Slashdot Mirror
Congress To Consider Age Limits On Violent Games
labrat1123 writes "It looks like Congress is getting ready to revisit the 'Protect Children from Video Game Sex and Violence Act.' Cliff Notes version: It would become a federal crime to sell or rent a violent video game to anyone under 18. Entire article available on CNN." Note that this is not a law; it's a bill being readied for reintroduction after its original version was killed last session.
Its parents that need to protect children.
1;
Before complaining about what our representatives are concentrating on, its good to find out what their priorities are.
Or perhaps a letter to your local congressman telling him to concentrate on the problems you see (which I can guarentee are getting their fair share of attention) and ONLY those problems.
Also, our unemployment rates now would make people from the 80s' mouths drop. The economy isn't bad at all.
Whale
Oh yeah, don't forget that the federal government is marketing war games to our teenagers to boost enlistment rates.
Healthcare article at Kuro5hin
But I'll say it again. Congress shouldnt have any mandate here. Parents, pay some fscking attention to your kids and what they do!! Take active part in their lives, learn something about their pastimes and games. It works, I'm living proof. Lotsa violent games in my past and I've never decapitated anyone without good cause.
:)
Even today my mom hears updates from me now and then on my progress in the Warcraft3 ladder, and what the game is basically about, even if she has no idea how to play it. She also got a kick out of GTA Vice City and Conkers Bad Fur Day, and feels fine about my little sister playing them since she has established a *firm foundation* in my sisters upbringing to the effect that you don't really maul people with chainsaws...
In otherwords, teenagers, talk to your parents! Show them what you play, encourage them to understand the nonsense that Congress is doing, and have them take a more active role.
http://thechubbyferret.net - Ferret pictures and informative links.
I do know that if a child is exposed to sex, drugs, violence, barney or anything else it can be solely blamed on bad parenting. Parents, forget about planning your next cruise, or meeting that special someone now that your divorce is final. Forget about trying for that new premotion to get your career on track. Your job is to raise your children. It is not the job of daycare or school or Gandma. Raising your children is your job. Nothing else matters.
UNIX/Linux Consulting
Noone under the age of 17 may watch an R rated film unless accompanied by an adult, and I believe they may not purchase one either. It is a crime to admit someone under the age of 18 to an XXX rated film, or to sell, rent, give it to them.
With more and more games pushing the envelope closer to traditional porn, stuff like BMX XXX, GTA 3 or DOA Volleyball, this isn't surprising in the least.
Nielson and others have shown that upwards of 90% of the video game *players* are over 21, so this really shouldnt have much of an effect at all.
The ESRB has done a great job of rating games, and are much more descriptive than their TV and movie counterparts, but irresponsible retailers frankly ignore them.
I saw a kid who looked to be 9 or 10 buy a copy of BMX XXX from blockbuster the last time I was there. This game is just full of nudity (at about a playboy level), sexually explicit language and swearing. Left unchecked, the sequel will probably spiral into hardcore porn. It's a crappy game, and the nudity is a gimmick to sell it.
I generally cringe at new legislation, but the industry is incapable and unwilling to police itself. It's illegal and frankly wrong to sell pronography to little kids, even if it's submarined into a second rate Xtreme-SpOrtZ game.
I don't need no instructions to know how to rock!!!!
Too true. Fortunately they haven't tried to stop kids from joining the army when they are seventeen. Much better to give them the real thing rather than virtual immitations.
And they get paid for it too!
People couldn't type. We realized: Death would eventually take care of this.
Good think all the fucking, drinking, smoking and fighting youth will be kept safely away from Vice City 3. Don't want them getting any bad ideas.
Video games are apparently the scapegoat of the new century. I don't see how this proposal is going to help matters -- most retail stores voluntarily enforce the ratings that are already on games. The ones that don't, well, that's where GOOD PARENTING comes in... if you aren't paying attention to what your kids are doing, then the consequences of their actions are on your head.
I haven't learn marksmanship from GTA3, and I've played CounterStrike for years, and I don't think I could effectively defuse a C4 bomb. Violent video games have never conclusively been tied to violent behavior.
Violent movies, on the other hand, have. A more significant problem is the RIAA's granting of the PG-13 rating to movies that are way too violent and gratuitous to be seen by children. Theaters now hardly even enforce the 'R' rating! I have seen a ridiculous amount of news articles about children hurting themselves by imitating popular movies. The RIAA's policies are backwards and inane.
Examples of borderline PG-13 movies:
Eight Crazy Nights
Bad Company
The Fast and the Furious
All the above movies have more violence and obscenity in them than almost any video game in recent memory, but the RIAA apparently thinks constand mindless violence and sexual innuendo is OK!
I strongly disagree with this policy regarding gaming, but since it involves "protecting the children" I don't know a politician who would stand up to it. Seriously, do any of them have the balls to support violent video games?
