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.
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.
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
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
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.
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.
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.....
"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.
Um, technically 'Archon' would qualify, as it depicts "the killing of human beings or human-like beings by the use of an object as a lethal weapon or hand-to-hand fighting". So would BattleChess, or, for that matter, Zork I, given that it prohibits depictions in general, instead of specifically realistic graphical depictions.
Only the dead have seen the end of war.
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.
Hmmm. Except... why would this be a Federal matter at all, instead of states?
Frankly, I don't buy the "interstate commerce clause" argument in the bill. The ICC was not meant to be a catch-all loophole for the Fed to pass any damn law it wants on the basis that it MIGHT affect interstate trade. Somebody wants this? Fine, talk to your own state legislature for a change.
Only the dead have seen the end of war.
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.
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 agree that limiting stuff on TV too far is going overboard, and we need to recognize that there is a trade-off between enabling parents to shelter children from things they deem to be a bad influence and denying children the ability to be exposed to things that are necessary to develop a mature understanding of the world.
I say enabling parents to shelter their children from bad influence because that is all this law does. There is nothing saying that kids can't get their parents to go out and rent or buy these games for them. Just as parents are free let their kids watch Terminator 2 as they deem fit, parents would still be able to buy their children a copy of GTA 3. I realize that some parents take things too far, but we need to realize that children have varying levels of maturity, and what is appropriate for one kid is not necessarily appropriate for another. Unfortunately, the best way to take this into account is to leave the decision up to the kids, which is clearly an imperfect solution considering the dogmatic, self aggrandizing idiocy that all too many adults seem to think passes as raising children. I don't think there's really a better way, though.
This law isn't saying that kids shouldn't be allowed to play some video games. It's saying that kids should have supervision in some areas. As long as the law is made with that in mind, I don't think it's a bad thing. It's the mindset that children need to be sheltered that scares me - in the same way that we need to be exposed to pathogens to develop a healthy immune system, I think kids need to be exposed to the harsher side of life in order to learn how to deal with it. It's just that we still need to take care of them to some extent.
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.
what need.....this law enables parents to make the desision which is a good thing.
arent video games labeled right now? don't parents already have control of their children? really though, where is a kid going to get the $40 for a video game? if the kid is selling crack for the money, then the parent really has other issues to deal with. it's simple, when the kid wants a game the parent communicates with the kid.
questions like:
``why do you want this game?''
``dont you find it strange that the objective of this game is to beat up a nun and take her car?''
``you do realize the difference between this game and reality?''
and the most important one of all:
``could i take on an active role in your life?''
this law just gives parents another excuse to let the tv raise their children, and i dont think it is the answer. the parents who wants control can exercise it. it's simple, you read the labels on video games and tell your kids ``i dont think this is good for someone of your age''. there you just controlled your kids without legislation.
-- john
You've got a good point there. And people could say, "well, 18 is the standard age for stuff like this." That's an asinine argument, though because the USA departed from that on the driving age (16, 14 in some circumstances if I remember right) and the drinking age (which is ludicrously high). I'd say that for the most part, 15 is a good age. OTOH, I'm sure many many adults wouldn't agree in the case of games like GTA3, where you can go pick up prostitutes and have sex with them in the back of your car.
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!"?
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?
While I agree that most of people who play violent game won't be criminals, I still think we have to think about this kind of game. Lot of people, including me, think GTA or other killing game is OK. Then how about the game about rape? I heard about this japanese game that if player follow this girl long enough, you can rape her at the end. I guess people can say same thing about this game. "This game is fun". "I like to play this game but I'm not a rapist". But when I first heard about this game, I thought this is too extreme. Then I relized how much I'm comfortable with violence in game. Sure I don't think I will be a violent person, yet somehow I'm enjoying the role in a game. Who knows, when I play the rape game, maybe I will enjoy playing the rapist role too.
I'm not saying we should ban all of violent games. But we should think about this... somehow... I don't have a good solution myself.
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.
Dude....
what ever happened to "if i catch you bringing that game into this house or playing it anywhere else, i'll smash the game and confiscate your PlayStation?"
and as much as i enjoy video games, a good many kids would be much better off if, instead of wringing their hands about how violent video games are, their parents shipped the youngsters outside to play, interact with their peers, burn off some energy, and get some exercise.