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.
that in this time of imminent war, collapsed economy and everpresent terror that our legislators have their priorities set straight. I can sleep easier now.
Lessee... Combat, Duke Nukem, Wolfenstein 3D, Duke Nukem 3D, Doom, Quake, Unreal, Unreal Tournament, Warcraft II, Starcraft, Warcraft III...
*looks around*
Nope, haven't killed any people yet.
"It would become a federal crime to sell or rent a violent video game to anyone under 18."
What about giving the games away for free? What about violent freeware games?
Ed Wedig
Graphic design services
docbrown.net
Today Congress decided to follow the model of a popular website and begin re-examining old bills. ...
Next up for review is the issue of women's sufferage. This is expected to be a highly contested
Well, you get the idea. Nothing will be said that hasn't been previously said before on this subject.
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!!!!!
Please add a rider prohibiting marketing, sales, and playing to and by persons over 30 years of age. I've been putting off an awful lot of chores. Besides, my thumbs are starting to hurt. Thanks.
It's good to finally see some legislation on this. If we had had age limits on violent video games, I would have never made the mistake of playing Duke Nukem 3D last week. I don't know if I'll ever recover.
Karma: Good (despite my invention of the Karma: sig)
I'm sorry, but children are NOT full blown citizens with all the rights thereof. Even if there is absolutely no research supporting it, parents have a right to raise their children as they see fit by not letting them play video games (or watch a movie, or anything else for that matter).
I've been saying for years that children shouldn't be allowed to buy videogames (or movies or books of anysort) without parental consent. If you want your kid to have access to such things, get them a library card, get them a membership at Blockbuster, or perhaps even have an active role in your childs life by buying it for them.
Granted, in the US it's absolutely 100% impossible to control ALL aspects of your kids life and I would never suggest trying that, but perhaps anything that encourages involvement is a good thing.
Burn Hollywood Burn
This isn't censorship. This is just a restriction against selling these games to minors. A key point is that a parent can still buy the game for the minor if they think their kid "can handle it." Shouldn't the parents be responsible for this? Isn't this what we wanted?
I used to bulls-eye womp-rats in my pants
The man show can get that little fat kid dressed in a scouts outfit to try and find people to go into bestbuy and buy him a copy of Grand Theft Auto 4 instead of condoms and a 6pack.
The only let down is he wont be able to ask a redhead girl if her carpets match the curtains because unfortunately he will only be soliciting males since its best buy.
And dear god when I have children I may not buy them beer when they are 12 but they can have a gory game anyday...I REALLY dont want to find them in their room with 3 friends huddled around a wired magazine giggling or something *shudder*
[I can picture a world without war, without hate. I can picture us attacking that world, because they'd never expect it]
Its parents that need to protect children.
1;
I know a lot of people are going to get all up in arms about this, but personally I think it's a good thing. Having a good ratings system in place for games will help get angry parents off the gaming industries' back.
The truth is, games these days should be rated. I don't think an 11 year old kid should be able to walk into a store and buy GTA: Vice City. Games never really needed to be rated before because they were never really violent before. With a few exceptions, the rise of real violence in games is only about five years old.
The same thing happened with movies. Before the sixties movies didn't have ratings. They weren't needed because before that, it would have been almost unheard of to put graphic violence or sex in a movie. But then filmmakers wanted more mature content in movies, and a ratings system was introduced.
Games are at that point now. Some kind of enforced ratings system is needed, I think.
--
These aren't the droids you're looking for.
OMG! Hes got a knife!!!
I was a DOOM fanatic when I was 12 and I went on a murderous rampage when I was 13... wait... no I didn't. That's right! I remember now... I would take out the stress of the day's being picked on by shooting virtual creatures and became less violent towards my peers.
-Derick
Aargh!
It's Cliffs Notes, not Cliff, not Cliff's not even Cliffs', okay?
You can check the web site:
http://www.cliffsnotes.com/
Thank you.
-Mr. Cliffs (no, not really)
Who moderates the meta-moderators?
If you think about it, Super Mario Bros. is pretty darn violent (you know, smushing all them koopas).
Pac-man is violent.
NCAA Football is violent.
Doom 3 is violent.