~D:
On the other hand, where do you draw the line? It seems stupid, for example, to prevent a child from buying BMX XXX but allow a different one to buy edible underwear at frederick's of hollywood. I mean, neither one offends ME, but you can see where I'm going with this.
In the end the only things whose sale should be legally controlled are things which are physically dangerous; Drugs (alcohol/tobacco/high-test prescription medication), and firearms. Anything which is not immediately harmful... well, your child has no rights to speak of until the age of 18, save to be free from abuse, and to not be neglected. You have the legal right, and furthermore I think the moral right and responsibility to go through their things. You also have the responsibility to not be a fucking asshole when you find something that upsets you, and take a step back, and ask who it's hurting.
Now HOLY SHIT you people are getting ready to mod me down and scream at me about privacy because you think it's sacrosanct, but let me tell you something, you have a legal responsibility to care for this child until they are 18, and unless you're a shitty parent you have a responsibility to your own sensibilities to raise them right. If you have a child you can trust so you don't have to raid their hiding places, that's fantastic, and I'm happy for you. You're doing your job, and I think you should have some more kids so everyone else can learn from your example. But for those people who have children too young and/or irresponsible to make wise decisions, NOT looking through their shit could literally kill them through neglect.
Mind you, I'm 26 and have no kids and I have this opinion. I just know what my friends were like as kids. Except for not doing much of anything I was told, I was comparatively a perfect angel until the age of 15, which is when I moved out and started smoking cigs, smoking weed, drinking, and so on. Until then I had straightedge sensibilities. But I know what my friends were like, the little hellions, and they desperately needed more guidance.
"You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
Soon, it will be illegal to sell or loan books containing violence to persons under age 18. That would include the Bible, and keeping that mind-warping drivel from our youth will help break the cycle of these right wing conservative fucks who keep making these retarded bills!!!!!
RTFA!
"Rep. Joe Baca (D. Calif.)" has been working on re-introducing this bill, I somehow doubt that a Democrat from California is a right wing conservative fuck.
I want my rights back. I was actually using them when our government stole them after 9/11.
Absolutely! Of course, my parents saw fit to not let me play certain video games, watch certain movies or television shows, read certain magazines, and in a few cases read certain books. They managed to do all of this without any laws enforcing it. Instead they relied on the tried and true method of actually being parents, involving themselves in my life, paying attention to me, striving to instill ethics in me, setting limits, and punishing me when I violated those limits. I seem to have turned out okay.
Laws like this are unnecessary and won't significantly change things. Good parents will continue to be good parents and bad parents will continue to be bad parents. Attempting to replace bad parents with laws is a terrible idea.
Search 2010 Gen Con events
First of all: it _is_ possible to control all aspects of your childrens' lives. How? Keep them at home, 24-7, and raise them in isolation.
Don't want to do that? Then you're going to have to equip them to deal with the real world: they'll need the social skills to understand the violence, sex, drugs and other issues in the real world as a whole. How do you do that? Expose them to those problems, explain them, and help them to understand why they exist.
No well-balanced child ever killed people, stole things or any other crime. If you're well-raised, you're a good person, end of story. My parents raised me well, and that quite simply is why I dont have the impulse to be a criminal.
Unless your child is mentally ill, you have no excuse if you raise them wrong.
I'm not looking troll: I'm not trying to tell you how to raise your kids, or accuse anyone of having bad parents. I'm here to make the point that we need to take responsibility for our actions, including raising our children.
"Stumble before you crawl"
Think about it. Would you want your 12 year old kid being able to rent Basic Instinct or Natural Born Killers at the video store? Then why would you want them to rent or buy State of Emergency or GTA? Unless you think 12 year olds should be able to go to the movie theater and see Hannibal without adult supervision, you are hereby challenged to explain to me why that kid should be able to rent violent video games.
It's a stupid law.
First, show me the scientific study that proves violent video games are harmful to children.
Second, it's yet another law forcing people to be responsible for raising someone else's kids.
If parents don't want their children playing violent video games then maybe they should take an active interest in their children's life.
People's desire to believe they are right is much stronger than their desire to be right.
What about giving the games away for free? What about violent freeware games?
No, those have to stay available for obvious reason.
Mordor...a magical, mythical land where women are more rare than dragons--but where every man would rather find a dragon
Mod me down for being a boring old fart if you wish.
Modest doubt is called the beacon of the wise. - William Shakespeare
To breed if you're too stupid to be responsible for your kid.
I can see it now.. a room in the back with a black door that say adults only.
Having actually read the editorial, I've discovered that the Congressman wants to make it a federal crime to sell a violent video game to someone under 18.
