Planned California Bill Targets Video Game Sales

joeflies writes "'California Assemblyman Leland Yee, D-San Francisco, plans to introduce legislation making it illegal for minors to buy the most violent video games and requiring game dealers to separate youth games from adult offerings.' Story here from the Sacramento Bee."

Comments

So..

[Anonymous Coward]

now they'll just download them from kazaa

Damn lameness filter...

Re:So..

[benna]

Then they will end up with the wrong thing the majority of the time. Most likely pr0n. So this really isn't solving anything. Unless of course we teach these kids to use IRC.

Well why not?

[satyap]

Well, why not? They do that for porn anyway.

Re:Well why not?

[Senjutsu]

Well, why not? They do that for porn anyway.

But they don't do it for R-rated movies, and with spectacularly few exceptions even the worst video games go no further than an R-rated movie.

This legislation addresses a problem that doesn't exist, except in the minds of the "Won't somebody please think of the children?!" types.

Re:Well why not?

[gangien]

SO you think anyone should just come in and be able to buy GTA 3? or that new Manhunt game? I think not. I also think they shouldn't be able to buy any R rated movies. I'm all for freedom, of Adults, but when Children are invovled we need to be cautious and it's better to error onthe side of caution.

Re:Well why not?

[MankyD]

One distinction does need to be made, however. It should be noted that Video Games allow the player to act out and decide how to wreak their havock. They are in fact acting out, in some way shape or form, their own fantasies. Movies do little more than show us alternatives and possibilities.

While I'm not making a judgement call stating that video games are somehow worse than movies, it is something to keep in mind.

Re:Well why not?

[LordK3nn3th]

It doesn't matter. Keeping porn/violence/etc away should be the parent's job, not the government's. If the government can do this to minors, what prevents the government from censoring content from adults simply because certain politicians fear nudity or violence, or even for more political reasons? No, if the parent is so inclined, THEY should take it away. It is their rights (whether you agree with how they parent or not). It is NOT the government's right to censor people. The government should not be doing it for video games, the government should not be doing it for porn. Like I said above, what stops them from censoring it from everyone? Oh, that's right, it's not that easy for minors to sue-- and the courts don't give a crap, anyway. If Joe Smoe doesn't give a damn whether his son sees pixilated polygons that resemble aliens emit a green liquid when zapped with an ElectroGun, he will still have to get off his lazy ass because the government says he has to buy it for his son. I've been in the same situation: When I was younger I had to have my dad buy the game for me due to the policies of certain stores even though he wanted me to buy it while he shopped elsewhere. It's ridiculous. I don't care if the child will try to sneak in the games/porn if they can buy it themselves even though their parents don't allow it. That's the parents' problem. Just another moralist do-gooder wanting to take away our rights to appease their foolish emotional desires. Bah. I know someone will bring up child pornography... but in that case, someone is harmed. Now, if it was some 16-year old slut flashing herself over a webcam, I personally wouldn't call that child porn... that's another debate though.

Re:Well why not?

[LordK3nn3th]

Oops, I apologize, I misread the intent of the message I replied to-- I thought the argument was "since minors can't look at porn either, why not violent video games?", something someone will make eventually anyway.

And sorry for my bad formatting as well. ;)

Re:Well why not?

[iocat]

The reality is that most of the little kids who get GTA or Manhunt get them because their parents, who are IDIOTS, ignore the MANY, MANY obvious warnings posted on the products, in the stores, etc, and buy them anyway. Then they're surprised later to see the games are violent, write nasty letters and get stupid, granstanding, politicians to tout these ridiculous laws.

I couldn't give two figs about the ESRB rating of a product, as I am over 18. But I can't go into a store without seeing and noticing the rating signs. Why don't parents see these signs? I've seen clerks at EB flat out tell parents that a game is now OK for their kids, and the parents buy the game anyway.

The game industry does a far, far, far better job of clearly rating the content of its products than the movie industry, the music industry, or the TV networks. And yet, you don't see these do-gooder politicians trying to regulate movies more, do you?

This is ridiculous -- the problem isn't a lack of regulation among game stores, or violent games, it's a total lack of parental responsibility. (And yes, I am a parent -- and I pay close attention to what media my son consumes.)

Re:Well why not?

[LordK3nn3th]

How many of us played "Power Rangers", "Cops and Robbers", or even "Mortal Kombat" when we were young? And I mean not the games, but play fighting?

Hell, it seems to me kids in younger generations hunted earlier and more often, too... and that's with an actual gun and living target.

Re:Well why not?

[gangien]

I agree that the root of the problem is the parents. But I also don't think a kid should be able to walk into a store and come out with a game like GTA. Period. Whether or not it solves anything is entirely deabatable.

Re:Well why not?

[a whoabot]

No shit.

I remember when i was a kid every boy had toy guns, well, excpet me(damn you, mom!), now, they just have video games increasingly instead. I don't see the big leap. If parents don't want kids playing violent video games, then they should just not let them. If you don't know what games your kid is playing, you must be braindead, or maybe, just maybe, you don't actually give a shit about what your kid is doing, and, unfortunately, I truly see that as not too far from the truth.

Who cares if a kid can buy an M rated game at the store. Where is he going to play it? At his own flat? No. He's playing it at home in the basement, where the parents can clearly see what he's doing. And it's the parents that should decide what a kid can do within the law, not the state. Lousy state, *shakes fist*.

Re:Well why not?

[kaybi]

Children as old as 24?*

* From some of the Concerned Women for America propaganda.

Re:Well why not?

[KentoNET]

Better to do it in a video game than in the real world, isn't it? When hundreds of California kids begin playing M-rated, violent video games 24 hours a day and lose the ability to tell the difference between fantasy and reality, then it might be something to worry about, but as it stands now, I really don't see a need for this.

Re:Well why not?

[Anonymous Coward]

Ahh yes, the classic "chess causes war" argument.

Re:Well why not?

[gangien]

The article said for minors. so that would be 18

Re:Well why not?

[Anonymous Coward]

No the real distinction is the fact that there are no video game lobbyists. Politicians don't care about anyone but those who line their wallets with money.

GO ahead and mod me down, but why else would video games be targeted for the violence they show but not TV networks.

Re:Well why not?

[geekoid]

true, but its all useless if the store doesn't enforce them.
You have a son, do you think when he is 13 you'll be in totla control of his every movement?

At least with some proper enforce ment, you know it will be more difficult for him to get his hands on some game you don't want him to have.

I would argue that man kids get them becase they go some gift certificate from a well meaning relative.

Re:Well why not?

[NaugaHunter]

How is this different then the various GURPs out there, not just D&D but real cops and robber stuff with all kinds of weapon detail? Just because it's video the kids can't tell?

Again, it's the same old thing. First it was comic books, then sci-fi mags, then D&D, then Metal music, then NWA... video games are just the current hot ticket the freaks the norms.

Re:Well why not?

[danheskett]

Because as recent events show, video games are bigger than TV for today's youth, and bigger than movies, and bigger than anything.

People forget, but, Electronic Arts is a $6B company. That's really big people.

The TV rating folks over at Nielsen have just reported a big drop in male viewership of all media outlets.

They are getting a lot of heat because they are the big target right now. The Big One. The Video Game industry is bigger than the movies, and soon bigger than TV and even music.

Re:Well why not?

[Anonymous Coward]

No, they aren't. Currently, video game ratings are "suggestions only", and hold no legal weight.

Re:Well why not?

[Dark Nexus]

Because it'll make parents actually HAVE to pay attention for kids & teens to buy the games they want!

I look at this as a good thing. Now, when somebody blames video games for something, the parents can be blamed for letting them play the game.

Re:Well why not?

[dadragon]

Certainly no less violent than what they'd experience running down the streets of any Iraqi village.

Your son can't hit a reset button to undo the damage done in an Iraqi village.

Re:Well why not?

[Anonymous Coward]

he has to play it somewhere right?

parents that are that uninvolved with their kids dont deserve to be parents.

Re:Well why not?

[Mandoric]

And movies are the same.

Re:Well why not?

[Anonymous Coward]

Well, I don't think that censorship or violent games ban would be a solution anyhow. I can't understand why a violent game would affect the personality of a kid supposing that the kid clearly understands that what he/she is playing is just a game! Idiot parents are not the ones buying such games for their kids. Idiot are the parents that spend all day trying to be "rich" and neglect their family and children. A child having good relationship with his/her family would NEVER be affected by such a game. Censorship is definitely NOT a solution. A change in the way of our thinking would definitely be. Honesty inside a family can allow all kids play any game. Be honest with your children. Not over-protective.

"Concealing the truth is just like burying gold" - Pythagoras

Re:Well why not?

[spiderbarker]

No actually the real distinction isn't that... although you were close.

You see there really isn't any evidence that games connect to real world behavior. In fact, the most violent games are _just_ as popular in countries that see a lot lower incidence per capita of murder and rape crimes than the state of California.

Politicians latch on to these stupid ideas because it makes them look good to their constituency, perpetuating the illusion that "little people can get big changes made". In the meanwhile people like Kenneth Lay and Bernard Ebbers get their butts kissed. Oh yeah I forgot, they _are_ going to nail Martha Stewart for stealing $40000 or being a self made woman...err...i can't remember which it was.

So what would we guess? Is it the video games kids play that cause crime or is it the fact that kids see people who are _obviously_ criminals get off scot free every day in the real life that contributes to increased crime in the U.S.?

Re:Well why not?

[Kierthos]

Yes, because children will always blur the lines between reality and fantasy when they play video games for hours on end. Why, I know from personal experience that my hours upon hours of playing Galaga has made fighting the Martians that much easier....

Oh wait....

Let's face it. If Knothead Jr. is that likely to mistake the cartoony animation of GTA for reality, then odds are that he was already messed up, and the gameplay wasn't adding much, if anything to his lack of a firm grip on reality. Parents and legislators need to grow the fuck up themselves and realize that once they stop using movies and games as parents, and start actually being parents themselves, maybe, just maybe, their kids won't be so fucked up.

Blaming the games for "giving the kids the wrong message" is a cop-out. Parents should be the ones giving their kids the message. If they do their job right, the games won't mean jack...

Kierthos

Re:Well why not?

[Anonymous Coward]

I was just about to say the exact same thing, but, you have said it simply poeticly. Like you said, if someone can not understand the differences between reality and a video game/movie...well lets just say that playing violent video games is the least of their problems.

Re:Well why not?

[Anonymous Coward]

And it's the parents that should decide what a kid can do within the law, not the state. Lousy state, *shakes fist*.

Huh? The state doesn't say what people can and can't do within the law, the state says what's outside the law.

Re:Well why not?

[AllUsernamesAreGone]

Curse my lack of mod points! You deserve a +5 Insightful for that...

Re:Well why not?

[CryBaby]

And yet, you don't see these do-gooder politicians trying to regulate movies more, do you?

Age regulations for movies are already enforced. Why not apply the same regulation and enforcement to video games?

As they approach and eventually exceed the realism of movies, don't we want some kind of content-based age restrictions, just like those we already have for similar media?

Re:Well why not?

[ryzynforce]

I can't understand why a violent game would affect the personality of a kid supposing that the kid clearly understands that what he/she is playing is just a game

That's just it. A lot of the children that go into the stores for these "violent" games are unable to make the distinction between reality and game reality. The function of the parent in this particular case is to accept responsibility for their child and his or her actions. If the parents feel that killing and running over innocents in GTA is ok, so long as it keeps the "kid occupied", then there is a real problem with that. What most of the so called "parents" are failing to realize is that they are giving up another "privilige" of being a parent to a group of strangers who really could not care less about who the kid is and what the kid does. You are a parent. Your job is to guide your children and keep watch over EVERY GAME they will bring into your home. Last I checked, it is not the government's job to raise and guide your children and tell you what is best for your family. If you allow your children to obtain these violent games or you do not guide them when they do have them, I would then ask that you not be suprised if they begin to act out on others what they do in a video game. You children become stupid because you were too lazy and too stupid to do your job and be a parent instead of a "cool friend" to your children.

Re:Well why not?

[Anonymous Coward]

Someone should tell dubya this. He thinks by passing out huge contracts to his friends he can press reset in Iraq.

Everyone knows that with enough money any damage can be undone. At least in the courts and the press.

Re:Well why not?

[Azghoul]

Well, uh, if it's not going to solve anything what the fuck is the point of creating another useless law?

Re:Well why not?

[Marnhinn]

Classic Myth: watching violence does not effect behavior.

Sorry - if violence on TV and in real life effects behavior why should video games be anything different?

Studies have shown that young children watching violent acts at young ages are easily impressionable and have a decent chance of repeating the violent act. It is called social or observational learning (a form of classical conditioning). For a good refrence is the study by Albert Bandura (1963) - he had young children observe adults hit, and punch an inflated doll (a BoBo doll). The children later showed aggressive behavior towards the doll. Subsequent research showed that children will imitate characters on film - even cartoon characters.