Of course, violent to different degrees...where's the line drawn in these cases? I remember having loads of fun with Legend of Zelda and even the original Spy Hunter (remember that?). I was in elementary school at the time. In high school, I do remember having some wierd dreams after playing Doom, however (tell us why Psychologists, before people begin making arbtrary laws).
Healthcare article at Kuro5hin
I remember trying to purchase Mortal Kombat II back in the day at Walmart. They wouldn't sell it to me unless I was 17. That was the last game I bought at Walmart. Now I buy everything at radio shack and they don't card. (Except to get your home address. heh)
Beep. Boop. Beep. You have questions. I have answers and your home address.
thank god! i always wondered why my friend's DOOM manual was a little sticky.
"Where are we going, and why am I in this handbasket?"
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.
The parking lot of Best Buy will come to resemble the parking lot at the liquor store....
"Psst. Hey, Mister. Here's fifty bucks. Can you go inside and get a copy of GTA Vice City for me?"
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!!!!
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.
from the article:
"Baca's office told me the new bill is being modeled on a St. Louis ordinance that makes it illegal to sell or rent a violent video game to a minor without a parent/guardian's consent."
Which means that if I think my 10 year old (well, he's only 6 now, but that's not the point) can handle a "mature" game, I can give him permission to get it. This is far from an outright ban, and more palatable in my eyes (the eyes of someone with kids of his own).
Also, there was mention made of having to hire adults to work the registers, under the theory that they'll be more responsible, and less likely to rent / sell "mature" games to minors. I made a leap of logic and figured that maybe minors would be forbidden by this law to work that kind of position. If this were to happen, it could cause problems for all kinds of businesses - how many grown-ups are going to want to earn the wages of a register jockey? This could leave nobody manning the tills, and a LOT of places folding up shop.
Lastly... Postal 2 is going to be a first person shooter?!? Check out that screen shot - wielding a can of gas while the store you're in burns! That game's gonna rock! }:^D
Come to the University of Mars! Classes starting soon!
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.'"
Here's a short summary of the debate that lead up to this bill:
Here.
It's a good thing they're handling this, otherwise "first person shooter" games might start being produced, and all our kids would be turned into mass-murdering psychos.
Life is too short to proofread.
"Save the Children from Drug-laced shroom hallucinations": (Super Mario Bros.)
"Protect our children from reckless race-driver wannabes": (Ridge Racer, Wipeout, etc etc)
"Save the children from mind-melt controller-tossitis" (Tetris)
"Teach children tolerance for ghosts of all colors" (Pac-man, Luigi's Mansion)
"The Crusade to stop anti-alien racism" (Contra, Half-life, etc etc)
Get a grip! I opine that ratings are a generally a good thing. But I hate the whole "Save the children" "Promote tolerance" angle politicians use... it's demeaning.
There are people who need, want, and/or should be informed for whatever reason about the content of media they may be interested in. Big deal. Settle on a standard and let the people make their own decisions, and parents assume their responsibility. Leave the Children (TM) out of it.
~~~
"The slave thinks he is released from bondage, only to find a stronger set of chains" - NIN
Mod me down for being a boring old fart if you wish.
Modest doubt is called the beacon of the wise. - William Shakespeare
Every law created narrows your rights.
Seems to me, instead of moaning about the incidents (in this case restricting the sale of violent games) we should be thinking about how to restrict the lawmakers so they can't create more laws.
Of course this is revolutionary talk, and with our Homeland Security nonsense in place, I'm sure I'll be getting a visit from my local Citizen Corp (Gestapo) representative.
All the worlds a stage, and I'm the guy running the lights...
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.
Give me one good reason why this is a good thing.
We're talking about passing legislation here. "Why not" doesn't cut it.
People's desire to believe they are right is much stronger than their desire to be right.
"It's impossible for me to fire a pistol. If you'll check me medical records, you'll see I have a cripplin' arthritis in me index fingerrrs. Look at 'em! I got it from "Space Invaders" in 1977."
"Aw, yeah. That was a pretty addictive video game."
"Video game?"
~D:
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.
While the congress is hardly at work, they should also consider age limits on purchasing Fast Food. It would be inline with the current trend of suing food vendors and blaming them for their child's "weight problems", which supposedly kills alot more people over time.
