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.
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
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.
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
It is funny how much of an impact a simple 2d game named Grand Theft Auto can have on the world.
Derek
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
"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.
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
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."
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"
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?
Most movies aren't interactive... while most games involve rewarding the player for some behaviors and punishing other behaviors. For instance, a pacifist style of play isn't too feasible in most FPSes, because it tends to end your game rather quickly.
H.R. 4645 refers specifically to "video and computer games", not movies.
Only the dead have seen the end of war.
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
- 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.....
> 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)
how is this more unconstitutional than the movie theatres refusing to allow minors admintance to R rated movies ? Don't get me wrong this is CRAP, another example of the government trying to parent instead of doing what they are there for, but I see this going through. In the 'NEW' facist america it is better to protect the potential for abuse than deal with reality. Beware the HomeLand Defense for will come for you.
errr....umm...*whooosh* *whoosh* Is this thing on ?
"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?
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.
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.
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?
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.
"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.
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.
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.
Funny you should mention that. It's called the raver scene. Or as I like to refer to them, e-tards.
cheese logs keep my wang warm at night.
Ok, so that means instead of just buying the game, I have to drag my parents (who don't care anyway) out of the house, have them walk in the store, show ID, and then purchase it for me instead of simply going in, swiping my Visa, and leaving.
...must have played lots of "Mailbox Baseball III: Pipe Bomb"
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.
it is unconstitutional. where in the constitution does it mention that speech can be free but not to children?
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
--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
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!
GreyPoopon
--
Why is it I can write insightful comments but can't come up with a clever signature?
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.
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!
"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."
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.
>how is this more unconstitutional than the movie
>theatres refusing to allow minors admintance to
>R rated movies ?
Very simple: There is no law that requires movie theatres to refuse to allow admission to minors.
Since no such law exists, how can it be "more or less unconstitutional" than the law being proposed regarding games?
-fb Everything not expressly forbidden is now mandatory.
...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.
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
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.
...richie - It is a good day to code.
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.
Well, the reasoning for me would be that I'd much rather have my kid looking at boobies than watching gruesome, bloody deaths or role-playing as a violent, criminal murderer. Maybe I'm alone on this one.
This tagline is umop apisdn.
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.
I think that was part of the joke. Of course, an added bit of humor is that the raver scene is biggest with one generation removed from the Pac-man generation.
__
Do ya feel happy-go-lucky, punk?
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
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.
ok, i was trolling about the porn thing... but video games? what kid buys his own video games anyway? do you know any kid that has $60? if they do, they most likely have jobs, and are mature enough to be able to handle a violent video game. the restriction by law is not going to keep violent games out of kids hands because the kids are not going to be the ones buying the game anyway, its the parents, who should actually be paying attention to waht thier children play if they are concerned about them being exposed to violence.
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.
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.
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!"
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.....
Make a game about the American Revolution. Then raise a big stink about how you can't use it to teach children about how y'all threw off the shackles of the British Monarchy, because it's illegal for children to learn about such things.
Vintage computer games and RPG books available. Email me if you're interested.
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
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.
Comment removed based on user account deletion
it is perfectly legal for a kid to go to an R rated movie. the ratings are by the MPAA, and enforced by the theater staff. no government involvement
"...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.
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
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.
why should retailers be the ones responsible. if you do not want your kid playing violent video games, don't buy them for him, and confiscate them when you find them. who gave retailers (or lawmakers for that matter) parental responsibility?
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
I remember re"read"ing a few passages from the Clan of the Cave Bear series several times as a kid, but now it makes national news when she announces she's writing a new book. Not a mention of sexual content in those press releases; no complaints about corrupting children.
__
Do ya feel happy-go-lucky, punk?
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.
-
"There is zero proof that smoking causes lung cancer -- only speculation."
Anybody else remember seeing a black lung? Yuck.
There's definitely enough proof that the surgeon general has issued a warning on all cirgarette packs. There's a warning in your Nintendo 64 manual about the system potentially causing epileptic seizures. There is not a warning on video games saying they cause anti social behaviour. Why? Because they can't even generate evidence of that.
So yes, there is a huge difference.
"Derp de derp."
MPAA != government
Though Jack Valenti wishes it were.
Fascism starts when the efficiency of the government becomes more important than the rights of the people.