The reason why we as adults don't notice the problem - is that we react differently, usually in the form of psychic numbing (a reduction in emotional arousal and distress at viewing violence) rather then acting out the acts.

Most little kids have no idea who Martha Stewart is (and she is not a violent criminal anyways) - I doubt that has any influence on thier behavior...

Mod comments up that actually know what they are talking about (the above is not flamebait - simply some basic facts...)

Re:Well why not?

[ZorinLynx]

How can ANYONE not understand the difference between reality (which is real, you experience it) and a game (which is on a computer screen)? I don't get it.

It's the same argument parents use when getting violent cartoons censored. "Kids can't tell the difference between reality and cartoons." BULL-SHIT. Kids can damn well tell the difference if parents teach them. My parents did when I was a kid, and it is the responsibility of every parent to teach their kids the difference between reality and fantasy.

Stop blaming the games, and stop expecting the government to solve the problem. Teach the kids "This is a game, it's not real", or "This is just a cartoon, if Tom and Jerry were real Tom would be dead", and leave the games and cartoons alone.

Re:Well why not?

[Zoshnell]

I've got to agree with this one. A parent should be present and have to look over the game before they buy it if it's a mature game. I used to haunt an EB near my house, and one of the clerks was very conceientous(sic) of informing parents that GTA3 was extremely violent and probably not suitable for the 9 and 10 year olds Bertha brought into the store. And the poor sod got was yelled at and once spit on by a kid. So in this case I blame the parents for not heeding the warnings and then placing the blame on everyone but their own ineptitude and poor child rearing.

Re:Well why not?

[SQLz]

I played Super Mario Brothers when I was a kid, constantly. It was my favorite game. My ability to distinguish between real life and Super Mario Brothers vanished and I was suspended from school three times for jumping on someone's head. To this day, I have a serious mushroom addiction.

Re:Well why not?

[the_2nd_coming]

do you live in an iraqi village?

do you think your kids could get to an iraqi village on their own?

do you think that the kids in an iraqi village think what they experience is entertainment?

Re:Well why not?

[Simonetta]

-- the problem isn't a lack of regulation among game stores, or violent games, it's a total lack of parental responsibility.

I agree, it is the responsibility of parents to prepare their children for the real world. This includes instilling a basic sense of right and wrong.

There is also the current state of the technology where the game software is complex enough to show ultra-violence in emotionally effective ways but not advanced enough to convey the consequences that this violence inflicts on an individual. In other words, games now are able to induce an primal emotional thrill at killing an 'enemy', but are not advanced enough to induce the sense of loss, despair, and tragedy (or fear) that happens in a real battle situation by having a close teammate instantly killed.

One of the unintended side-effects of passing laws against the depiction of ultra-violence in interactive media is that the technology for the games is not allowed to develop to the point where the full emotional impact of combat can be imparted to the players.

Without these misguided laws, video games will eventually evolve to the point where they will become substitutes for the combat experience instead of tactical training tools for combat as they are currently being used (either openly or covertly).

Global economic integration is gradually making individual combat and warfare between nations an anacronism from past ages. But the subliminal conditioning resulting from thousands of years of human warfare (and the enormous stocks of 20th century advanced weaponry) continue to drive young men to compulsively seek out the combat experience in ways that are increasingly counter-productive to the global corporate new world order.

Deep, brutal, and complex interactive media violent video games will develop into the technological solution to this current dilemma.

Re:Well why not?

[benzapp]

It was the same argument for comic books in the 1950s, or pulp novels in the 30s...

Re:Well why not?

[John Courtland]

How can ANYONE not understand the difference between reality (which is real, you experience it) and a game (which is on a computer screen)? I don't get it.

Some people do, certain mental disorders would allow the blending of video game and reality to the point where one was basically the other. People go off the deep end, it happens all the time.

I agree with you, it's wholehartedly the parents responsibility. How does the quote go? "An irrational fool attempts to change his environment to suit his own whims." I can't find who said it, or I'd credit them.

Anyhow, if it gets to the point where this bullshit conflicts with MY ability to do what I want, then there's a problem. Parents need to step up to the plate and actually RAISE their children, instead of letting electronics boutique do it for them, or they should seriously consider not having kids.

Re:Well why not?

[Anonymous Coward]

The worse part about the law is them wanting to section off M rated games ala the "porn section" of local video stores. That means "family stores" like Wal-Mart, Blockbuster, etc etc, would stop carrying those games, hurting everyone involved, the consumer, the retailer and the developers/publishers.

Re:Well why not?

[CooCooNutz]

Quit sounding like a game programmer and stop and think about what this means. Its basically saying that once again, the government is going to make a decision concerning what they think is BEST for people. Its just another way of placing citizens into servitude. For that matter, when in a person's life are they considered to be old enough to be able to play these fuckin games andbe able to distinguish between reality and make believe? Some people are just mentally unstable their entire lifes, but are still able to operate on a level that is acceptable to society. So do these games benefit society at all? NO! The makers are supposed to be so friggin smart, come up with something original that CAN benefit society....DUH!

Re:Well why not?

[Suiren]

This is true but sometimes they do tell the parents what's in there and my parents don't care. But that's just my parents, not all parents. And not all stores do that either, tell the parents that. I personaly don't think the parents should care what their kids are playing. Violence is all over the place anyway. You can't get away from it.

Thats not going to change anything

[dduardo]

Kids will still get their hands on violent video games either through clueless parents or bigger brother/sister/friends.

Re:Thats not going to change anything

[Vargasan]

But then wouldn't it lay blame directly on those "clueless parents" instead of on the "Video Game Industry" when their child does something moronic, like shoot at passing cars?

Re:Thats not going to change anything

[Anonymous Coward]

mmm.. I tend to think anyone that shoots at passing cars needs a good 10-20 years in a jail, a mental institute, or a military academy.

Their parents need to be held responsible as well.

Re:Thats not going to change anything

[Anonymous Coward]

Kids will still get their hands on violent video games either through clueless parents or bigger brother/sister/friends.

If they know anything about anything they will get them from the alt.binaries.* newsgroups. 8)

Re:Thats not going to change anything

[Anonymous Coward]

To hold the parents responsible you need clearly marked and separated violent games PLUS a ban on selling them to minors. Children DO get hooked to the stupidity of these games.

Re:Thats not going to change anything

[bhtooefr]

What, do you live on the south side of I-270 in Ohio? :-|

BTW, what game promotes shooting at passing cars (as opposed to passing pedestrians - GTA promotes that, but shooting at passing cars isn't quick in any GTA game w/o a rocket launcher or flamethrower)? I do agree, however, with your point. Also, I feel that someone who shoots up a bunch of people after playing a violent game was probably unstable for some reason anyway (sometimes not necessarily their fault, but...)

Re:Thats not going to change anything

[Anonymous Coward]

That's right, put a M16 in those little gobblin's hands and set them loose in Iraq.

Re:Thats not going to change anything

[LordK3nn3th]

Why don't we stop pointing fingers and blame the actual morons that pull the triggers?

It's naive to think that parents can control everything their children do, say, and think. Or even most of it. Parenting is just one of the many factors that determine how someone acts.

The parents COULD be at a large fault, but especially when the kids are teens doing that stupid shit...

Re:Thats not going to change anything

[Zeinfeld]

But then wouldn't it lay blame directly on those "clueless parents" instead of on the "Video Game Industry" when their child does something moronic, like shoot at passing cars?

Probably for the same reason that two 15 year olds shoot up a school and folk appear on slashdot within a nanosecond explaining how gun control would not possibly have prevented the event.

Very little political debate in the US seems to ever be influenced by science, it is mostly predjudice and emotion.

Mind you, things are not necessarily that much better in science. Remember that AIDS/Polio vaccine connection that came up about ten years ago. Instead of checking a pretty strong prima facie case the establishment tried to quiet the issue - litterally in this case with a threat of libel proceedings. Thats not science.

Last year the stories had finaly percolated back to Nigeria and suddenly people were refusing the vaccine. Bad news when polio is inches from being erradicated. Betcha wondering why it took so long for the vaccine to make its way back to the people who were used as guinea pigs for testing, oh, well guess not.

So finally the science establishment gets panicky and does the tests that should have been done when the controversy started. They checked the remaining vials of vaccine from the tests to see if they could identify HIV DNA or money DNA. Turns out that the monkeys used to incubate the vaccine were a type that do not have a HIV strain and there was no HIV virus detected.

So the establishment got it right all along? Well not really, why didn't they insist on doing the test when the story first broke? The only logical reason to resist would be if you feared the result.

Re:Thats not going to change anything

[Kohath]

The only logical reason to resist would be if you feared the result.

Or maybe you just don't want your time to be at the mercy of any crackpot who can come up with a wacky conspiracy theory.

Re:Thats not going to change anything

[mako]

Probably for the same reason that two 15 year olds shoot up a school and folk appear on slashdot within a nanosecond explaining how gun control would not possibly have prevented the event.

What reason is this?

Very little political debate in the US seems to ever be influenced by science, it is mostly prejudice and emotion.

That is because "science" is wholly inadequate to determine the rules by which a society interacts. For example, you sight gun control in your opening. One side feels gun ownership is fundamental to a free and prosperous society. The other side not so much. Both sides can present "scientific" evidence proving their case. But, really, who cares? These are issues of the fundamental rights of man in a free state. Silly soft social science (that is what we're talking about) has no real place here.

Further, social scientists are notorious for not being impartial when testing their hypothesis, thus the ability of two antithetical parties being able to prove their points with the same data. Additionally before such science can be used to determine policy both parties would have to agree that the hypothesis is one worth testing. This is usually not possible.

For example, my hypothesis is that woman who are covered head to toe in a burka are safer. I do my study and determine there is less violence against women in countries with such a policy. Therefore, we can now state scientifically that all women in the United States should be covered head to toe in a burka. There of course can be no argument against this policy as that would be prejudicial and emotional.

The people have learned instinctively to run like hell from "scientists" attempting to determine policy. There is a reason for that.

Mind you, things are not necessarily that much better in science.

You got that part right for sure.

Re:Thats not going to change anything

[Anonymous Coward]

What sort of liberal crybaby bullshit is this? The children are minors and can't be held responsible for their actions in a court. That's WHY the parents are held responsible. What sort of crack are you smoking?

Re:Thats not going to change anything

[Dwedit]

BTW, what game promotes shooting at passing cars

Roadblasters anyone?

Re:Thats not going to change anything

[ro_coyote]

Kids will still get their hands on violent video games either through clueless parents or bigger brother/sister/friends.

Unfortunately this is very true, but perhaps this proposed "bottleneck" would be enough to keep mature-rated games out of the hands of many children nonetheless?

After all, what about cigarettes? What about alcohol? It's true that kids can still get a hold of these things through the "right" people, but it would be a lot worse if these laws didn't exist at all. They're not perfect, but they're still effective.

Re:Thats not going to change anything

[_w00d_]

Kids will still get their hands on violent video games either through clueless parents or bigger brother/sister/friends.

That or they'll get them through Kazaa and the like.

Re:Thats not going to change anything

[brocheck]

BTW, what game promotes shooting at passing cars (as opposed to passing pedestrians

That is the best way to get someone to jump out of their car screaming on GTA. Like if you see this phat sportscar driving down the street and you just barely miss jacking it, just pump a round into the back windshield and the occupant will stop, and flee! Tada, free car.

Re:Thats not going to change anything

[Rayonic]

You make an excellent point about the use of science to determine social policy. However:

For example, you sight gun control in your opening.

I believe the word you're looking for is "cite", not "sight". Check dictionary.com to get your definitions straight.

I'm only pointing this out because it's one of those annoying errors that doesn't get caught by a spellchecker. I hate when it happens to me and nobody bothers to point it out.

Re:Thats not going to change anything

[abolith]

Video games are just the AD&D of the computing age. Every politican and Liberal activist needs a good scapgoat and "violent games" are the newest.

Re:Thats not going to change anything

[Narchie Troll]

I think I'm going to have an aneurysm here.

You're calling it liberal to want people to be responsible for their actions? Jesus.

Re:Thats not going to change anything

[Anonymous Coward]

*shakes head* spelling moron

Re:Thats not going to change anything

[Gojira Shipi-Taro]

Clueless parents should already be blamed directly for having reprobate kids do stupid things.

Parents: It's no one else's job to raise your kid. You REALLY don't want the government doing it.

In response to the inevitable flood of "that's not a fair statement" and "you obviously don't have kids or you'd understand..."

It's very simple. If you don't have time to raise them properly. DONT HAVE THEM.

That seemed to work pretty good 30 years ago. Then the "not my fault" and "failure makes little johnny feel bad" crowd started passing idiotic laws.

Blame the little monsters' Parents. They're the fuckups.

Re:Thats not going to change anything

[Anonymous Coward]

if you want "No More Hiroshimas" then I say "You First. No More Pearl Harbors."

