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.
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
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.
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.
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
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?"
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.
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?"
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.
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!
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.
"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
Funny thing about the whole 'turn the other cheek' bit.. it wasn't meant as a sign of humility or accepting being persecuted or any of that. It was to force your attacker to accept you as an equal.
In the society of that time, a slap on the cheek was not intended as a physical injury but rather as an insult, putting an inferior back in his or her place. The strength of that insult depended greatly upon which hand dealt it: as the left hand was seen as unclean, a slap with the left hand was the insult far greater than one dealt with the right hand. This was reflected in the legal penalties for an inappropriate slap: the penalty for slapping a peer with your left hand was a fine one hundred times the penalty for slapping a peer with your right hand; the penalty for slapping a better with your right hand was a fine while the penalty for slapping a better with your left hand was death. The people Jesus was speaking to most directly were, by and large, slaves and the downtrodden. A slap on the right cheek was dealt with the left hand. To turn the other cheek would leave the master with two options. The first would be to slap the slave again, but this time with the right hand (therefore declaring the slave a peer). The second would be not to slap the slave again (therefore effectively rescinding the first slap). Now, such impudence and sauciness would often tend to bring punishment, but it none the less says "Hey, I'm a human. I have rights. You can't treat me like this." It is not an action without suffering for oneself, nor does it inflict suffering on the "enemy": but it does say and do something in a powerful way.
(from JonathansCorner.com)
slashdot!=valid HTML
"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!
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
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.
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.
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.