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.
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)
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.....
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.
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.
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.