I think the US effort at achieving no more Hiroshima was a lot closer to success than the Japanese attempt at achieving no more Pearl Harbor. If they could have done it though, I'm sure they would have done.

Re:Thats not going to change anything

[Anonymous Coward]

Probably for the same reason that two 15 year olds shoot up a school and folk appear on slashdot within a nanosecond explaining how gun control would not possibly have prevented the event.

What reason is this?

Hey, I know that one. A bunch of guys (now long dead) with a range of political philospohies put together a compromise document on the structure of the government of the US with a bit about a right to bear arms. That's percolated through the court structure provided by that same document and over time all sorts of restrictions and non-restrictions have been arrived at that bear little rersemblance to the original, with weapons being restricted to varying degrees. Therefore it's a god given right to have easy access to guns to the extent that the supreme court says it is and doing so can't cause any societal problems or be in any way wrong. QED.

Don't they still teach history and logical reasoning in schools?

Re:Thats not going to change anything

[RedBear]

One side feels gun ownership is fundamental to a free and prosperous society. The other side not so much. Both sides can present "scientific" evidence proving their case.

Firstly, bull.

One side of the gun control debate makes a point to present verifiable facts, hard data measured under well-defined circumstances, whenever possible by unbiased, disinterested third-parties, including parties that are supposedly part of the opposition. These verifiable (scientific, no quotes) facts are repeatedly and constantly completely ignored by the other side.

The other side uses nothing but highly modified data that has been restructured to suit their purposes, to "prove" their points. That's when they even bother to present any data at all. Most of the time they stick to straw-man emotional arguments, name-calling and fear propaganda based on... what? Certainly not real data that will hold up to scrutiny.

I will leave it as an exercise for the reader to decide which is which. The two sides bear no resemblance in this respect that I can see.

Secondly, why is the parent modded insightful? Science has no place in deciding social policy? He isn't even talking about science, by definition. He's talking about pseudo-science. That's what it's called when the results can be used to prove whatever hypothesis you feel like proving that day.

Real science decidely does have a place in our decision-making processes in any field. But by definition that means the hypotheses and data must be verifiable by multiple, perhaps antithetical parties. That's science, not this mumbo-jumbo the parent was talking about.

Re:Thats not going to change anything

[Ice_Balrog]

The other side uses nothing but highly modified data that has been restructured to suit their purposes, to "prove" their points. That's when they even bother to present any data at all. Most of the time they stick to straw-man emotional arguments, name-calling and fear propaganda based on... what? Certainly not real data that will hold up to scrutiny.

Bullshit. Pointing out that countries _with_ gun control have higher crime/murder rates is definitely true, unmodified data.

Re:Thats not going to change anything

[Zeinfeld]

Real science decidely does have a place in our decision-making processes in any field. But by definition that means the hypotheses and data must be verifiable by multiple, perhaps antithetical parties. That's science, not this mumbo-jumbo the parent was talking about.

Popper's falsification principle will identify pseudo-science 100% of the time. The problem is that it gives a fals positive for real science most of the time if you use the original strict criteria. Popper himself admitted as such (see the OUP volume on Scientific revolutions where Popper responds to Kuhn). Popper originally developed his falsification principle as a reaction to the logical positivists their verification principle clearly did not work for induction. It is somewhat ironic that the two best known 'members' of the Vienna circle were never actually members. Wittgenstein refused to join and Schlick blackballed Popper because he denounced Wittgenstein's antics. Popper then used his falsification principle to mount an attack against the freudian psueuds and Marxism.

A test that does work is intent, is the theory intended to be subject to falsification? are the modifications of the theory to match observations made in good faith? Unfortunately in the process the test is no longer sharply objective.

One of the depressing aspects of US academia (which is spreading to the rest of the world) is the confusion of technique with method. When I was at MIT there were lots of folk who spent their time endlessly analysing the results of an intrinsically flawed experiment to five decimal places.

The big problem with the social sciences is physics envy. People want to be able to do the same type of science they think the physicists do, comming up with firm, immutable results.

The point I was making in the original piece is that the data is simply too thin and too unreliable to allow that type of analysis. There is no measurement in social science that is not contaminated by multiple effects.

The use of science in politics has been contaminated by the emergence of endless 'crank tanks' dedicated to providing the result their sponsors pay for. We have already seen the laughably named 'Independent' institute being paid by Microsoft to tell us that network effects do not exist. Until recently these institutes have mostly been right wing outfits funded by Richard Mellon Scaife.

Now that George Sorros is committed to spending equally large sums to attack the right one wonders what the outcome might be. Fortunately Sorros is one of Popper's students and he seems to have a personal commitment to the ideas Popper advanced. Still one has to wonder if the result might not end up being the left turning to the same junk science and propaganda that Scaife has pushed the right into.

Re:Thats not going to change anything

[Glock27]

Probably for the same reason that two 15 year olds shoot up a school and folk appear on slashdot within a nanosecond explaining how gun control would not possibly have prevented the event.

Gun control might or might not have stopped some particular crime, but it certainly would have prevented the folk who stopped the Columbine shooting from doing so.

If someone wants to hurt people on pretty much any scale, there are readily available methods for doing so that work better than guns. The same doesn't apply to self-defense.

It should also be pointed out that in most places where guns are plentiful among the citizenry, there is much less crime. Now there's a scientifically testable fact for you to ponder... ;-)

Having now made my escape from the People's Republic of California :-), I was pleased to walk into the local gunshop yesterday and see a big rack of AK-47s...one even had large capacity clips taped together back to back. Gee, I hear of crimes being committed with those every day...not. And I'm pretty sure criminals around here think long and hard before breaking into houses that might contain a really nasty weapon and someone that won't hesitate to use it if need be. (BTW I'm not advocating AK-47s for home defense, too much overpenetration. .223/5.56mm hollowpoint is much better.:)

The main key to low crime is having neighbors that are good citizens...meaning among other things that they have good judgement as to when the shooting should start, and who to shoot once it does. ;-)

Have a nice day! =)

Re:Thats not going to change anything

[Anonymous Coward]

You just said one side is telling the truth, one side is lieing, but i won't tell you which is which.

I knew that already, jackass.

Re:Thats not going to change anything

[Anonymous Coward]

hey brain boy... "Probably for the same reason that two 15 year olds shoot up a school and folk appear on slashdot within a nanosecond explaining how gun control would not possibly have prevented the event."
here`s a clue: man has been killing each other before thier were guns. you can make all the laws you want and even take the guns, but human nature never changes... (science?) if science had the answers where is it?

Re:Thats not going to change anything

[RedBear]

I wonder what made you think you were arguing against me? I didn't say which side I was on, nor which side uses the real data and which does not. I can't decide whether you've passed this little test or failed miserably. :P

Re:Thats not going to change anything

[Dwonis]

It's (arguably) liberal to have parents who are not responsible for their children.

Re:Thats not going to change anything

[Anonymous Coward]

Yes, but Rayonic helpfully pointed it out so that, in future, mako can cease to be a spelling moron.

Or do you think spelling is somehow unimportant just because some people don't bother to learn it?

Re:Thats not going to change anything

[Anonymous Coward]

OOOO!! At thins point Kelso needs to add...

BURN!!!!!!

Re:Thats not going to change anything

[GQuon]

I will leave it as an exercise for the reader to decide which is which. The two sides bear no resemblance in this respect that I can see.

I don't know. Pundits on both sides use science/statistics, then the other side tries to refute it. Sometimes the refutation goes too far as well.

Re:Thats not going to change anything

[lobsterGun]

It's very simple. If you don't have time to raise them properly. DONT HAVE THEM.

So this is what passes for insight on slashdot these days.

pathetic.

Good thinkg I was born before 1973, that was 30 years ago. You know, back when folks knew the RIGHT way to raise a child. Good thing I wasn't born a few years later, or I'd have been FUCKED!

You'd think that the parent of kids born in 1974 would have raised some alarms. Perhaps because their kids were all in jail or out on crime sprees and the kids born the previous year were not. Maybe they didn't say anything because they're all bad parents.

Re:Thats not going to change anything

[Gojira Shipi-Taro]

I'm sorry, your reply really didn't make any logical sense. Were you drunk?

I didn't imply that all parents after say 30 years ago were bad, I merely pointed out that in that timespan the "not my fault", "failure makes little johnny feel bad"* and worst of all "it take a village to raise a child"** mindsets seem to have reduced the number of fit parents.

All of us are somehow now expected to make sacrifices so that Joe and Jane Too-fucking-busy-to-raise-their-hellspawn can have fulfilling careers without the guilt or ostrisization that used to take place when their child turned out to be a wortless piece of shit.

I see you got modded as funny. I hope that's what you were trying for, because it really wasn't all that coherent, much less funny...

* Failure is supposed to make you feel bad. If it didn't, people would have no incentive to NOT fail, to NOT be assholes, and to improve themselves.

** It doesn't take a fucking village. It takes parents that take the job of parenting seriously, and not as a chore that some hired servant or government servant should do for them

Re:Thats not going to change anything

[Telastyn]

Not that I don't agree, but statistically people didn't have less children historically. They used to have more, and be a bit less... caring if the child was a screw up and dumped on the street.

Nowadays it's criminal to toss your good for nothing kid out on the street, and kids use it to their advantage.

Either way a good dose of responsibility should be had by all.

Re:Thats not going to change anything

[lobsterGun]

Logic eh?

You implied that parents of 30 years ago knew the proper way to raise a child, and that parents today did not.

Now you say that you didn't say that (I must have misread you) Thats a good thing too, because if you had said that, you'd have been wrong. By enlarge, kids today are less likely to comit crimes, less likely to become pregnant, less likely to catch an STD, and more likely to be literate. (Apparently while all the unfit parents were neglecting their kids the kids used that time to have safe sex and study).

And yes, I generally try to go for funny when I see someone say something monumentally stupid. It keeps them from getting their feelings hurt. It doesn't always work. Like this time.

Sorry to have to cut this post short, all this typing is getting in the way of my hard drinking.

Re:Thats not going to change anything

[CooCooNutz]

The number of drive by shootings has increased proportionally since GTA came out. You do the math. 'nuff said.

Re:Thats not going to change anything

[CooCooNutz]

I since a bias of 5%-95% in your reply.

Re:Thats not going to change anything

[RobertB-DC]

They checked the remaining vials of vaccine from the tests to see if they could identify HIV DNA or money DNA.

I got paid last week, but all the money is now missing. I guess I could submit my empty pockets to a testing lab, and see if anyone can recover the DNA of my missing cash. I suspect, though, that the incriminating evidence will be found in my wife's purse, instead.

"But of course, for that ending to work, you would have to ignore all the Simpson DNA evidence. [laughs] And that would be downright nutty."
- The Simpsons 138th Episode Spectacular

Re:Thats not going to change anything

[Jad LaFields]

What math?

"Increased proportionally"? What's that mean? That there have been 10 million more drive-by-shootings since it came out (or whatever insane number of copies the GTA games have sold, maybe its not that high)?

Where has this increase been? How do you know it was related to GTA? Could there - I don't know - other reasons for it? A major gang war going on somewhere?

But anyway, it doesn't matter, because after the ungodly number of hours I've put into the GTA games, I don't know any more about how to actually pull off a drive-by shooting then I knew before I started playing. I assume it involves sticking gun out of a car window (that you don't roll down, according to the game), but that's exactly what I would have said before hand.

So what?

[chill]

I still don't understand why people accept this with movies (R- and X- ratings), but have problems when applied to games and music.

Re:So what?

[Rob Simpson]

Because, as was pointed out here this isn't done with R-rated movies, only X-rated ones. At least not around here, and not anywhere I've seen. And I've never seen a game that could reasonably be called X-rated in a retail store.

Re:So what?

[druhol]

Your sig makes the point better than I could ever hope to.

Re:So what?

[n.wegner]

Accept what? That some stores choose to have kids vs. everyone else sections? That some places choose to limit what kids can purchase? Right now, there is no law saying that retailers have to do age discrimination (for R-ratings) when selling movies and music, and many retailers choose to do that for games as well.

Re:So what?

[CoolMoDee]

Because movies show real people doing stuff, while a video game it is clearly not Joe Moviestar doing cool illegal stuff.

Re:So what?

[Anonymous Coward]

However, studies show that when kids play violent video games over and over it desensitizes them to the violence. They no longer draw the line, or the line blurs, between shooting a person in a video game and shooting a person in real life.

Re:So what?

[Anonymous Coward]

I wonder how many children they took out to south compton, gave them a gun, and told them to blindly murder someone.

Yeah, you cant really make a comparison between a video and the real thing.

I dont think some people understand HOW different it really is.

So, I ask how anyone can blur the line between shooting a bad guy on television and taking them out and shooting a gun point blank at someone.

Murder can be a very messy thing.

Re:So what?

[beakerMeep]

Games do have ESRB which is basically the same as movies -- self regulation... so what are you talking about?

Re:So what?

[gad_zuki!]