Already I'm looking forward to funding the VGEA (Video Game Enforcement Agency). Oh goody, yet another excuse for the federal government to pry into our private lives, all in the name of the Children. Well, I've got kids, 15, 11, and 9, and while I let them play Quake, I would never allow them to play GTA Vice City. I wouldn't play that game, myself, and I certainly don't think I need the federales' help in keeping such games out of the hands of my children.
Beyond the legal quagmire issues, there is no Constitutional basis for such a law. The areas in which the feds are allowed to make laws are strictly limited by the Constitution. Nowhere in the Constitution are the feds permitted to make laws against such expressions as books, movies, or games. Of course, that doesn't stop them.
Congress is convinced that it can decide for itself what ethics it will hold its members to and the President doesn't have the balls to order the FBI to launch a reign of terror on corrupt Congresscritters. Congress was terrified of the ABSCAM investigation because the FBI royally pissed on their parade. They're very afraid of federal law enforcement being ordered to take action against them because despite what many believe, the majority of agents in the major agencies are very good at what they do.
The FBI in probably six months could dig up so much dirt on Congress that it would cause our elected government to collapse because >80% of them would be before a grand jury facing felony charges. What we need is consistent and merciless prosecution of corrupt elected leaders. I would like to see a permanent independent council office established that would be charged with policing them and that would have a large group of investigators from the FBI.
We also need to remove the bullshit precedent that everything is interstate commerce from our legal system. That is the ruling that lets these jerkoffs justify their passage of this law. Without that ruling, the courts would strike it down within a week of its being passed because it would be so clearly unconstitutional on its face that the US AG would have no case to argue. We need a constitutional court similar to France's and IMO, it wouldn't be such a bad thing to make it a capital offense to be found guilty of a certain number of instances of corruption such as 5 or more quid-pro-quos.
Click here or a puppy gets stomped!
I'm getting sick of any law being described as having "first amendment issues". Forget the flipping first amendment. Find me a clause in the Constitution that gives the Congress to make this law. This is where a good strict interpetation of the Constitution would do the Congress some good. And this isn't a Democrat/Republican or Conservative/Liberal issue. Each side ignores the Constitution when it suits them.
Forget the whales - save the babies.
...what you consider "expanding" and allowing free thinking is considered corrupting and even socially distructive by others. The reason we don't allow prayer in schools is because there is no way to allow it that doesn't expose them to a viewpoint that might be in total oposition to the way I am instucting my children.
At what age is the child able to "freely" think and chose for themselves and at which point do they emulate, by rote, their parents?
Every thinking person reaches that point but to what degree and how well they do so can't be set at a fixed date. For the same reason allowing no limits is no good either. Parents are the only ones that can make that call and as they are legally responsable for their children the laws should support them and not do it for them.
Blanket laws are stupid. It doesn't matter if it is a blanket allow all freedoms to children or a blanket law blocking everything from children. Let parents be parents and make them responsable in part for what the children do.
Slashdot, home of supporters of free software, free music, and free speech.Except for Moderators that disagree with you.
...'cause that's what it will do.
I can't think of anything better than a ban on sale to encourage people to pirate, and I can't think of any group more likely to pick up the software-sharing habit than 15-to-18 year-olds.
--G
Let me guess. They will justify this "protecting the children" through some nebulous reasoning using the interstate commerce clause.
:
Has this country just gone flat out insane?
Must we protect everyone from everything which someone may find objectionable?
What the hell ever happened to you mind your own business and i'll mind mine?
I've come to the sad conclusion that my fellow
citizens have forgotten that freedom, liberty
and PERSONAL responsiblity go hand in hand.
Let's blame Mcdonalds because I'm fat and eat their crappy food.
Let's blame tobacco companies because I smoke and got lung cancer
Let's blame the gun makers cause a "sniper" went nuts and killed people.
Let's blame Iraq cause my gas bill for that new SUV is outrageous.
Let's blame Islam for breeding terrorists.
Whaaaaa Whaaa Whaaa
You never hear
1. I'm the fat ass who eats burgers and fries
2. I picked up a stupid habit which I knew was bad.
3. The Sniper killed people not the gun
4. Maybe we wouldn't care about oil if I supported
alternate energy funding and drove a smaller car.
5. Maybe my country has been poking its nose where it doesn't belong
Why? Because these answers DON'T SELL. It seems if the truth doesn't make you feel good, we change the truth to make ourselves feel LESS bad.
In short the Republic is dead. Long live the Empire.....
Service guarantees Citizenship! Questions Guarantee GITMO.... Amerika Uber Alles!
Oh the sweet taste of Irony!
If this passes it will be illegal for kids to get
the Americasarmy.com free video game, but
it will be legal for them to kill for real.
Service guarantees Citizenship! Questions Guarantee GITMO.... Amerika Uber Alles!
If parents would take responsibility for raising their kids, then these types of laws wouldn't be necessary (or "as" necessary). However, since people are content with allowing the government to decide for them, then hey, it sounds like a great law. [This obviously isn't meant for every parent, but there are plenty who fit the bill.]
