explains to their parents that its 18 rated, violent, etc. The parents say it's ok, but only for a little while.
So the console goes on. GTA3 goes in the drive. The kids start playing. They get as far as deciding to club prostitutes to death up an alley. They do this, pretty much consistently, for 15/20 minutes solid.
Then they get bored, decided the game was rubbish and went and did something else. Draw your own conculsions.
hand-to-hand combat
...
Like pong?
If you watch a performance of Oedipus [...] Phaedra [...] Europa [...]Orestes
I could take these comments more seriously if you weren't citing them in a context where they are being compared to video games. It would suggest that you think there is equal redeeming intellectual and artistic quality between these works and, say, Quake 3?
I love seeing you Slashdot drama geeks shit digital bricks over this issue. It exposes some interesting double-standards. I don't see daily tirades on Slashdot over keeping kids away from violent movies or alcohol or sexual content in various mediums.
But say the same about video games... and gosh, the pocket protector is off now, buddy! Suddenly it's an affront on my rights and your rights and his and her rights and it's the coming of the Big Brother state and it's just like censoring classical works of literature. Yeah, just like it. See how the shambling zombies explode into a beautifully rendered 64-bit oblivion of burning intestines and scorched flesh and how he collapses into a sloshing, frothy spray of his own blood and bodily fluids? Taking that away from a kid is just like saying, "No, you can't read that play by Sophocles!"
--Rick
--Rick "If it isn't broken, take it apart and find out why."
I've never been in a fight. I've never punched anyone. I don't own a weapon.
The fact that you think this is noteworthy speaks volumes. This is not just "Passive behaviour", this is "Normal behaviour".
I keep seeing this comment about how parents are the ones who have to take on this responsibility. Fine by me. As a parent, I embrace that responsibility wholeheartedly. I play my share of violent games and know what's out there. I keep those games locked in my file cabinet. I don't want my child being exposed to it.
However, the video game industry does a shitty job of providing me with the information I need as a buyer. Businesses that use video games in public places to generate profit or as demos (theaters, toy stores, electronic shops, arcades) need to do a better job of keeping violent games out of the reach and view of smaller children. I don't see that happening. Not at all.
Instead, I see people being gunned down gorily on a game demo at Toys R Us or Circuit City. I see ultra violent games like House of the Dead 2 on public display at my local Regal Cinemas. Complaining about these things does nothing. I've tried. I even talked to the guy at the corporate offices of Regal about it and got nowhere.
As usual, the people making money are not listening.
I recently picked up a game for my child (who is six and absolutely in love with video games.) It was rated E. Everybody, right? The game featured some surprising acts of violence and a lot of punching, kicking, fighting, none of which was indicated on the box. Furthermore, the freakin' game was based on a children's cartoon. I was given none of this information before the purchase. I tried to return the game and was told that, since it was opened, it could not be returned.
These kinds of policies are inexcuseable and effectively erode my ability as a parent to act in the responsible manner that so many others say I should. If retailers and game developers don't get off their thumbs and get something worked out, there will be growing support for this kind of legislation, and all the pissing and moaning on Slashdot about Big Brother and our rights being trampled will count for zilch.
The MSNBC article mentions that game companies realize they are not doing enough. I hope they act on that soon because as it stands, I am NOT on their side of this issue.
--Rick
--Rick "If it isn't broken, take it apart and find out why."
The German tragedy suggests gun control is ineffective
Europe with it's strict gun control laws has far less shootings than the US. How are the laws ineffective?
The Drowned and the Saved - Primo Levi
The Columbine shooting was a combination of nutty kids and adults who left guns within their fucking reach. It had nothing to do with videogames. But of course, videogames are easier for a Congresscritter to attack.
:)
It's kind of hard to pass an effective law which would outlaw stupidity and/or mental illness
"I've had enough of the violence we're experiencing among our youth," Baca says.
Then maybe you should try to take care of the pressures in society that are creating the violence, instead of dealing with the ways people are expressing that violence. You can't cure a disease by hiding (or in this case banning) the symptoms.
Has anyone ever successfully argued that these types of games might actually provide a possibly healthy outlet for "deviants"? Allowing people who might otherwise act out in real life to express anger or other antisocial tendencies through video games could actually benefit society.