Where does a video game fit in with this crowd, while ignoring music and food? IANAL, but federal law doesn't seem to address any of the other items in my list (except sex).
The next installment of Mortal Combat needs a Saddam character, so we can all do our part in the war on terrorism.
Congresscritters, please protect me from myself, for I know not what I do
Politicians need campaign contributions in the next two years, so they will be threatening Hollywood and the rest of the entertainment industry. The industry will hem and haw, pony up some cash, and the restrictions will be watered down so as not to hurt anyone's profit margins.
Look, Joe Lieberman is pushing this - he's concerned about violent video games, but he gets a stiffy thinking about sending American kids off to war. Ignore the rhetoric and follow the money.
There are two types of people; those who divide people into two types of people, and those who don't.
...'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!
"Now they're thinking about banning toy guns ... and they're gonna keep the fucking real ones!!! "
We do not live in the 21st century. We live in the 20 second century.
3D Realms, maker of the Duke Nukem line of games, had only this to say on the matter:
This bill, and not our inability to code, is why Duke Nukem Forever is taking so long to release. We want to be sure that our core target audience will be old enough to purchase the game if this bill were to take effect.
Mordor...a magical, mythical land where women are more rare than dragons--but where every man would rather find a dragon
All adults will have to find something more productive to do with their time.
--- Ban humanity.
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
Ok I'll probably get flamed for stating this in this community, but...
/me puts on flame-retardant suit
I don't see why video games can't be rated and regulated the same as movies. If a movie is R rated, you have to be of legal age. This permits movie producers and directors to put content in the movies that is 'for adults.' I have always wondered why video games were not regulated in the same manner.
This may actually help to remove the stigma that video games 'have to be for kids since theyre video games', and allow more adult entertainment (ie gratuitous sex and violence) in video games without tons of media hype and right-wing conservatives jumping all over them and saying they're evil and destroying our youth.
So... rating systems may give us better games and less controversy over them. There is no hype that our youth is being corrupted with the release of each R-rated movie.
.
THE MAGIC WORDS ARE SQUEAMISH OSSIFRAGE
I have been tossing around ideas for how to maintain a global liberal republic because of a story I've been toying around with. The problem is, how do you hold elected leaders at such a high position of power accountable to ordinary people. My solution is a bottom->up republic where the local governments can force issues on the states which can force it on the nation. You have say..... 20 counties that each are petitioned by a certain number of their residents. That forces them to call on the state assembly with a mandate to consider a resolution in favor of the petitions. Extrapolate that accross the entire country. If a sufficent number of states pass the resolution then Congress must immediately drop all debate and debate the action demanded by the states. Depending on the situation say, if the issue is corruption then it would go to the President with a mandate to order an investigation. It would be non-negotiable, he would be required to order a full investigation and carry out legal action demanded by the states in order to preserve the integrity of the federal system. If the President refused, the states could bypass Congress and issue a "vote of no confidence" in the President or as appropriate in the entire Congress. In such a case you would have to get permission from your state assembly to run in the new election. That way in the event of mass-corruption, the few good leaders could be easily put back into power... and it would give the people the opportunity to elect an even better leader if say they grew tired of his/her lack of principles on key issues.
Click here or a puppy gets stomped!
As others have said, there is already a rating system on video games. The real issue here is criminalizing the sale of "M" rated games to the under-18 set.
R rated movies are supposed to forbid access to those 17 and under without adult (read, 18+) supervision. When is the last time you saw the police show up at a movie theater and arrest the 16 year old ticket seller for selling tickets to the latest R-rated action flick to his under-18 friends?
Ratings, yes. It helps people be more informed. Criminalization of "ratings violations", no? How many more non-violent offenders does the US need in its jails?
Has anybody else noticed how since the graphics of consoles have been getting better, the ratings on the games are getting higher? I'm sure sure loads of "KA" SNES games would be "T" or "M" if they were recreated in High-res 3d.
Perhaps its time to re-think the rating system?