Today more than ever we are ready to trade our privacy for security (or the appearance of security), so why not let the government decide what's best for our kids as well. A nibble here, a nibble there.
Who knows, maybe at least it will make it harder for parents to sue gaming companies because their kids commit terrible acts of violence while the parents claim ignorance.
Snowdog
This sort of (proposed) law takes responsbility away from parents. This sort of law is trying to create a safe world where parents ignore their kids. Unfortunately you'll never succeed in creating such a world, there are too many loopholes and law breakers. As a kid I had relatively easy access to alcohol, illegal drugs, pornography, and tobacco. While the laws that strove to protect me from these things made it harder, it presents a very real danger to me. This sort of law creates a false sense of security in too many people. "I don't need to educate young Johnny on violence in games and explain why I feel it's wrong, since he can't possibly get access to violent games."
A popular argument for ratings (or worse, limits) is that it gives parents more options and information. Sure it does, but where do you draw the line? Some parents who believe strongly in creationism will object to their children having easy access to books on evolution. Should we label those and keep them out of kids hands? Perhaps they object to their children having easy access to what they consider objectionable political speech (Gotta project Johnny from those evil (Liberals|Conservatives). Another label for that? We'll need to label news and history similarly, there is a lot of violence there. And for the extremely socially conservative a travel brochure showing men and women in swimwear at the beach would be shocking, so another label for them (perhaps, "Women not in burquas"?). Ultimately parents need to take responsibility and monitor what their child sees. A lack of a Violence or Sexuality label doesn't mean that the work is acceptable. The only option gained is the option to not review the work yourself and to trust the simplistic label judgements of someone else.
Ratings and limits also limit what is available to consenting adults. Some businesses will simply decide to not carry works based on the rating (as opposed to reviewing the work itself). A particular rating may have a nasty stigma associated with it, discouraging potential customers. The NC-17 film rating in the United States is a good example. Many theaters will refuse to show such films, not out of a reasoned judgement, but for simple fear of backlash. Potential customers may be detered by a popular opinion that it must be smut. As a result of this many filmmakers chose to self-censor, carefully tweaking their work to fit into the target audience bin of G, PG, or R. Works beyond R are the exception as a result. Works that are a bit dangerous for their category (say, a relatively edgy PG work), get tamed down to ensure the desired rating. While it's still possible to make create films under this system, it does stifle some creativity.
The responsibility for raising children lies with their parents. There were no laws limiting my access to various books, video games, and the like when I was a kid. I certainly had access to many illegal things (alcohol, tobacco, illegal drugs). My parents didn't monitor me constantly, so I could have done what I wanted. But I didn't. Why? Because my parents took reponsibility for me. They paid attention to me, they kept an eye on what media I consumed, talked to me, discussed ethics with me, set limits for me, and punished me when I violated those limits. We don't need more laws, we need good parents. Laws can't create good parents.
Search 2010 Gen Con events
The terms Right Wing Conservative and Left Wing Liberal no longer have any relevence in today's political arena. I would say Joe Baca and his buddy Joe Lieberman would be "Left Wing Conservative" but either way, both still fucks.
We do NOT need to waste time on new legislation that serves no purpose but to 'protect' people from themselves. I don't need, nor want this kind of 'protection.' It is the sole responsibility of the parents to be involved and knowledgable about their children's hobbies and interests. If they don't want little Johnny playing GTA then they won't buy it for him. Simple as that.
Since when has this been a social problem in the first place? What citizens are up in arms about the violent content in games? No one I know. I've been seeing increase in news "reporting" about the increased violence in American Entertainment, but really, isn't this what we WANT? Isn't this what we're throwing our extra dollars at? Companies are making millions selling violent content, but its the market that demands such content. No one is forcing ANYONE to watch or play anything violent, but, it being so profitable, just goes to show how much we like it. But, now, just because these things don't live up to some asshat politicians moral code, we're going to waste time and money debating a pointless bill about a subject that practically no one in the country really gives a shit about. I shudder at the thought of someone penalized for selling a customer a product that they wanted to buy. I mean really, what the hell is the big difference between a 17 year old and an 18 year old trying to buy a violent game. How do you draw these lines. It's absolutly rediculous. And don't start talking to me about selling GTA and 11 year olds. When I was 11, I never had 50 bucks to blow on a game anyway. I don't know any 11 year olds with jobs. Furthurmore, how do they get to the store to buy the game. I don't know any 11 year olds who drive either. It's the parents who are getting them the games. They obviously don't see anything wrong with them, and if there isn't anything wrong with them, we DON'T NEED A LAW. Parents buying their kids games will still be perfectly legal under the law as well, so kids will still have the same acess to violent content as the had before. The people who are going to get screwed are the 15-17 teenagers who have shitty low-wage summer jobs cause mommy and daddy won't pay for everything for them anymore. This is one of the core markets FOR games in the first place. "Gee Congress, thanks for helping to screw our industry a bit. But at least now I can sleep at night, knowing that 16 year old couldn't watch a rendered scene of a zombie exploding. I feel so moral now."
