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
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.
--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.
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.