- Holier-than-thous see something they dislike, demand it be censored
- "Moderates" appeal for private-sector solution - "voluntary" labelling
- Years pass
- Holier-than-thous say the labelling isn't working
- Congress-weasels pass law to criminalize possessing / selling content with certain ratings
- Practical effect: private voluntary ratings now have force of law behind them: de facto censorship, especially as retailers get cold feet about selling higher-rated content.
Just something to remember the next time someone plays the voluntary / private / market-solution canard. Maybe one of these days we'll learn it's bullshit.--realinvalidname
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.
- Age limits on violent crimes?
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."
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.
OMFG, I'm so sick and tired of hearing how the rich don't pay enough (I'm not rich yet, but I'm working on it :-)
Go over to the IRS website (irs.gov), find the link to the newsrooms, then facts and figures, and read up on the IRS's own data.
In summary, the highest 1% of income earners earn about 17% of the wealth. They pay about 39% of the total income taxes collected. The top 50% of income earners pay 96% of the income tax collected!! How much is "enough"? Good grief already.
What people like you really want isn't so much an income tax as a wealth tax. Huge bloody difference.
Government IS the problem.
Entertainment rating systems and law enforcement have opposite priorities. Mass murder is a far, far worse crime than profanity or indecent exposure, but movie and game ratings feel just the opposite. It's true that all countries are too lax on violence; a game or movie with mass murder can get in the PG-to-T range as long as the viewer/player can't see the suffering, but only USA is so irrationally strict on profanity and nudity. Amelie got an R in USA, but a PG or PG-13 in the rest of the world.
Only in USA do people prefer to see death more than life.
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.
You're absolutely wrong that the rest of us are subsidizing the wealthiest people in this society. It is exactly the other way around. There is a large part of our society that does not earn enough to pay significant taxes, and yet leftists still want to give the tax breaks to these individuals, who are by definition the most nonproductive individuals in society. How can you be given a tax cut when you already don't pay taxes?? The Democrats don't want to just cut taxes for the "poor", they just want to take other people's money and hand out to those who do not deserve it and didn't earn it.
Your arguments are fundamentally flawed in that you seem to believe that all wealth is owned by the government, not the people who generate it, and that all members of society are equal in their productive capacity and therefore somehow "deserve" an equal amount of money. This is so completely false that it's not even funny. The uneducated low wage earners are a drain on society if anything, and they threaten to destroy the economy if too much of our country's wealth is "redistributed" to them. I'm sorry, someone who didn't graduate from high school absolutely does not deserve to make more than a small fraction of what someone who sacrificed to pay for college and/or professional school and the tax system should be structured accordingly. You don't deserve anything just for being born; you need to contribute in a positive way to get anything. I personally think that the income tax should be made flat or even regressive to penalize those who don't contribute.
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.
Second, nobody is claiming that viewing violent media will turn you into a killer. The claim is that violent media relaxes attitudes towards violence and detaches them from making a negative value judgement of it. This may in some trigger violence urges, however, that isn't the important claim.
That just isn't true, though. A multi-billion dollar advertising industry knows that images you feel people affect them. The often claim is that mass-media had induced shitty culture in people. That belief isn't harmonious with this one.
1. Fails to stop Microsoft from committing illegal acts. Not just violating anti-trust laws, but breaking contract laws and the like.
2. Extends copyright in perpetuity for all practical purposes, effectively legislating away the public domain.
3. In the interest of two big media cartels (RIAA and MPAA), passes laws like the DMCA.
I'm supposed to believe that they are going to pass a law that seriously harms Sony, Microsoft, Nintendo, Walmart, Target and most of the members of MPAA/RIAA who sell licenses to their copyrighted content to video game studios or own interests in video game studios?
No, I'll tell you what this is. This is a shakedown. It's very simple, the State is looking for money. It will probably come in the form of campaign contributions or quid-pro-quo ("Representative Smith, while we don't agree with your law, we do find your ideas on protecting our children insightful. Ah! If only we had someone like you working for our company as a media consultant. Well, maybe someday...")
Of course, you should write your Congresspersons and Senators, but remember, people who actually matter in Washington will also be fighting this idiotic law. Washington isn't St. Louis.
All the creatures will die, And all the things will be broken. That's the law of samurai. (Jubai, 1605)
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.