*whew*
Sorry for the long rant but this stuff makes my blood boil. Congress, just Fuck OFF will you?
"To lead the people, you must walk behind them"
Note: All the violent kids who made my life miserable in high school didn't play violent video games at all. Computers were far to geeky for their tastes.
My point is that the cause behind violent people is far more complex than is presented in bills such as this one (a view that you kinda seem to agree with). The focus is on the wrong issues. Children don't need protection from video games. From what I've seen, children need better protection from their bigoted, closed-minded, double-standard-upholding parents.
(I grew up in a religious town. On average, the more religious the parents, the more messed up their kids were. Should we have a bill preventing kids from having contact with religious parents until they're 18?)
Am I a concise debater? Nope.
Do I always make deep insightful points in my posts? Never said I did.
Am I totally scatterbrained? Mad? Stark raving? Possib...ooo! Shiny!
Such a law effectively says "We don't trust you to raise your children yourself. We'll decide which things children are and are not allowed access to by default, you'll need to specifically intervene to change those decisions." Of course, there are no similar laws preventing people from selling kids copies of the Bible, the Koran, information on birth control, the Sports Illustrated Swimsuit Issue, news coverage of grisly wars or murders, works promiting socialism, captialism, nazism, free love, or marijuana or a host of other things that various parents would find unacceptable for their children. We're selecting a fairly arbitrary area (violence in video games) are creating a not terribly helpful law. Who does this law serve? Parents trying to protect their kids? There will remain a huge number of objectionable things available to kids, so the parents will need to continue to monitor and talk to their kids anyway. While you're discussing the evils of premaritial sex, filthy hippies, Rush Limbaugh, and whatever else you feel, adding in violent video games is pretty easy.
Search 2010 Gen Con events
that give Congress the mandate to regulate the sale of video games to minors.
I'm looking at it, and i'm not seeing it.
"so what"? you ask?
The 10th Amendment states:
"The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people."
That means that unless there is a state law regarding the sale of video games, then, Constitutionally, there is no way the federal gov. has any jurisdiction in this area.
the constitution outlines the complete set of rights of the federal government, not YOUR rights. Any rights not enumerated to the federal government are therefore transferred to you, the citizen (or illegal alien, or terror cell).
The Constitution is a LIMITNG document to the government, not to the people. it maximizes people's rights and limits governments.
-US Civics 101.
guns kill people like spoons make Rosie O'Donnell fat.
That's my point. Allowing under 18s into an R rated movie is entirely analagous to renting an M-rated video game to an under 18. We don't need laws regulating movie theaters, and we don't need laws regulating renting/selling video games. Period.
The entire age based system is completely arbitrary anyway. If I'm 17, I'm immature and shouldn't be allowed to play violent video games, but the day I turn 18 the maturity fairy visits me and I can realize I shouldn't actually go out and slaughter people? When I was playing violent games like Doom when I was 10, I knew full well there's a difference between games and life. More teenagers do than do not.
Obviously alot of adults still don't realize what should and shouldn't be done.
More credit should be given, by the time they're teenagers most kids aren't ignorant lumps of clay for the media to shape. Not only that, the fact that it's illegal will make it more appealing to some kids, as illegal acts encourage some adults. Oh, but that's right, all that matters to lawmakers is pleasing the extremely vocal minority group of negligent parents who think it's the governments job to raise our kids. Maybe if people raised their kids right they'd be less apt think video games are real.
Indirect influence on violent behavoir? Maybe. Studies haven't considered the 3rd variable problem. Are violent adults violent because they played video games, or did they play violent video games because other factors made them violent. TV is just as bad in terms of violence, but it's not illegal for kids to watch violent shows.
Welcome to the confused hypocrisy that is censorship.
"A child by your own statement is not a full citizen thus lacks the rights that entails, thus the child in fact does not own any money"
This is variant of a strawman argument. Now, I'm not a legal scholar, so I don't know the exact legal definitions, perhaps someone can jump in here for me, but....
Not being a full citizen and lacking the rights of a full citizen does NOT mean they lack ALL rights. Children, irrc, are legally speaking, akin to slaves with far more advanced rights than slaves ever had in the United States.
Parents have the right to (among things)
1. Limit the travel of their children (by time and place)
2. Limit the association of their children
3. Put their children under house arrest (grounding)
4. Physically hit their children (what that means differs from community to community and as a society we are migrating away from that as being acceptable)
5. Destroy any piece of property of the child (throwing away their toys, throwing out cloths)
and many other things
But with theses right come responsibilities. Keeping the child fed, doing nothing resembling torture (this definition changes over time), keeping the child physically and mentally safe from danger (both in the house and out of the house), and many more I can't think of.