Just because there isn't op-ed pieces in your hometown paper against movie ratings doesn't mean there aren't thousands, if not millions who see them as a ridiculous way to rate movie content and the implementation of these ratings through law or theater policy is absurd.

You must be especially sheltered and puritanical to an extreme to believe that teens shoudn't be able to see NC-17 movies (R movies are more or less unenforced). Really now, there's nothing in there they don't know (or are doing). The American collective hang-up with sex and our apathy to fix these ratings is really embarassing. Mainstream movies in Europe and Asia have more T&A than our NC-17 movies.

Worse, filmmakers can't even make a realistic sex scene without the dreaded NC-17 kiss-of-death promise from the moralists at the censorship board, thus less realism and a damaged national cinema.

The US's ideas of age limits is largely irrational and based on special interests (big religion, etc). 18 year olds can't buy alcohol yet pay taxes, work, and can get drafted to die in a war. Under 21s can't even enter a bar, thus banning them from their own local music scene until they turn 21. Sexually active teens get arrested for having sex with consenting teens, etc.

The list goes on and many are shocked by how out of touch the US is. Don't assume the mainstream media's inablility to address these issues equals agreement.

Re:So what?

[benna]

Brings to mind the line from Apocolypse Now, "They train young men to drop fire on people but their commanders won't allow them to write "fuck" on their airplane, because its obsene."

Re:So what?

[Anonymous Coward]

I don't think they got accepted right away in the case of movies. Besides, adults tend to have less experience with the modern day games and thus cannot fully grasp how dangerous they can be for their children.

Re:So what?

[chill]

You must be especially sheltered and puritanical to an extreme to believe that teens shoudn't be able to see NC-17 movies (R movies are more or less unenforced). Really now, there's nothing in there they don't know (or are doing).

"Teens" technically means anyone between 13 and 19. They're NOT the same emotionally, mentally or in experience. Lumping them in together is as irresponsible as using the term "intellectual property" when talking about copyrights, trademarks and patents -- different items altogether.

18 year olds can't buy alcohol yet pay taxes, work, and can get drafted to die in a war.

Because the vast majority of alcohol related driving injuries and fatalities involve "teens". Many can't handle the responsibility.

Under 21s can't even enter a bar, thus banning them from their own local music scene until they turn 21.

Any you have no idea how grateful those over 21 are for that.

Sexually active teens get arrested for having sex with consenting teens, etc.

Again, both the lumping of "teens" is a misnomer and the laws were a result of lack of responsibility. "Teens" still have that Superman complex -- where it can't happen to them. Only experience deals with that and the longer you live, the better the chances you have of gaining that experience. Many "teens" are irresponsible with sex -- not fully understanding the potential consequences -- or not believing it can happen to them.

No, I'm not claiming just being an adult automatically fixes that. It isn't an automatic cutoff, more like a learning curve. Good judgement comes from experience. Experience comes from bad judgement. Living longer helps you gain more experience.

Finally, like it or not, "teens" are legally CHILDREN. That means their parents still legally hold some responsibility for their actions. The older the kids get, the less responsibility the parents have and the more for the kids. At age 18 is the biggest legal transfer of responsibility. At 21 is the final. Then they can be held responsible for their actions.

If your "teen" gets drunk and smashes up someone's car, Mom & Dad can be held responsible for the damages. Once you hit 18, it is YOUR problem.

There is no way to get a perfect system. The ratings are a guideline. Relax.

As for apathy...NC-17 *WAS* the attempted fix to the system. People didn't know the difference between X- and XXX- so both were a black mark for a serious movie.

Re:So what?

[gad_zuki!]

>"Teens" technically means anyone between 13 and 19. They're NOT the same emotionally, mentally or in experience.

Which more or less backs up my points: an arbiratry number is more or less useless, the real solution is realistic content ratings and parents making the decisions as to what their kids can see, not theaters or the local state legislature. Yes, that means unsupervised kids doing things parents might not like - but not only is that happening already its arguable that without exposure to outside influence one can't properly mature. This really reminds me of the weirdo fundie homeschool kids I've met, or the kids of parents with strong ideologies or strong religious identities.

>Because the vast majority of alcohol related driving injuries and fatalities involve "teens". Many can't handle the responsibility.

This is largely tangential to the argument. You could also say drivers in general don't mature until about 21 or so and cars should be banned from those under 21.

Also, your "numbers" are wrong. Teens account for about 10% of fatalities. Which has fallen sharply since the early eighties due, most likely, to MADD awareness programs and safer cars.

Which brings me to my last point: I was a teen once (pushing 30 now) so I find it hard to believe the "they just aren't mature enough" argument. If anything, responsible exposure to adulthood like safe-sex programs, condom availability, etc lower the risks of things teens are already doing as opposed to sticking your head in the ground and pretending the status quo is for the best.

To make this problem even worse, the conservative mentalities that go for censorship are the same ones that are against the teaching of safe-sex and other things that could benefit teens. If they are all immature its because we've made them so with our assumptions and prudish attitudes, but as time and time again has shown the teen years are the ones when one decides that Mom and Dad, society, etc might be wrong and its time to explore for real solutions. Might as well save them the effort and give them the straight dope as opposed to more knee-jerk efforts to shelter them.

Re:So what?

[Santa_Clause]

X and Triple X are a creation of the adult movie companies, there are no such official ratings. http://www.mpaa.org/movieratings/

Re:So what?

[Anonymous Coward]

"The US's ideas of age limits is largely irrational and based on special interests (big religion, etc). 18 year olds can't buy alcohol yet pay taxes, work, and can get drafted to die in a war. Under 21s can't even enter a bar, thus banning them from their own local music scene until they turn 21."

Wrong. While it's common practice to blame any "archaic" law on "Big religon" it in fact had little to do with the legal drinking age in the US.
The drinking age began to be inacted in various states after coralations showing the rise of teenage deaths in automoative acidents. Such deaths went down when the drinking age was raised. Eventualy the united states federal goverment bribed/forced the states to raise the drinking age to 21 in the 80s by withhold funds for roads.

It's been shown in our culture that a lower drinking age causes more drunk driving acidents among teens.
Frankly I think it would be better to lower the drinking age and raise the driving age... but the other way around was an easier way to save lives. (I'm not justifying the leagal drinking age, only saying why it is what it is.)

Reference:
http://www.ama-assn.org/ama/pub/article/3566-3640. html


"Sexually active teens get arrested for having sex with consenting teens, etc."
Please provide a source for this.
I know of satatory rape examples, but that is a completely seperate issue where it is not a teen.


As far as video games and rated R movies, while there are likely millions out there who think that Movie ratings are meaningless, there are a great many more who would rather keep them.
Raising a kid in this world is some times a difficult thing to do, such ratings don't take over the job of being a parent of course, but they do offer support for those parents who wish to raise their kids in such a manner.
A parent is of course free to let their child play such games watch such movies and drink such drinks. But if a comunity in general has decided that they want to limit their minors access to such material and leave it up to the discression of the parent then there is nothing wrong with that.
Those who do and start saying that there is nothing wrong with kids watching NC-17 movies or playing violent video games are commint the very actions they claim their accusers of: telling everyone else how to raise their children.

Re:So what?

[Anonymous Coward]

X was originally a real rating. However, the MPAA forget (or neglected to) copyright it, and therefore it was used however any movie company wanted to. It was used for adult films (by the film companies), and quickly became synonmous with pornography, therefore becoming useless for rating 'real' films as X. The MPAA quickly abandoned it.

Re:So what?

[Goth Biker Babe]

Because the vast majority of alcohol related driving injuries and fatalities involve "teens". Many can't handle the responsibility.

Surely that's a self fulfilling prophecy. If you don't let people do something they will want to try it any way and probably do it all wrong. If you let them do it and educate them then you don't have the problem. Do your statistics come from a period when drinking was legal for that age group or illegal?

If you ask any UK base youngsters about drinking and driving you'll find nearly all are very definitely against it and would never do it. My experience is that offenders are usually middle-aged business men. Everyone I know well would either use public transport/taxi if they intended to drink, otherwise it's diets cokes. To be honest many I know don't have a driving licence ro drive at all.

Re:So what?

[Goth Biker Babe]

Frankly I think it would be better to lower the drinking age and raise the driving age... but the other way around was an easier way to save lives. (I'm not justifying the leagal drinking age, only saying why it is what it is.)

Surely it would be better to educate. Teach people about the evils of drink driving and introduce breathalisation and harsh penalties for offenders. It is possible to change a 'culture' using these methods.

What's wrong with personal responsibiliy? The chief designer at Aston Martin was saying that the current DB is the last that will look that good because of new US regulations to protect car occupants when not wearing seatbelts. Well fuck-em. If you're idiotic enough not to wear one you deserve all you get (and yes I know on rare occasions they are worse but on average you will be safer in an accident if wearing one).

Rather than preventing people doing stupid things. We should educate people and then lock em up if they continue to do it.

Re:So what?

[mobets]

I find it hard to believe the "they just aren't mature enough"

It was realy weird, when I was in high school, I could see the freshmen getting dumber and more immature each year. That's not to say my class was particularly smart, but each year the percintage of snobish preps with no common sence went up every year. I also see it around the neighbor hood. When I was young, if we saw a car comming down the street, someone would yell car, and our game of kickball or whatever would stop untill the car passed. Now, you have to all but run them over to get them to move out of the middle of the road. And I have yet to seem them get out of it entirely. So yes, they are getting less mature.

Re:So what?

[Kohath]

If your "teen" gets drunk and smashes up someone's car, Mom & Dad can be held responsible for the damages.

If the parents are held responsible, the parents should have the choice.

Re:So what?

[Anonymous Coward]

Free Mumia!

What? They finally executed that murderer and we can have parts as souvenirs? Oh, I'm sorry... "journalist".

Re:So what?

[Anonymous Coward]

There are very few laws which limit children from seeing R- or X-rated movies, either.

There are plenty of collary laws which in effect prevent them from doing so (children cannot be exposed to pornography, etc. - and porno covers a huge spectrum since it's determined at a "community" level), but the ratings system was self-imposed on the movie industry by... the movie industry.

Granted, it was done under threat of government censure and regulation, much like how the game industry self-imposed it's ratings system. As someone in the industry at the time the rating system came to be, let me assure you that this history was used to justify the ratings system to game companies. Basically a case of "if we do this, they'll shut their traps, just like they did for the movie industry."

Ultimately, all this really proves is that the game industry can't afford to pay the lobbyists being employed by the movie industry.

And with Hollywood on their footstep, California would NEVER think of shooting itself in the foot with nonsensical crap, would they? Funny, you'd think with EA on their footstep, they wouldn't either... but that's where the lobbyists come in, doesn't it?

Re:So what?

[chill]

Wrong, they're the creation of the MPAA. Read the article you linked. http://www.mpaa.org/movieratings/about/index.htm

Specifically, page 2.

" Second, we changed the name of the X category to NC-17:NO ONE 17 AND UNDER ADMITTED. The X rating over the years appeared to have taken on a surly meaning in the minds of many people, a meaning that was never intended when we created the system."

Re:So what?

[ifwm]

"However, studies show that when kids play violent video games over and over it desensitizes them to the violence."

For approximately an hour. The effect is short term and not at all permanent. READ the studies before you cite them , or shut up.

Re:So what?

[Anonymous Coward]

ummm...no...they haven't executed him. He gets a new sentencing hearing. But I don't think he can get a fair trial now because it would look to bad if he was aquited. Thats why I say just free him.

benna (posting anonymously because this is totally off topic)

Re:So what?

[Anonymous Coward]

I think that at this point lethal injection would be much more cost effective. Who knows, maybe John Africa could come in and save the day. If he were only there in '82 we could have another "journalist" back on the streets.

Re:So what?

[Cybren]

Good use of irrelevant anecdotes to support your argument.

Re:So what?

[monkeyfinger]

I agree with what you are saying, that some of the age limits are wierd. For example, over here in the UK we can start drinking at 18.

However, I think the law is actually a positive thing (bear with me on this). The "sheltered and puritanical" people that you mentioned have a lot of political clout and could do a lot of damage to the games industry if they are not dealt with. This new law is similar to the alcohol laws, there is an a age restriction and retailers have a duty to check the age of purchasers. If an underage kid does get drunk it is not the fault of the manufacturer, it's is due to the retailer not checking the age or someone else getting the alcohol on their behalf. With this kind of law the games companies will have a lot more freedom to make "adult" games because they cannot be held to blame if kids are exposed to them.

It may not be much fun for those who are too young to play the games, but at least they will have decent games when they are old enough, if the "sheltered and puritanical" people had their way you would be unable to play these games whatever age you are.

Re:So what?

[monkeyfinger]

You could also say drivers in general don't mature until about 21 or so and cars should be banned from those under 21.

Shhhhhh. Don't give them any ideas.

