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!
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.
--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)
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.
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
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.
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.
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.
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...