Point is, there are MANY things that parents can do to children that would get those same parents thrown in prision (sometimes for years) if they did it to an adult. This is because children are not given the SAME rights of full blown citizens. Not that they don't have rights, but to think of a child as a citizen is wrong.
So back to your argument:
"A child by your own statement is not a full citizen thus lacks the rights that entails, thus the child in fact does not own any money."
Children CAN own property, it can just be seized by the parent. Though, recently the courts have gone so far as to safeguard large sums of money and the like from parents so that when the child is of legal age, they have access to it.
"You seem to imply that every parrent in America wishes their children to not be exposed to violent games."
'Parents have the right to...' is NOT the same thing as "All parents desire to strictly enforce their right to...". There was no implication.
"If it becomes a crime to sell violent video games to children, should it not also become a crime to broadcast violent material through television?"
My basic principle is that parents need to have the tools available to raise their children as they see fit. That does NOT mean everything under the sun should be illegal for a kid to do.
There is a difference. Where technology exists to allow parents to be empowered, then parents have the tools they need. In the case of TV, one can easily purchase a TV today that limits what shows their children can watch. In fact, I have digital cable at home and built into that box is the ability to restrict it's use to specific channels (Disney) or specific types of shows (TV-G/Cartoons) without a pin number. Without the box, my cable line is USELESS.
To a certain extent, the same could be said to video games/software. MacOS allows the admin to limit apps on a per user basis. Perhaps if all the console makers decided to give parents the ability to LOCK a console from playing Mature video games, and advertised it on the box or even go so far as to offer TWO versions of the console, one that will NEVER play mature games and one that will. As long as it wasn't trivial to bipass the lock (like removing a battery to flash a ROM, hitting a hard to find reset button), then perhaps the kind of laws suggested in this thread wouldn't be needed. I doubt that would happen.
Burn Hollywood Burn
I mean, here we are in the second leg of the double dip recession
The economy grew at 4% last quarter. You do realize the '01 recesion was the shortest in 20 years right?
we've got at least 10 years of ever escalating budget deficits ahead
So? The absolute size of the defecit isn't important, it's the size of the defecit relative to the size of the economy. The current estimates are much smaller than the defecits of the past. Look at the bond market, ie the market where this debt will be traded. The yeild curve has hardly budged.
the main reasons that the unemployment rates are lower now are that a) a large number of people have given up, which takes them off the list
And you know this how? And how do you know that this is different than in the past?
a larger number of people are employed at lower paying service jobs that require both spouses to be fully employed to make a percentage of the money that one alone used to make
Wrong median income has been consistently rising.
Oh, and the ruling Party is planning on giving the richest 1% of the population more money
Actually they are letting them keep more of their own money.
Did I mention the upcoming war, which will further deplete the economy
Deplete it of what? And what will be the benefit of a larger supply of oil?
Look I'm sorry if your career dot bombed, being poor sucks, I know, but try to keep some perspective.
"Violent video games may play a part in contributing to violent behaviour in some people, perhaps in those who are also at risk of becoming violent offenders due to additional contributing factors."
/sarcasm That's everyone else's responsibility, after all... /!sarcasm
BFD, so might: low grades, poor parenting, peer persecution at school, poor parenting, organized religion, poor parenting, excessive exposure to "elevator music", idolization of thug-like pro sports figures, diet, the weather, poor parenting, participation in school sporting programs, exclusion from school sporting programs, high grades, certain colors, lack of certain colors, knitting, cross stitch, "my little pony", pre-natal exposure to Oprah Winfrey, post-natal exposure to Oprah Winfrey, a severe defecit in Sinatra intake, and bad clams. (also bad parenting)
My point? The kind of personalities that are affected by violent (or other) videogames to a degree that they exhibit violent behavior are likely to be triggered by pretty much ANYTHING. Add to that the fact that BAD PARENTING (such as relying on laws and regulations on entertainment and the behavior of others to regulate little Johnny Snot-Nose's intake of "Bad Things") is the chief cause of said behavior, and this whole issue is a non-starter and less than worthy of even Congress' time.
Drugs, underage alchohol, many things are already illegal. It doesn't stop the little hoodlums that exhibit "violent behavior" from getting it anyway and doing whatever they damn well please, because mummy and daddy can't be arsed to actually be PARENTS.