Joking aside, I agree with what you were saying about giving your kids the "straight dope". My parents were well meaning fundementalist christians who sheltered me and my siblings from the real world for as long as possible. When we did enter the real world we were totally unprepared for it and all of us got really fucked up by it. Most of us are through it now, but it taught me a valuable lesson about preparing your kids.

I have a seven year old daughter and I try to avoid making my parents mistakes. If she asks me a question I try my best to give her all the facts. The only danger is going too far and making the world seem like a scary place. Like most things in life the trick is to walk the middle path.

Re:So what?

[gad_zuki!]

Thats good to hear. You might be interested in Marshall Brains (the guy who made howstuffworks.com) "A Teenager's Guide to the Real World." Lots of practical advice in there, but its been criticized for not portraying sexuality realistically. Might be worth checking out:

http://bygpub.com/books/tg2rw/

From the webpage:

Helps teenagers to answer fundamental questions that everyone has about life and the world, such as: Why do people of the opposite sex seem to hate me? Why does society seem to have so many laws, rules and restrictions? Why do adults seem so concerned about money, taxes, prices, etc.? What is the difference between "right" and "wrong"? Why does the world seem so unfair? What are the rules to the game of life? And hundreds more...

Although, living in the middle of an information revolution may make books like these somwhat old-fashioned compared to the power of google or alltheweb.

Re:So what?

[Anonymous Coward]

Did you expect relevant anecdotes? Maturely is subjective so expecting anything use but personal anecdotes seems odd. I'm wondering should he have posted hard facts to support his subjective viewpoint. Should he pull some statistics to support
his personal experience , or are you really saying personal experiences have no bearing here?

Re:So what?

[Anonymous Coward]

And you know the middle path and your parents didn't? When your children grow up they will no doubt claim you didn't know what you were doing and claim they know better.

Re:So what?

[Anonymous Coward]

what choice? Do you realize we can't read your mind?
Look if you're going to post comments that have meaning only in your mind please write it on paper and keep it to yourself.

Re:So what?

[Anonymous Coward]

"If your "teen" gets drunk and smashes up someone's car, Mom & Dad can be held responsible for the damages."

If the parents are held responsible, the parents should have the choice.

Yeah, it should be made illegal for a teen to smash up someone's car without their parents' permission. Then we could hold the parents responsible.

Re:So what?

[monkeyfinger]

And you know the middle path and your parents didn't?

I'm a damn site closer to the middle path than my parents. They are Christian fundementalist (no sex before mariage, no alcohol, no drugs, no swearing, disaproval of homosexuality etc.etc.). Not middle path by any stretch of the imagination.

When your children grow up they will no doubt claim you didn't know what you were doing and claim they know better.

Very likely. Rebelling against your parents is a natural part of growing up.

Re:So what?

[Tikiman]

You must be especially sheltered and puritanical to an extreme to believe that teens shoudn't be able to see NC-17 movies (R movies are more or less unenforced).

Ha, are you kidding me? You think I am being "puritanical" for not letting my kid see NC-17 movies like "Kids" or "Showgirls"? Whatever! I want my kids to have healthy attitudes about human sexuality, so I think we'll be avoiding Trois and friends.

Re:So what?

[Anonymous Coward]

Surely it would be better to educate. Teach people about the evils of drink driving and introduce breathalisation and harsh penalties for offenders. It is possible to change a 'culture' using these methods.

What's wrong with personal responsibiliy? The chief designer at Aston Martin was saying that the current DB is the last that will look that good because of new US regulations to protect car occupants when not wearing seatbelts. Well fuck-em. If you're idiotic enough not to wear one you deserve all you get (and yes I know on rare occasions they are worse but on average you will be safer in an accident if wearing one).

Rather than preventing people doing stupid things. We should educate people and then lock em up if they continue to do it.


Well, I do agree that it would be good to educate, and have more stringent laws... however there is one important differnce between things like not wearing a seatbelt and teens drinking and driving... that is to say a teen not wearing a seatbelt is likely only going to hurt themselves.. a teen drinking and getting behind a wheel (anybody for that matter.. but more teens than adults tend to have less driving experience, less understanding of the effects of alochol on them, and a superman complex to boot.) has just as good a chance of hurting *me* or *you* or someone who had nothing to do with their choices except to be invovled in the consequences.

Re:So what?

[Rone]

When I was young, if we saw a car comming down the street, someone would yell car, and our game of kickball or whatever would stop untill the car passed. Now, you have to all but run them over to get them to move out of the middle of the road.

Perspective colors all.

When you were the one playing kickball in the street, you may have thought that you and your friends had a perfect record in getting out of the way of cars. Now that you're the one driving the car, the damn kids have to be "all but run over".

Unless you had a guy with a stopwatch timing you then and another guy timing the kids now, selective memory could be making today's youth seem less considerate than you were when you were a kid.

Do you really think you have always been perfectly mature and respectful of others at every point in your life?

Re:So what?

[Anonymous Coward]

please refrain from using the word "black" it`s ofensive.

Re:So what?

[Goth Biker Babe]

anybody for that matter.. but more teens than adults tend to have less driving experience, less understanding of the effects of alochol on them, and a superman complex to boot.

Not my experience of teens in this country (UK). Using your logic surely you should stop teens driving! Or better soon no one should drink and no one should drive and everyone should walk.

Re:So what?

[Anonymous Coward]

"Not my experience of teens in this country (UK). Using your logic surely you should stop teens driving! Or better soon no one should drink and no one should drive and everyone should walk"

The UK is a differnt culture... in the US we have a bunch of people who learn to drive very young and aquire a license when they're 15 16 and 17. they build of confidance and assurity in their driving ablitites and a lot of them aren't exposed to alcohol until they're in college or on their own. They drink, get drunk, and still have that self assuredness of being able to drive just fine, plus they don't have much experience at all in knowing their own limits with regards to alcohol. This creates an awfull mix and leads to numerous fatalities.

And yes, if you take my logic one should stop teens driving, drinking and everyone else too... assuming you were going to take it to an exterme. That what was said was said more in the gray area of things, although minors aren't held accountable for acts they commited when they turn 18.. which gives us a very good reason to impose limits on what they can do to hurt others (and themselves to a degree, but mostly others). That 3 year gap between 18 and 21 is to allow at least some leway into becoming a more responsible person before they sudenly find themselves with a beer in one hand and a wheel in the other.

Keep in mind, I don't think that a 21 limit is necessarly a good thing in itself. I would far prefer to have a system like europe where people learn to drink a bit younger and learn how to handle it. But I honestly don't think our culture is capable of that at this juncture.. nor do I think education is enough to bring us to such a place.

Re:So what?

[Fallout2man]

From what I remember, the 21 drinking age was actually the work of a soccer mom. A group of 18 year olds got drunk and plowed their car into her house, running over her young daughter (think she was in the neighborhood of five years old). After this she set out to make it illegal to drink at 18 nationally because of this incident. The typical soccer-mom activist routine. Naturally, the federal government does not have a say over the drinking age, each state does. So with her lobbying the feds basically dangled a figurative carrot. If the state has a drinking age lower then 21 they do not receive federal highway funding I could be wrong, I'm trying to remember a few years back to the text in my AP government book in HS, that's the best I can remember of it.

Re:So what?

[jtcm]

18 year olds can't buy alcohol yet pay taxes, work, and can get drafted to die in a war.

Because the vast majority of alcohol related driving injuries and fatalities involve "teens". Many can't handle the responsibility.

Perhaps teen drivers would be more responsible behind the wheel if they developed a proper respect for alcohol BEFORE getting a license to drive. I propose changing the drinking age to 16 and the driving age to 18. Maybe once the kids have had a couple years to figure out how to drink responsibly, they won't drink & drive. Besides, if I'm a parent, I'd much rather have my child's first drinking experience be at home, perhaps a family gathering or some low-key "adult" party.

Under 21s can't even enter a bar, thus banning them from their own local music scene until they turn 21.

Any you have no idea how grateful those over 21 are for that.

Frankly, I resent that remark. I'm 23 and I have friends ranging from 16 to 30. It sucks when you're a mature, young adult, age 18-20, and you can't follow your friends into the club where your favorite band is playing.

Please don't get me wrong...your post is well written and insightful; I just felt the need to address those points.

--
this is my real sig.

Re:So what?

[elemental23]

Right, X is no longer an official MPAA rating and has since been co-opted by the adult film industry. And because there's no such rating, there's no difference between "X" and "XXX". It's marketing on the part of the adult industry, where I'm guessing XXX means dirtier, or more explicit, or whatever, but there's no one out there actually giving these films these ratings. It's entirely up to whoever is designing the movie packaging.

Re:So what?

[ReyTFox]

I'd like to add that I find the "lack of experience" argument for prohibiting someone to see or do things to be a poor one.

If you don't have experience with drinking beer at 21 or having sex at 18, it's probably about the same as if you didn't have experience with them at, say, 14. The only differences are physical and emotional development - that is a factor, but not to the extent where people have to wait until they're adults to enjoy these things.

What's troublesome about this is that all too often, people will get the desire to do these things when it's still illegal, because they really do feel ready for it(or they need to fit in...but that's a slightly different social problem). They won't have much guidance or authority to help them in their dangerous adventures, because of those laws. So the shielding works against the kids and often lands them in trouble.

The alternative would be to allow all of it, allowing a maximum of supervision and information to be made available so that teenagers make good choices(drink in moderation, have safe sex) rather than whatever suits them(go binge drinking, lose your virginity ASAP even when it means taking risks or raping your partner, etc.).

It's not that all teenagers are maniacs, but that they want to learn things about living.

Can't contact parents

[sinclair44]

And what about those of use who will still be minors when we're away to college? Will they accept a parent over the phone saying that their child can buy UT 2007?

Re:Can't contact parents

[HaloZero]

Dude... most of college is grubbing off of your parents. Yeah, it sucks ass, so either have them order it from Amazon and shipped to your mailbox, or have they buy it at EB or BestBuy and UPSed or FedEXed up to you.

The other parts of college involve piracy. You know what to do. *nudge*

Re:Can't contact parents

[Anonymous Coward]

Um, you just started college, and you're worried about buying a naughty video GAME?!?!?!?!??!?! I'm as much of a geek/nerd as anyone (more then most) but college is about expanding your horizons in real life. Also, hold on to your money, by the time the game is in the bargin bin, you'll be over 18 :) More money for good food (or chipping in for beer ;-) ) Seriously, worry about studying, worry about girls (or boys if that's your thing), meet new people, leave the room. Failing that, play your roomate's copy.

Re:Can't contact parents

[Anonymous Coward]

>And what about those of use who will still be minors when we're away to college?

Exactly the same as you do for beer or 18+ movies - try to get served, and send your friend in instead if they notice you're underage.

Re:Can't contact parents

[liquidsin]

Sure, just like minors in college get all of their cigarettes, porn and liquor purchased for them by their parents. Or, they could spend their time at school "learning". Or, they'll pirate the games, or have a legal-aged friend buy it for them. Or hey - go without! This'll be just what the "someone please think of the children!" types are asking for - keep GTA3 away from 12 yr olds. Now they'll have nobody to blame but the parents, just like with porn and booze. And the rest of us won't even notice.

Re:Can't contact parents

[Anonymous Coward]

If you dont know what to do, reply to this post. I will be happy to set you up as a 1 hour from pre site!

Re:Can't contact parents

[Evil Pete]

Oooh raw nerve. Ahhh. I had this bite me recently when my sons (10 and 13) started playing UT. I felt pretty ambivalent about it. But when the 10 year old looked like he was getting addicted to it I just uninstalled it. Now they play BF1942 on my PC. I'm a little disturbed by that, the encouragement to shoot other soldiers in the back etc (and yes I do it too), but its more the moral quandary rather than the outright violence. Would I like it if they could buy these games themselves? No. OTOH I really hate it that my ex let my eldest son buy both Saving Private Ryan and Black Hawk Down.

Re:Can't contact parents

[lxs]

you mean college students actually BUY games? this must be some weird fantasy world you speak of.

The idea...

[-kertrats-]

The idea of not selling M-rated video games to minors has already been around for years. Almost all major chains already do this. Making it law will change very little. As for separating violent games from the rest of the games, where exactly would they go? Most stores dont have an incredible amount of room in their video game section. Where would they move them to? Also, why shouldnt stores be doing this with R-rated movies or Parental-Advisory CDs? Shouldnt any law enacted against adult video games be put into effect against other media?

Re:The idea...

[-noefordeg-]

" Also, why shouldnt stores be doing this with R-rated movies or Parental-Advisory CDs?"

I've never seen a child or children sitting for 10+ hours at a time watching a movie or listning to a CD. I guess, neither have you...

Video games can't be compared to CDs or ordinary movies on DVD/VHS or at the cinema. You don't have marathon sessions watching/playing them as you do with games. It's much easier to get all caught up in a game than any other media, and also much easier to have your reality altered.

What they really should rate 18+ is the mmorpg games.... :)

Re:The idea...