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.
a) As others have mentioned, it's not illegal for a minor to see R or NC-17 movies (see that 17 in in MC-17? 17 year olds are minors). It's a standard that the industry imposes upon itself.
b) Far more graphic than any move made in the past few years? I don't know what movies you've been watching, but it's obviously not the famous ones that everyone else in the world watches, like Saving Private Ryan.
c) This legislation doesn't make parents responsible. It makes store owners responsible. Now, you can argue about whether or not it's ethical for store owners to sell GTA3 to any 9 year old with a couple 20s (where did they get those 20s?), but legislation of morality is a hideous abomination that should be stomped on.
d) I don't have a problem with stores choosing to card people. I have a huge problem with them being FORCED to card people.
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."
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?
I think the 'Troll' (as is marked right now) has a point, I was basically apalled in 2nd grade Lutheran School when I learned of the "Childrens Crusade". Make a game based on that, just don't put the religous twist on it right away.
Basically, advocating having kids go out and kill people for a chunk of land..
Needless to day, I didn't do so well in Lutheran school..
"I can't give you a brain, so I'll give you a diploma" - The Great Oz (blatently stolen sig)
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)
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!
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
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...
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."
A 16 year old lost his right to go buy a video game. Now he/she needs to drag his parent along with him. I had friends that were PARENTS at 16.
"Derp de derp."
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
Like with masturbation -- you can go blind if you do it too much.
I hope you're being Facetious.
Even Pac-Man clearly glorifies occult-flavored necro-cannibalism as the hero races to eat undead spirits before they eat him.
Will the madness never end???
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.
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.
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
"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.
Yeah. I shouldn't have to suffer because 1. My parents don't care that I choose what I do and I'm fine, and 2. Johnny's parents don't care, and he's NOT fine.
Thanks for Getting It. :)
I was aiming for a or +1, (Ha Ha Only Serious) and lost my gamble.
Holy books from the three main world religions have just as much sex and violence in 'em - whether as historical accounts or as exhortations to the faithful - as video games. (Well, like I said, minus the carjackings.)
And I think anyone would recognize that the atrocities carried out in the name of the three main world religions have a considerably higher body count than video games.
Of course, religion's been around a lot longer than video gaming.
Then again, I think it's a pretty safe bet that the body count racked up by kids brought up on violent religious beliefs this afternoon is in excess of the body count racked up by kids who grew up on violent video games.
Compared with religion's power to fuck with people's heads and inspire them to murderous violence, GTA3 is pretty small potatoes.
I'd prefer to see as much speech as possible - however repugnant I may find it - protected. (Junk fax and spam and telemarketing fail because they're trespass to chattel. Virtual kid pr0n fails, IMHO, because legalizing it implies that when rendering tech makes it possible to produce something indistinguishable from "the real thing", the scum who produce "the real thing" will have a foolproof way to raise "reasonable doubt" in the minds of jurors.)
But if (as it appears) we're gonna throw away the First Amendment and eliminate certain forms of speech because they might incite some people to violence, we need to stop looking at video games and start looking at religious fanatacism.
There is zero proof that smoking causes lung cancer -- only speculation.
Well actually, it has been proven. First, they have done some excellent epidemiologic studies which indicated it -- I think that's what you're referring to here in comparison to the studies of violence and video games. However, there has since been biological research which has shown the actual mechanism by which cigarette smoke causes cancer. This came out just a few (maybe 3?) years ago; unfortunately, I don't remember where I read about it. It wasn't a big surprise, since everyone already knew very well that it caused cancer.
As for families that don't allow violent games being "conservative," most of the families I know that don't allow violent games are the same ones that don't allow wars toys, the "hippy liberal peacenik" types.
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'
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.
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.
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?
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
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.
Unlike Spider-man they haven't turned it into a video game yet. Maybe they should. Would a video game depicting (courts ruling that games depicting (courts ruling that games depicting (courts ruling that games depicting ...
?
graspee
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
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?
>>> 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!
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 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).
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
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
In fact, I think it will only strengthen the number of children playing these games.
Except that they will likely be playing "black market" (aka "pirate") copies. Thus comming into contact with people supplying these and quite probably other black market products.
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.
Conversely if something is perfectly legit fewer people may want to try it. Especially rebelious young people.
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
how is this more unconstitutional than the movie theatres refusing to allow minors admintance to R rated movies ?
Because here someone buys a ticket to see a movie in someone else's private property. The US constitution regulates government not the conduct of a private business.
Where does the constitution mention children have any rights? I'll give you a hint... it doesn't.
It dosn't have to. The document is written that all people (or at least those present in the territory of the US) have rights by default.
Where does it say "these rights only apply to US citizens who meet such and such criteria of adulthood"? Even if there ever was such a clause it would have been voided by the 14th ammendment...
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.
Also there is a specific part of the US Constitution which should close any such loophole. That being the 10th ammendment.
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.
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.