"Oh my God. This is terrible. This is the end of my Presidency. I'm fucked."; ~ Donald J. Trump
new zealand has been doing this for years. every game that comes into the country is looked at and rated according to our films, videos and literature classification act of 1993.
game shops can't even allow demos of games that are R16 and over to be played in public.
this is not heavy handed at all. in fact it works really well. parents look at the titles in the stores and know right away whether it's suitable. they hold all the same ratings and classifications as videos and DVDs.
and the distributors are the ones who pay for the classification to be done.
australia do this too.
I deeply dislike when lawmakers feel that have to step in and dictate rules to any industry, but I have watched for the last couple years as this issue has come and gone and I've watched the video game industry as a whole sit firmly and stupidly on their thumbs and do nothing in response. We've decided as a society that this kind of content should be regulated in films and elsewhere and if the video game industry can't step up to the plate and rise to those reasonable expectations, then I guess they need a governmental nanny to do it for them. My response is a great big shrug of indifference.
And yes, anticipating the onslaught of "you don't play games," I've got a drawer full of very violent games next to me right now. I keep them locked up so my kids can't get at them. It's not hard to do. It requires a little maturity and responsibility. If the video game industry needs a bunch of pinheads in Congress to teach them the same, then it's nothing short of a major embarrassment for them.
--Rick "If it isn't broken, take it apart and find out why."
Your previous post did not support this point in any way. It simply denied that video games contribute to real-world violence, saying nothing about any other cause -- and did so based on a sample of one.
Dylan Klebold and Eric Harris are a sample of two. If someone tried to imply that they present any kind of meaningful evidence that video games induce violence, no doubt you would reject it. However, you are using the exact same kind of logic, and it is just as wrong when you do it.
"What you've seen" is not a satisfactory sample, either. You say that you grew up in a religious town, which is an admission that your sample is unrepresentative of the larger population. Even within the population of your home town, your sample is probably too small, and insufficiently random, to allow your conclusion to be extrapolated even within that community. This does not even get into questions of objectivity, and how qualified you are to assess the true causes.
But to address your main point, I agree that the causes of violence are complex and multivariate. However, you have provided no meaningful evidence for why video games should not be considered as one of these causes.
Another reason why it is pointless to argue along anecdotal lines is that you really don't know the degree to which these video games might have affected you personally. They didn't turn you into a killer, obviously, but violent behavior is not true/false, it is a continuum. I take it you are not a violent person now; that's great. But how do you know you wouldn't be even less violent if you had never played them? (That's rhetorical -- you don't know, and I don't know either.)
Ha! This little GOP canard always amuses in a sickening way. The Big Lie nature of it, and the way it is trotted out repeatedly by the GOP are so wonderfully, shamefully. willfully ignoring the nature of the economic system is which we ALL exist, that you'd figure that at least one of them would look away in self-loathing occasionally. But that's expecting too much.
Childish rants like that hurt your credibility.
The money that people make is not independent of the society of which they are a part. In fact, there is a good chance they wouldn't make it at all without the society.
This is generally where the Leftist starts to equate "society" with The State. Have you read Also Sprach Zarathustra?
Without the laws (civil, economic and criminal) that allow our economic system to flourish.
This assumes that all the laws that the government creates allow the economic system to flourish. This is false. Many of the laws hinder our economic system. Consider what was passed just recently in my great state of Georgia: a so-called "anti predatory lending" law. What it allows is for a mortgagee to sue the mortgagor if some predatory lending laws were violated. The effect of this is that mortgagors do not want to finance any mortgages under $350,000 becuase of the potential liability. Well, so much for *that* market segment, right?
Without the services and infrastructure (Police, Fire, Sanitation, power, roads, airways, etc.) that allow the economic system to function.
This assumes that infrastructure is always superior with increased government meddling.
Without the military to protect the system.
This assumes that what the military is doing is "protecting the system." Believe me, they have other priorities, such as fighting the ridiculous War on Some Drugs (intervention in what should be a free market -- so much for *that* market segment, right?) and bullying around other countries.
People don't invest in stock markets, make contracts, build structures, build companies, with the confidence and success of the US without the underlying structures that allow them to happen.
Suppose I buy a run-down house in a mid-range neighborhood. I put in some money to clean it up, get the car off the front lawn, repaint it, kick out the crack dealers, and then I sell it for profit. The neighbors love me for cleaning up the neighborhood dump, and I made some money. Win-win, right? Not exactly. The Imperial Federal Government takes HALF of my profits. Tell me, what work did the government do to help me clean up and repair the house? Nothing! If anything, the government is a hindrance to that business. The "underlying structures" give me no confidence whatsoever in this investment. Do you think this is the only example?
You might try to respond with "but the federal government provided all of the services for that neighborhood to exist!" Sorry, I don't buy that. What the federal government does specifically for particular neighborhoods is dwarfed by the cut they take from my profit, and is also dwarfed by the positive change that I make in that neighborhood by refurbishing the neighborhood dump.
Here's the kicker: Taxes pay for all of that!