[Anonymous Coward]

I agree about the mmorpg games, but only because the little bastards dont know how to interact with grown ups.

Re:The idea...

[benna]

I've sat and listened to Rage Against The Machine for a good 10 hours straight before.

*Leaves country knowing that now the FBI is tapping all of his phone calls because of this post.

Re:The idea...

[liquidsin]

yeah, but a 13 yr old is gonna get bored after a few hours of mayhem in Vice City, and walk away none the worse. I'd bet that a few listens through an Eminem cd where he talks about hating women and homosexuals leaves a more pronounced lasting effect. Kids look up to musicians as real people and role models a hell of a lot more than they'd look up to a nameless character in a video game. Not that I think music or movies should be censored - I think the parents need to oversee all of the media that their children are exposed to. And I don't think it's a good idea for 12 yr olds to play hours and hours of bloody video games. I just don't think that those games are the root of all evil.

Re:The idea...

[bhtooefr]

It's all about mental stability. If you're mentally stable when you start fragging, you probably won't be dead in the end. If you aren't stable (and it CAN be caused by others - Columbine was blamed on Doom, but they just got the idea from Doom - as for the being pissed off enough to do it, it was all their classmates teasing them), you could snap a LOT easier. Anyone want to bet the guy who shot himself because something of his for EverQuest was stolen wasn't stable?

Re:The idea...

[syrinx]

I've sat and listened to Rage Against The Machine for a good 10 hours straight before.

I'm sorry. I would have thought that that would fall under "cruel and unusual". You may be able to sue whoever made you do that.

Re:The idea...

[Anonymous Coward]

What they really should rate 18+ is the mmorpg games.... :)

MMORPGs should be illegal. You see, it's not fair; crack cocaine is illegal, while Everquest is not.

Re:The idea...

[yourmom16]

It's much easier to get all caught up in a game than any other media, and also much easier to have your reality altered.

Unless they are either high(and it has to be almost as potent as what SCO has) or very psychotic, they will not have their reality altered. They know it is just a game.

Re:The idea...

[sdibb]

Almost all major chains already do this.

I went and bought Diablo II from WalMart and when I did, they asked me my birthdate. At first I thought my credit card didn't go through or something, but later I realized they were just checking my age.

Re:The idea...

[Traicovn]

"I've never seen a child or children sitting for 10+ hours at a time watching a movie or listning to a CD. I guess, neither have you..."

Coming from a sizeable family (and a HUGE extended family), I have had my share of cousins and siblings which have watched movies over and over and over again back to back. 10 hours is hardly even touching the tip of the iceberg. Songs are the same way. I reiterate that. Songs. Not the entire cd. no. the SAME SONG over and over and over again. Add in the camp counseling and some of the other volunteering I've done with children, and I think I can put up a pretty good argument against your opinion.

Great idea!

[DogIsMyCoprocessor]

This must be inspired by the huge success of the war on drugs!

Re:Great idea!

[ir0b0t]

Well pretend guns are so much easier to regulate than real ones. . . .

violent games

[Anonymous Coward]

yeah, we never had violent kids before these dang newfangled video games. Never had rape & prostitution before porno came out either.

Well, that makes sense

[autopr0n]

It certainly makes a lot more sense then censoring pornography the way we do in this country. Why is it so much worse to see someone get blown then to see them get their head blown off?

This country's priorities are all fucked up.

By the way, playing violent video games does make you more aggressive. The affect only lasts an hour though. No long-term effects have ever been measured.

Re:Well, that makes sense

[plinius]

Up is down, black is white. It's the politicians who are fucked up. The rest of us are downloading our porn and playing video games just fine, thank you.

Problem is, our two-party political system has been bought-and-paid-for by corporations and other special interests: that's the REAL issue, but no one is allowed to talk in any serious way about it or its numerous chilling implications.

Therefore we see these moronic moral debates over things like video games, sodomy, WMDs and flag burning. They can't discuss the real issues.

Re:Well, that makes sense

[Saeger]

Why is it so much worse to see someone get blown then to see them get their head blown off?

Because sex embarrasses the bitter, hypocritical old farts, but violence and wargames are necessary to prime the next generation of warriors to go out and kill the other tribe's breeding heathens? :)

--

Re:Well, that makes sense

[gad_zuki!]

> The affect only lasts an hour though.

Sounds *exactly* like the hypnotic/subconscious suggestion effect that has been measured from activities as varied as watching TV, Church, listening to a politician speak, reading a book, watching a movie, etc.

TV helps put its watchers into an "alpha state." Rousing and effective ministers have mastered timing that helps deliver their messages in an effective and convincing way way (see also: faith healers), politicans know exactly which emotional strings to pull, commercials are complex messages sometimes crafted by teams of psychologists for maximium efficiency (see McDonalds), books can aspire thoughts of rage/revolution/subversion, etc.

I'm all for "Your conscious might be unfairly altered by taking part of this event" stickers anywhere this may happen. Something tells me, no church, network, or politican would agree to these terms. Videogames on the other hand are the lazy parent's scapegoat and make for good re-election soundbites, just like "tough on crime" and the "war on drugs" does now. We can probably add "war on terrorism" with the passing of the PATRIOT ACT and the Iraq war for the lazy voter.

Re:Well, that makes sense

[penguinoid]

Hey, I'm a christian, and I don't think bad about sex.

Let him kiss me with the kisses of his mouth-
for your love is more delightful than wine.
--Song of Solomon 1:2

Re:Well, that makes sense

[penguinoid]

In fact, the whole Song of Solomon is about lovers, and includes descriptions of breasts.

Proverbs also has a few good things to say about sex.

Did you know that Solomon's most famous act of wisdom was resolving a conflict between two women about which of the two prostitutes was the real mother of the baby? Now imagine the same case if brought to court today (let alone to the president)?

Re:Well, that makes sense

[Anonymous Coward]

No long-term effects have ever been measured.

It's just because there is very little left to be measured. Of your mind, that is. Of course, if you love porn, you've lost everything already so there is nothing to worry about.

Re:Well, that makes sense

[a whoabot]

No shit. The politicians just fuel these, what should be little, fires, cause if everyone's thinking about racism and violence and terrorism then they and their coporate masters run away with all the cash. The Rothschild banking family is esitmated to possibly be worth over 100 quadrillion dollars now, and they control every presswire services and many other media outlets, yet you never hear of their dealings. Remember, whenever you move money or stock, the Rothschilds get a bit richer.

Re:Well, that makes sense

[ifwm]

"The affect only lasts an hour though. No long-term effects have ever been measured"

Why is is that you know this, and I know this (thanks to my great psych professor) but no one else know this?

Headline: PLAYING VIDEO GAMES CAUSES VIOLENT TENDENCIES

in small print on page z-46 (for about an hour)

I hate mass media.

Re:Well, that makes sense

[ifwm]

100 quadrillion huh?

Dude, run the black copters are coming for you, you talked bad about the Rothschilds!

Putz

Re:Well, that makes sense

[Penguinshit]

Why is it so much worse to see someone get blown then to see them get their head blown off?

Or you could just watch a snuff film and get both!

Re:Well, that makes sense

[a whoabot]

Nah, I'm not paranoid of some secret government or conspiracy. But I do believe in the wealth of that banking dynasty.

Re:Well, that makes sense

[IthnkImParanoid]

Sounds *exactly* like the hypnotic/subconscious suggestion effect that has been measured from activities as varied as watching TV, Church, listening to a politician speak, reading a book, watching a movie, etc.

Don't forget reading slashdot. It takes a couple hours after a slow work day to stop thinking the FBI has RFIDs all over my house. Not to mention the urge to send Jack Valenti tubgirl pictures (a better metaphor for his speeches does not exist).

Re:Well, that makes sense

[cluke]

Why is it so much worse to see someone get blown then to see them get their head blown off?

I'll tell you why.. when they are getting their head blown off, you know it's make believe. When they are getting blown they are really getting blown. Regardless of the artistic context, that event is really happening. Of course this depends on how you feel about sex as whether this is a bad thing or not, but going by commonly held Western values, selling your body, or performing sex acts for 'sale' is seen as corrupting and degrading. And, as they are doing it for you, the watcher's benefit, you are complicit in that act.

Compare this with fake violence - nothing more going on there than an exploding blood pack and a bit of SFX. I believe that to be much easier to separate from reality.

Re:Well, that makes sense

[Anonymous Coward]

"The affect only lasts an hour though" :Why is it so much worse to see someone get blown then to see them get their head blown off? "

if you have an "std" you`d know why..... my point, man without God is death. do you want proof? ok watch as we keep takeing God out of public awareness, the more death and destruction you will see. that includes by the hand of man and acts of "so-called" natural disasters from, but not limited to fire, the weather, the economy, (when wallstreet crashes it will have an effect) earthquakes, volcanoes, famine, and disease.

Re:Well, that makes sense

[plinius]

The following link quotes them as having only $1.8 billion. http://www.geocities.com/combusem/FORBES.HTM Have you better info?

Re:Well, that makes sense

[a whoabot]

I just realized i had wrote quadrillion. Dear lord. The thing I was looking at had a bunch of numbers in quadrillions(like total European and AMerican trade and stuff like that), and had the Rothschild family estimated at .1 Quadrillion, and I meant to say 100 Trillion. That page is somewhere on http://www.mega.nu/ampp/

I have here a biography though, by Frederic Morton, "The Rothschilds", which has the wealth in the year 1850 listed as over, then, 6 Billion US. And these aren't guys to tell you how much money they have. NM Rothschild kept a secret vault in France with gold which was never taxed or audited.

Forbes and Fortune and whatever else can only list reported wealths remember. The Rothschilds own a lot of banks.

You should look at that biography it shows a lot of how they own endless companies in like this crazy web and it doesn't include a hint of the "Illuminati" conspiracy stuff that you get on the web.

To be honest,

[Anonymous Coward]

I have to admit, I think this is a good idea in theory. We'll see if it passes, and if so how it's executed. I have to say, renting vids from blockbuster, it's a bit.... well, wrong to have Manhunt RIGHT next to the cat in the hat, or Piglet's game... (for younger kids who can read)

Re:To be honest,

[arazor]

>I have to admit, I think this is a good idea in theory. We'll see if it passes, and if so how it's executed. I have to say, renting vids from blockbuster, it's a >bit.... well, wrong to have Manhunt RIGHT next to the cat in the hat, or Piglet's game... (for younger kids who can read)

I think Hunting Piglet should be right next to it instead.

Re:To be honest,

[LordK3nn3th]

It's not anything resembling a good idea. If you have a problem with a company selling "adult" products to minors, take it up with the store, not the government.

Honestly..

[nat5an]

Well, honestly, I wouldn't want 8 year olds playing GTA or Manhunt anyways. I've been carded buying games before, and it never really bothered me (though it bothered the kids in front of me). Of course, one doubts whether this will really keep violent games out of the hands of young kids anyway.

In all seriousness, this is already a policy at a lot of stores (like Target, probably Wal-mart too), and making it a law wouldn't be much different than rating movies. Kids who really want games will no doubt be able to get them, but at least adults will have a forum in which to enjoy more mature entertainment, as opposed to the alternative, which would probably be banning violent games.

Re:Honestly..

[Anonymous Coward]

Well, honestly, I wouldn't want 8 year olds playing GTA or Manhunt anyways. I've been carded buying games before, and it never really bothered me (though it bothered the kids in front of me). Of course, one doubts whether this will really keep violent games out of the hands of young kids anyway.

My best friend knows a 9 year old who owns a PS2 and the kids mother (!!) bought him GTA. I would imagine she knew what the game was about before buying it for her son, but either way she either A) has probably seen him playing it - seen the violence, or B) seen all the crap in the news about GTA and its violence... yet she doesn't seem to give a rats ass that he is playing it. Typical parents nowadays, just doing whatever they can to get their kid out of their hair I guess. I'm sure this law is going to do alot there.

Re:Honestly..

[Anonymous Coward]

The problem with parents is the attitude of "it's a videogame, there's no way it can be unsuitable". Gaming is still associated with "for kids" in most peoples' minds.

Re:Honestly..

[EinarH]

2010:
Knock Knock! And there comes the police to you with your 14 year son after busting him when he successfully bought the 18 year/R-rated GTA 5.
Ooops, now he got a criminal record.

Re:Honestly..

[breman]

Of course, one doubts whether this will really keep violent games out of the hands of young kids anyway.

I don't think they are trying to keep kids from playing games they aren't old enough for, but rather to have a system in place that helps to make parents more aware of what their kids are playing. Maybe a conversation will take place...

"Son, this game has lots of violence, make sure you don't try to imitate things you see in it, it's only a game."

"Sure Dad, I know it's just a game, I'm not stupid"

Re:Honestly..

[CaptBubba]

Wrong person to bust. The person who sold it to him would be the person who would get the citation.

Re:Honestly..

[gad_zuki!]

