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
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.
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
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
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!
...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
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.
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.
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.