Dupe posts are
I"ve got a simple solution that may get me modded down, but here goes. How about making a law that adheres to the rating system that already exists. Instead of outlawing youngsters from buying games, card those who are buying an MA game. MA games require you to be 17, so you get the 17+ demographic thats so important. If 16 year olds want it, have them ask their parents. For Teen games, its like a PG-13 movie. That gives you all the 13+ demographic. For E games or KA, you don't really have to card. These things are pretty simple folks. We don't have to re-invent the wheel here. To be honest, I don't think it needs any kind of legislation, but to the religious right who are so determined to control everything, just look at the situation for a second and come up with something sane.
13 year old white supremacists are shitty web designers.
There aren't enough video game lobbyists pressuring Congress. Keep in mind, the movie industry does contribute quite a bit of money to various political campaigns....
Violent video games in no way constitute a violation of US obscenity laws, though some may be considered indecent. The government has no authority to regulate non-broadcast indecent materials. Game sales are not broadcast media. This bill is already dead. Don't worry folks, this is just for political show.
Introducing a new video game: Terrorism
Become a muslim extremist terrorist and attempt to destroy the evil zionist countries. Your first mission: become a suicide bomber and kill at least 5 Isreali soldiers. Uhm, actually this will be your last mission as well.
Anyone who supports this bill and this type of mentality deserves the Orwellian world the feds are building.
Hi @ all,
.
1st - I'm from Germany (where for example all id games are indexed by some institution)
After the tragedy at Erfurt(u possibly heard of) our politicians are talking about this subject, too.
This psycho guy at Erfurt "owned" a license to buy all kind of weapons because he was in a some shooting club ( !? dont know the word for it - u know where u can go for shooting at this paper guys). He get this license without any problems. The Police found "38!" violent (whatever this means) games (1 was CS) at his home and now (again) they want to harden the ways to buy or rent violent games or videos and anything like this. And they want to restrict graphical features, too.
They want that violent videogames or violent medias are not available for children (this is OK in my mind).
But they are talking about Quaker, CS freaks,.. like they are all psychos or some. I'am 24 years and definitly not a psycho. I play Quake since it was realeased the first time. Perhaps i would kick real buds now instead of virtual if there were nothing like quake or videogames to reduce stress from job,...
Why dont they restrict anything violent (war pics in TV or newspaper,... ) ):, when they are talking about this subject; or will we restrict the access for children to anything like this?
Perhaps we have to sell newspapers in a restricted over 18 area in the future and for example why dont cancel History at school because the teachers tell kids about wars and show pics about these wars in history books (our past is full of bloody violence).
Tell me about something "without" some kind of violence (Teletubbies perhaps (= ).
When they are kicking out all the graphical features they talking about then what shall we play, perhaps something like PONG (;). Perhaps we would have only 1 GHz CPUs without videogames because they are powerful enough for office apps,... . Videogames are one major reason for CPU improvements, but is something else.
Iam really not able to write down (or translate) all my anger and anything what comes to my mind about this subject.
I only hope that i and anybody old enough will be able to buy the videos/games that anybody want to see/play in the future without anykind of restrictions. One of these is defintitly id's Doom3. Yes!, another splatter game with huge realism (and another game which will definitly get indexed in Germany ): )
- i hope my english isn't to bad and u folks understand what im talking about (;-
Not some stupid bill that restricts sales. Just because I can't buy it doesn't mean I won't play anymore. Oh the possibilities of obtaining software.
versicherungen of versicherung der Versicherungsvergleich.
But krankenversicherung is autoversicherung because KFZ-versicherung is Lebensversicherung.
And private is Krankenversicherung why Rentenversicherung blah!
Haftpflichtversicherung something.
direktversicherung test!
berufsunfShigkeitsversicherung of ten 10.......
pflegeversicherung, Unfallversicherung, Versicherungsmakler, Bundesversicherungsanstalt but Krankenversicherungen....
Sozialversicherung! Autoversicherungen....
versicherungskennzeichen
Why would reiserncktrittsversicherung not work for rechtschutzversicherung or Hausratversicherung? I think Auslandskrankenversicherung is better than
Risikolebensversicherung.
eInsurance
if virtual pornography got through this doesnt have much chance. likely they just want a way to stick they hands out for some more cash from big business.
... gimme some reasons to act otherwise lobbist"
"i am thinking about crushing your industry
is about all i see in this
members are seeing something, your seeing an ad