> Well, honestly, I wouldn't want 8 year olds playing GTA or Manhunt anyways

Yes, best to let the state or the store raise your kids instead of making an effort at parenting. At least you have someone to sue in case something goes wrong.

Re:Honestly..

[bhtooefr]

Flip an ESRB-rated game over. It explains what got it it's rating, kinda live the TV-** (Y for youth (no modifiers), Y7 for youth 7&up (fantasy violence - FV - only legal modifier), G for all (no modifiers), PG for parental guidance (D - dialogue (poor grammar) - S - sex - L - language (profanity), V - violence), 14 for 14+ (same as PG), M or MA for mature (ditto)) system.

Re:Honestly..

[nat5an]

Let me rephrase....I wouldn't want my eight-year-old playing either of those games. This whole "state raising your children" is a knee-jerk reaction that's totally unwarranted, especially in this case. While this may come as a surprise to you, once your children reach a certain age, they have the wherewithal to go out on their own without your direct supervision. All such a law ensures is that they can't buy these games without the parent's permission, just like they can't buy pornography or go see R-rated movies without parental permission.

Re:Honestly..

[Feyr]

na, they'll get busted for stealing the game because they can't get their hands on them otherwise (yeah yeah, lots of other way, just one of the reason someone is bound to bring up)

i'd rather have my kid play GTA 10 and understand why it's not Real Life, than they don't.much like drinking, wouldn't want em to hide their drinking and do stupid things (like driving) instead of drinking at home where you can look at them

Re:Honestly..

[Anonymous Coward]

Again, the state should not be raising our kids.

Re:Honestly..

[EinarH]

The person who sold it to him would be the person who would get the citation.

According to the article:

[..]California Assemblyman Leland Yee, D-San Francisco, plans to introduce legislation making it illegal for minors to buy the most violent video games and requiring game dealers to separate youth games from adult offerings.

Unless the journalist fucked up, not impossible, this seems like a criminalization of buying games that are rated above your age.
(or is it me who misinterpret that sentence?)
That would affect a lot of youngsters between 15 an 18 in California.

Off course they would go after the dealer first (deja vu), but it's not unlikey that someone would get their first entry on their record.

Re:Honestly..

[itsari]

Kids who really want games will no doubt be able to get them...

If I was an eight year old kid and couldn't buy GTA or Manhunt at a store I would just download a copy of it off a some P2P network. After all, I am too young to know the difference between a video game and real life (or right and wrong) and therefore wouldn't have a problem illegally downloading GTA. All I know is I want to play that game.

BTW, most eight year olds can tell the difference between a video game and real life.

Re:Honestly..

[Anonymous Coward]

It can be PG for poor grammar?

Re:Honestly..

[Anonymous Coward]

Well, a while ago, I used to work at ToysRUs. I worked in the video game department, as well as the service desk. But while I was working the video game department, known affectionately as the R-Zone, we had to card anyone who did not appear to be eighteen or older, much in the same way as cigarettes. And then, even when a parent brought a violent game up to the counter, we had to make them aware of the reason it was rated M. One example of how kids will get these is what happened last christmas. A parent brought up Grand Theft Auto III (I personally don't like the game, it was honestly the one that was brought up. Some people like it, and that's their right) with an obviously twelve year old son in tow. He was excited, mentioning he couldn't wait to play it. It was then that I explained that this game is rated M for Mature by the ESRB. She honestly looked at my puzzled, and asked "Why is that?". I took this opportunity to educate her to the finer points of the game. You know, the cop shooting, the prostitute "perusing", all the violence, the theft, etc. etc. Needless to say, she was a bit astounded. She told me that her son had told her that it was an all right game, and very cartoonish, just like the front cover showed. It was then that she told her son to put it back, and that they were leaving, and he was grounded for a very long time. I think the only reason she didn't beat the crap out of him was she was in public. I give the kid points for effort, but I give the mom a C+. She didn't educate herself beforehand, but she did make right about it in the end. And other times, I wouild explain it to parents, and they'd say "So?". That is what infuriates me. I am a parent as well, and I definitely know what my daughter is watching. Even with my nieces and nephews who watched me play UT2K3 one time, I made each of them tell me why we don't use guns on people in rea life. And unanimously, they answered "Because they hurt people, and hurting people is bad,". They answered that way because their parents were being parents! They weren't letting the computer/ playstation be an electronic babysitter. The point is, no matter the legislation, nothing pays of like a parent educating themselves and their children.

Hmmm...

[Anonymous Coward]

Columbine High School shooters Eric Harris and Dylan Klebold enjoyed playing "Doom" -- one of the most popular first-person shooter games of all time, psychologists Craig Anderson of the University of Missouri-Columbia and Karen Dill of Lenoir-Rhyne College in Hickory, N.C., wrote in an article in the April 2000 issue of the Journal of Personality and Social Psychology. Their study argues that playing violent games is directly related to violent behavior.

Maybe I missed something, but if its so popular wouldn't a lot of people played it? So i mean you could say anyone played Doom...

Re:Hmmm...

[LordK3nn3th]

It's called hysteria. The media is big on distortion and REALLY big on false cause/effect correlations.

I might be wrong but I bet that study might simply show a correlation between violence and video game playing, and not an actual verified cause/effect relationship.

Can anyone verify that?

Re:Hmmm...

[Anonymous Coward]

Yeah, this just says they were "normal" in that respect.

Re:Hmmm...

[pilot1]

And there's another flaw in this statement.

As you said, since it's popular, alot of people played it. Let's just estimate that 10,000 people played it (that's not the correct number, just a conservative estimate).
So out of those 10,000, TWO people showed violent behavior?
That means 0.0002% of the people that played it showed violent behavior.

Don't you that there would have been far more Columbine's, if playing Doom really did result in that kind of behavior?

It's FAR more likely that it's just a coincidence that they played Doom.
Either that, or they had an abnormal mental condition which resulted in them being more effected by Doom than the average gamer is.

Either way, it's the kids fault, not Doom's.

Re:Hmmm...

[Anonymous Coward]

doom had something to do with it, but there were many other components.
did you see bowling for columbine?

Re:Hmmm...

[yourmom16]

That means 0.0002% of the people that played it showed violent behavior.

In other words, playing Doom makes you much less likely to be violent, as I'm sure it's higher for the population as a whole.

At KMart

[Anonymous Coward]

I work at K-Mart, and our Playstation rep. already seperates the violent games from the sports and childrens games.

Might be a good thing

[IANAL(BIAILS)]

Maybe now parents will take some interest in what their children are doing, and actually parent instead of letting the television raise them.

Re:Might be a good thing

[LordK3nn3th]

So if a parent doesn't mind what their children play, they "aren't parenting"?

Nice logic there...

one thing not like the other

[Anonymous Coward]

requiring game dealers to separate youth games from adult offerings

Californians should really be worried about separating movie stars for politicians - confusing one for the other can really be dangerous.

Re:one thing not like the other

[Anonymous Coward]

Yeah! How did Ronald Reagan one of the greatest politicians in U.S. history ever get elected! Er...wait.

Re:one thing not like the other

[yourmom16]

He ended the Soviet Union? He didn't fight them, the coincidence that he was president at the time it finally ended(mainly because it went broke and because of internal conflicts), does not imply he caused it.

Re:one thing not like the other

[Narchie Troll]

Too bad he raised the national debt to absolutely dizzying proportions.

You can only make sure teens are not buying

[civilengineer]

But, how will you make sure teens will not play mature games? What if daddy buys them a copy of the game himself? How about all the kids buying drinks with fake IDs? Won't they use the same fake IDs to get these games if they want? If you want to enforce this legislation, it has to go beyond sell no-sell decision. You need to make the software have recognition systems and authorization procedures to make sure a teen is not playing it. But, hey, how many copies will you sell that way? And who is going to make all the software for that?

Re:You can only make sure teens are not buying

[penguinoid]

What if daddy buys them a copy of the game himself?

I say that daddies have a better sense of their child's responsibility than the law.

Or they don't care.

Re:You can only make sure teens are not buying

[benna]

Even with all of that it wouldn't matter. Groups like DEViANCE and FLT will be just as happy to break those protections as they would be copy protection. If its in demand the scene will do it.

Re:You can only make sure teens are not buying

[monkeyfinger]

What if daddy buys them a copy of the game himself? How about all the kids buying drinks with fake IDs? Won't they use the same fake IDs to get these games if they want?

True, but at least the games industry has it's ass covered.

but they can still watch TV

[plinius]

Research has found that video games help kids improve their hand-eye coordination, and it is true that some are very violent. Meanwhile we can turn on the TV and see astounding violence, but helps improve no one except advertisers. Perhaps if they put ads for Nike in video games then the Democrats would like them more...

Re:but they can still watch TV

[bhtooefr]

What, like make the good guys wear Nike shoes and the baddies wear Beeroks (to avoid copyright infringement)?

Well...

[iamdrscience]

I think most people on Slashdot will scoff at these proposals, but really is it all that different from movie ratings? I'd say that the violence/sexuality in a lot of the games they're considering putting legislation on is similar to the level in R rated movies.

I think this will end up being used in a similar way too, like how some parents decide that it's appropriate for their 12 year old to see a particular R rated movie, some parents will also choose to let their 12 year old play a game that they're restricted from buying. Also, this won't have a drastic effect on which games kids play anyways because right now even though kids can buy whatever game they want, their parents still wouldn't allow them to play it if they thought it was inapproriate.

I think the knee-jerk reaction to this is opposition because it seems to fall inline with the looney theories that anytime a kid hurts somebody it's because of a videogame or movie, but in reality the law's not so bad.

Re:Well...

[fahrvergnugen]

Said it before on /., seems I say it every time this topic comes up:

Movie ratings are a voluntary system adopted by exhibitors and the MPAA in order to classify content. I'll say it again: It's voluntary.

If a 12-year-old goes into an R-rated movie, the only penalties facing the exhibitor are economic ones levied by the MPAA and perhaps distribution trouble in the future.

There is no criminal penalty for showing r-rated content to minors.*

Now mind you, it's not that I want 12-year-olds playing Manhunt1 , but making it illegal is arguably in violation of the first amendment.

Yes yes, I know, this is the same fucked-up country where a judge ruled games aren't speech. Thank god that one got overturned.

Anyway.

Movie ratings: voluntary.
ESRB ratings: voluntary.
Therefore: both qualify as constitutional.

Proposed law: mandatory.
Therefore: likely in violation of the first amendment.

*(I'm leaving X-rated films out of this discussion b/c then we breach the topic of pornography law and that's a lot murkier)

1 The objective of Manhunt to kill as many unsuspecting victims as possible as brutally and graphically as possible for the adulation of the twisted pervert watching you on TV. You're armed with weapons like meat cleavers, garottes, and plastic bags, and gain extra points for how fucked up your kill is.

Re:Well...

[LordK3nn3th]

What's the first amendment?

(this is sarcasm, not ignorance)

Re:Well...

[Dhalka226]

Here's another thing that came to my mind:

Yee wants harmful matter to include violent video games that "depict serious injury to human beings in a manner that is especially heinous, atrocious or cruel," particularly those that use the "first-person shooter" perspective.

Two things jump out about me.

1. I don't think they are going to be able to separate a "first-person shooter" game from other games and apply laws differently to each. Something being a first person shooter does not necessarily make it any more violent than any other game. GTA isn't an FPS and it is high atop everybody's hate list.

2. More importantly, until they define "serious injury to human beings" and "heinus, atrocious or cruel" specifically I think they would have enforcement issues. When there is no legal definition of these terms, a store that might be in violation of the law would undoubtedly argue in court that they made every reasonable attempt to comply but that the law was so vague they couldn't comply.

Now I know what you're thinking. "Ignorance of the law is no excuse," but courts are meant, at their core, to serve justice. Unjust, vague, unenforceable or unconstitutional laws are meant to be scrapped.

Then again, they shouldn't be written either, but here we are. *eyeroll*

Re:Well...

[John Seminal]

You are wrong. The bill of rights only applies to adults, not children (for the most part). Kids do not have the right to bear arms, or the right of freedom to assembly. There is no free speech right for children either. The courts know that kids lack the experiance to make the best choices for themselves. Amen.

Re:Well...

[fahrvergnugen]

You are wrong. The bill of rights only applies to adults, not children (for the most part). Kids do not have the right to bear arms, or the right of freedom to assembly. There is no free speech right for children either. The courts know that kids lack the experiance to make the best choices for themselves. Amen.

Cute, but you're offloading the blame from the people who are supposed to know what their children are doing (parents) onto the people who supply a product to meet market demand (videogame marketers). When children don't have the experience to make the best choices for themselves, that's when it's time for parents to step in, not the courts. Free speech is the most important thing in this country, and the right to say fucked-up things is more important than whether your kid gets fucked-up* for listening when you didn't shield him.

I grew up on videogames. I played Leisure Suit Larry before I hit puberty. I hacked off heads and slew monsters crawling dungeons. I was thanked copiously, but the princess was in another castle.