Kicker, schmicker. Taxes pay for a fraction of what goes on in the economy, and pay for all sorts of things they shouldn't. For example, the War on Some Drugs, support for Israel, interest on the federal debt for the Federal Reserve, corporate welfare, Antisocial Insecurity, promotion of the Christian religion, the list goes on and on.
The more money you make, the more the money you made is a result of that structure, and the more you depend on that structure to safeguard what you have and to ensure you can make more. So you owe more.
The government is not the structure. They are, in fact, a hindrance and an annoyance to the structure in many cases. They infringe on my rights, they deprive me of my liberties.
What you have written is the first article in the Leftist book of faith: people are great because of government, not because of anything they did through hard work or sound decision making. You've kind of drawn from the second article of faith as well: all wealth is owned by the government to be distributed to the people at its whim.
I don't make the rules. I just make fun of them.
I'm coming to the discussion kind of late, but while reading through the comments it struck me that there's an important point that seems to be getting overlooked: If it becomes a crime to sell M-rated games to those under 17, we're entrusting a non-governmental organization (the ESRB) to decide what is and is not a federal crime.
There are all sorts of checks and balances in government precisely because they have that power. What if this becomes law, and we're unhappy about the job the ESRB is doing? Do we get to know who's on the rating panel? Do we get to elect them? Are they subject to recall? Can they be bought or influenced? What recourse is there if they damage a business by unfairly rating a game because of baises? Etc etc.
There are reasons we entrust the government, and the govenment only, to decide what should and should not be legal. This is an abdication of that responsibility, and one that I'm certainly not comfortable with.
Predatory lending laws: Subprime loans, often to those with supposedly poor credit (though industry statistics show that at least 35% could have qualified for loans at 'A' rates). On top of the higher rates supposed to reflect the borrowers poor credit, they are filled with other abusive features like high fees, large and extended prepayment penalties, and financed single premium credit insurance - that cost borrowers even more money, and can lock them into the higher rates. While affecting borrowers of all races and income levels, but they are most concentrated in minority communities, and among senior citizen and lower- and moderate-income borrowers who can least afford it.
And the Government has ruined this golden opportunity to bilk the poorest, weakest segments of society. Oh, the shame.
First off, anyone who joins the military goes through extensive training. You don't come in off the street, get handed a gun, and go out and shoot some bad guy ass. It just doesn't work that way. The mindsets of video gamers is not the same as the mindset of a trained military officer. You can argue that they are similar, but the amount of training and education behind the millitary officer clearly stands apart from Joe Teenager blowing up the imps on Doom.
Secondly, we're talking about the military that defends the country. This is different from attacking prostitutes in GTA3. Military officers aren't supposed to do this. Violence doesn't just mean killing people. It can also mean other types of vulgarity. A video game where the goal is to steal cars and kill people in no way meets the ideals and principles of the military.
Finally, I think your comment was a rather sad way to get karma. You came up with a weak quip that is anti-establishment, added a mix of current events (military in Iraq), and throw it on Slashdot hoping to bowl a strike. Sadly, it seems you did. Maybe in the future you'll put more thought into the comments you post so they actually have some value to them.
While I might not agree with everything our military and our Congress does, I still believe that they are much better and more worthy than violent video games.
Beware, Nugget is watching... See?
As games become more like interactive, photo-realistic movies, it seems only reasonable that they should be moved into the same realm of rating.
It's either that, or I'm going to be facing a self-regulated industry that produces "The Care Bears Go Shopping" for ID Software's next product.
and agree. That doesn't mean that children under 18 can't play a violent video game, just that its the parent's decision and not the government's, the video game maker's, or the store's. That's the way everything should be for children. We've made a really bad mistake by letting government and Hollywood get involved in the raising of kids. Its not that parents are perfect, its just that the government and Hollywood are far from perfect. Better to have a wide variance of bad/good than a government/Hollywood enforced nonvariance of all bad.
I know this is probably a little late to get read, but seriously... who's funding these kids? I know when I was 10 years old, I didn't have $50 cash that I could just go spend at will. Kids don't have credit cards, so they need cash. And on the rare occasion (birthdays, whatnot) that I did have that much cash, you could be damn sure that my parents knew where it went. No kid should be able to bring home a $50 anything without their parent knowing what it is. By the time the child can get a job and earn the money for themselves, I think they're probably old enough to decide what kind of games they can play.
It's been said before, but I'll say it again anyway. It's the parents' job to take care of their kids, not the government's.
I see a major problem here - the US would be officially sanctioning (making law, in fact) a standard passed by a private business, the Entertainment Software Rating Board. I don't know if this is legal, although Congress does have dealings with specific businesses (i.e., guaranteeing loans) from time to time. However, it seems undemocratic. I didn't vote for the ESRB's members, but the final word on whether games are acceptable is officially theirs if this bill becomes law.