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.

Comments

good.

[geekoid]

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.

Re:good.

[Tackhead]

> It doesn't say "realistically" depict. Nor does it even say "graphically" depict; it's a valid statement to say that "Zork depicts a fantasy world" or that "Zork depicts the possibility of gruesome death at the claws of monsters lurking in the dark".
>
> An aggressive, if stupid, DA could twist the law into banning, [ ... ]

You left out the other possibility: Corrupt.

What better way to make sure your competitor's game never gets to market than to tip off the DA in some ultraconservative town in East Buttfuck, Montana, and have your competitor's company bogged down in standards/litigation/reviews for six months?

This doesn't happen in Hollyweird with movies (except on rare occasions) because the Content Cartel has agreed that NC-17 movies don't get sold. So everyone makes R at most.

Likewise with RIAA - good God, we almost had Tipper "Explicit Lyrics must be banned" Gore as First Lady. *shudder* - but there's a cartel there that limits what gets out.

The game development community hasn't had time to form cartels and lobby groups to the extent that the dinosaur industries have, and as a result, we've got the current situation - they're a sitting duck for crap like this law.

The law they should pass.

[bahtama]

I got an idea for a law that will solve alot of these problems. It is called the "You Must Spend Time With Your Kids and Teach Them Right From Wrong." bill.

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)

But this doesn't address the root cause...

[gillbates]

The problem with this bill is that it is a feel-good-for-the-naive type of legislation that does little more than frustrate the efforts of teenagers who want to do something other than vandalize property, commit crimes, do drugs, and the like. Video games have kept kids from getting into real trouble since their inception. The problem is not with violent video games, but violent people!

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.

Re:The problem is overreaction...

[Bastian]

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.