Golgo 13 got it on with the informant in the hotel room. The monster at the end of Mystic Defender had bare breasts and was a biomechanical monstrosity. Possessed zombies begged me to kill them while swinging lengths of pipe at my skull.

That mechademon appeared atop a glowing pentagram at the end of Doom shareware and I 'bout wet myself.

All of these experiences have been mine virtually via videogames. And you know what? I've never laid a hand on someone in anger in all of my adult life.

I realize this is mere anecdotal evidence and bears no statistical relevance, but my friends in this life have all been like me. We weren't corrupted by D&D or led to the dark side by Doom. We just use them as entertainment, and they let us live out our fantasies of cutting up the head of satan with a chainsaw.

As an adult, I continue to play videogames. They aren't children's toys anymore. I'm nearly thirty, and can reasonably be said to be a grownup (ask any teenager, life ENDS at 30, and at 25 you're just coasting). I play videogames every day, and will likely continue to play videogames nearly daily for the rest of my life.

There's a lot of people out there just like me, and we're a demographic that wants to be served. We can handle themes like sex, extreme violence, and drug use in the context of a story told on film, and we can handle it in the context of a story told in videogame form.

I think your problem is that perhaps you still regard videogames, comics, animation, and the like as mediums of expression that are purely useful for the relation of children's tales, and that is no longer true. *yes, this is my catchphrase for the evening. Fucked. Up.

Re:Well...

[John Seminal]

Free speech is the most important thing in this country, and the right to say fucked-up things is more important than whether your kid gets fucked-up* for listening when you didn't shield him.

I would say that what is important is how well we live. We live and learn and change. Free Speech is important, when it is about politics or society or science. Free speech is not important when it is something which can do no good, and is only designed for harm. Just like you can not yell "Fire" in a crowded theater. You know it will cause an immediate harmful reaction. What is changing is legislatures and courts are deciding that the damage does not have to be immediate for them to forbid certain kinds of speech. And I would once again add that this prohabition is for children not to have access to adult games. This in no way stops adults from accessing adult games.

It all comes down to how a society wants to live. Those are the choices being made. You may believe it is stupid for someone to give up a "right", but I would ask how is that right serving us?

Re:Well...

[Anonymous Coward]

I'm 18 and I think life ends well before 30

Re:Well...

[ifwm]

Yup, the bill of rights only applies to adults. And the adults it applies to in this case are the people who make the video games. Or did you forget about these games being forms of speech?

Re:Well...

[ifwm]

Well, I can call you a scorching moronic dick-weed because of that right you so easily gave away.

Scorching moronic dick-weed!
Scorching moronic dick-weed!
Scorching moronic dick-weed!

You see those of us in this country who understand our rights (not you in case you were wondering) realize that the process of legislating away those rights is a slippery slope. The law is based on precedent, and once precedent is established, it can be broadly applied, regardless of whether it is appropriate. If upheld by a court that has an agenda, suddenly we're stuck with a law that only a few people want, but is nearly impossible to get rid of.

Re:Well...

[wmguy]

I think the idea of a rating system is good, but I would say the current one is broken, at least for movies. They should also be enforced by parents, not legislation.

Movie ratings seem to mean absolutely nothing, and appear to be randomly assigned. Some PG movies contain more violence than many PG-13 movies. PG-13 seems to go all the way from 'Mentioned smoking' to 'tasteful frontal nudity.' I think that ratings need to be applied in a manner which actually indicate the content of a movie, rather than being some arbitrary classification.

As far as enforcement of ratings, that has to be up to the parents. It is a parent's responsibility to teach and guide their children, and they should be deciding what set of moral standards should be passed on to their children. As the primary money source for young children is shouldn't be too hard to monitor the purchase of inappropiate materials. Once a teenager is earning their own money, it becomes a lot harder to enforce, but they also have to be trusted more to make their own decisions.

When parents trust a law to decide what is appropriate for their children they are giving the permission to someone else to decide. The moral standards of many people will not change nearly as fast as the moral standards of the media industry. Even if I agree with what the lawmakers say is appropriate today, I may not tomorrow.

My current stance is that I ignore movie ratings. I try to hold myself to a cleaner standard for movies than many people who post here, so for me even many PG-13 movies include more sex and violence than I would prefer. I find myself visiting sites like screenit.com to see a breakdown of why the movie received the rating it did.

Re:Well...

[Narchie Troll]

Absolutely untrue. The Bill of Rights applies to minors with a few exceptions; those exceptions apply to the ability of parents and schools (which are in loco parentis) to perform their job.

In other words, minors have a right to free speech same as anyone else does, unless that free speech is substantially interfering with their education or that of others.

The American Civil Liberties Union can explain it better than I.

Re:Well...

[Eric Savage]

Movie ratings are only voluntary in theory, not in practice. When was the last time you saw an unrated movie at a major chain? Sure the indie theaters will show them but many towns don't even have those. If you want to make money on your movie, you have to rate it, no way around it. And you also need to have an R rating or "better", because the chains won't show NC-17.

Is this censorship? Sure. Do I think it's wrong? I'm really not sure, but I do know that saying its voluntary is stretching the truth. I wouldn't want my kids playing GTA. I'd like to be able to tell, without spending hours playing a game, that it's right for my children, so the warning labels and ratings do serve a valuable purpose. I don't like the fact that Walmart and other stores refuse to carry any CD with explicit lyrics, and I don't like the fact that movie theaters only carry R, PG, PG-13, and G movies. However I know they are private businesses and I wouldn't want the governmenet telling me what products I had to stock on my shelves.

It's hard not to tell that the videogame retail industry is becoming more and more consolidated, and this means that chains like Gamestop are getting to be bigger and bigger targets. This means they will likely take Walmart-esque stances and pretty soon you will have to get your mature games from websites, which means lower sales and that of course means lower investment in adult-themed games.

So now we know who's responsible...

[corebreech]

for killling Mr. Toad's Wild Rice.

Bastard.

Re:So now we know who's responsible...

[foniksonik]

This is incredibly funny for all the wrong reasons.... Mr. Toad's Wild 'Rice' indeed!

Different standards

[gaijin99]

My main objection here is that its applying different standards to movies and video games. Both have rating systems, generally the distributors of both make an effort to keep kids from getting stuff they aren't rated for yet. Yet we see no elected idiots pushing for laws forbidding movie theatres from showing children R rated movies.

Mr Yee is simply playing off his electorate's bizarre image of video game stores as vile dens where the employees push GTA on unsuspecting 5 year olds.

What I found most distrubing was this quote from the Bee:

"The games that I don't let this 13-year-old have are the games that have sexual content," said Michael Hill, who was shopping with his wife and son at Sacramento's Downtown Plaza. "Those are what worry me, not the violent ones."

I'm not really anti-violence, but personally I'd much rather the kids saw sexual imagery than ultra-violent imagery. Where did we get this weird idea that sex is so horrible that you shouldn't see a nipple until you're 18, but if you're over 13 its perfectly fine to see someone's head blown to bits?

Re:Different standards

[drinkypoo]

Theaters already don't allow children to attend R-rated movies by themselves, and game stores shouldn't sell children M-rated games without their parent or guardian (or someone who can fake it) being along with them.

I agree that it's stupid to think that violent content is more acceptable than sexual, but let's face the facts, (almost) every kid's got genitals, but almost none of 'em have firearms, let alone rocket launchers.

Re:Different standards

[Anonymous Coward]

Where did we get this weird idea that sex is so horrible that you shouldn't see a nipple until you're 18, but if you're over 13 its perfectly fine to see someone's head blown to bits?

in a manner of speaking, the united states was originally founded by puritans. their ideological mindset has somehow lasted through (i would guess) ongoing belief-acceptance through the generations.

Re:Different standards

[ir0b0t]

Our cultural vocabulary for violent acts and the instruments of violence is unashamedly nuanced while sextalk is circumscribed to babytalk about genitals. . . . On the other hand, maybe CA teenage boys' fixation on shooting off all of those guns is touching a puritanical nerve somewhere.

Re:Different standards

[fermion]

Movies are rated voluntarily. The movie theaters do a pretty good job at keeping kids out of inappropriate movies and the stores do a pretty good job at not selling inappropriate movies to kids based on this voluntary system. It is hard to show that the voluntary measures are not working well enough. For instance, the theaters were carding everyone for "Y tu mama tambien."

My understanding is the rating for video games are only to inform parents and other consumers about the suitability of the games for certain audiences. I do not believe they are specificaly meant to limit sales to certain persons.

OTOH, one can make the argument that an R or unrated movie that is shown next door or sold next to a PG movie provides an opportunity for children to sneak into or shoplift such a movie. Therefore separating video games with mature content would be unfair and might unfairly limit the availability to legitimate consumers.

I do agree with you about the silliness of a parent being more scared of a breast, or even a penis or vagina, than of the graphic depiction of the violent taking of a human life. I think this is one of the points that South Park has been trying to make.

Re:Different standards

[Unregistered]

but almost none of 'em have firearms, let alone rocket launchers.

Damn Ebay lising policies.

Re:Different standards

[LS]

I don't think that violence or sex should be censored or controlled, but I can guess why the public is biased against sex: Violent activity is generally punished severely by law enforcement and society, so there is a safeguard against exposure to children - the fear of punishment for repeating the acts seen on screen. Most sexual activity is not punished, or punished lightly, so children are much more likely to repeat what they see. While sexual dangers are less worrisome than violent dangers, they are still dangers, so the public wants some kind of protection.

BUT - just so you don't get the wrong idea here, I totally disagree with any censorship or rating systems - I'm just looking into the unconcious thoughts of the public.

LS

Re:Different standards

[Anonymous Coward]

I totally disagree with any censorship or rating systems - I'm just looking into the unconcious thoughts of the public.

I like cutomers like that. They buy all the crap at the store without bothering to know what it is. Stupid people make for good profits.

Re:Different standards

[gaijin99]

Theaters already don't allow children to attend R-rated movies by themselves, and game stores shouldn't sell children M-rated games without their parent or guardian (or someone who can fake it) being along with them.

Game stores don't sell M rated games to children. At least I haven't heard of any that do. All the chains have policies forbidding sale to minors, and (in my area at least) the independants have the same policy.

The point I was making is that the movie theatres are not legally obligated to prevent underage people from viewing R rated movies, they choose to but there isn't a law forcing them to. Nor, for that matter, is there a law forcing them to show R rated movies in a separate "adults only" section of the theatre.

The game stores should not be held to different standards than the theatres are.

Re:Different standards

[gaijin99]

Movies are rated voluntarily. The movie theaters do a pretty good job at keeping kids out of inappropriate movies and the stores do a pretty good job at not selling inappropriate movies to kids based on this voluntary system.

So too are video games rated voluntarialy. And, again, I see very little evidence that game stores are selling GTA to 5 year olds. Like the teatres, they card, and/or require an adult to buy the game. The problem here is that most parents have at least passing familiarity with the MPAA's rating system, but most aren't familiar with the game rating system. This is not the fault of game stores, and does not require legislation to fix.

My understanding is the rating for video games are only to inform parents and other consumers about the suitability of the games for certain audiences. I do not believe they are specificaly meant to limit sales to certain persons.

You are correct. However the MPAA rating system is also present as a system to inform parents, not to prevent sale to certian persons. The sellers take initiative and do the prevention themselves and it works just fine.

Again, my main point here is that the system (without legislation) works for movies, and is working for video games as well. There is no need for this legislation, its just pandering to the irrational fears of parents.

I do agree with you about the silliness of a parent being more scared of a breast, or even a penis or vagina, than of the graphic depiction of the violent taking of a human life.

Yup, its one of the most bizarre aspects of our culture. Sex is bad, violence is fine... Is it any wonder that the US has the highest murder rate of any first world nation?

Re:Different standards

[radish]

I agree that it's stupid to think that violent content is more acceptable than sexual, but let's face the facts, (almost) every kid's got genitals, but almost none of 'em have firearms, let alone rocket launchers.

Exactly. All the more reason not to (a) restrict information about them (b) pretend they don't exist or (c) get all embarassed when one appears on screen. Face it, the absurd restrictions on nudity in this country are entirely a reflection of conservative adult's embarassment and inability to deal with sex. One day we'll stop scarring our youth with the same dangerous taboos and misinformation.

Re:Different standards

[Anonymous Coward]

I agree that it's stupid to think that violent content is more acceptable than sexual, but let's face the facts, (almost) every kid's got genitals, but almost none of 'em have firearms, let alone rocket launchers.

Hmm, are you saying kids shouldn't masturbate? Either you're naive or you take joy in creating twisted personalities.

I'm posting annoymously because for the rest I agree with your implicit statement, namely that just like porn can make people horny, extreme violence in the media can make people aggressive and (subconsciously) scared. And yes, video games are a medium too, just an interactive one.

Re:Different standards

[yourmom16]

Where did we get this weird idea that sex is so horrible that you shouldn't see a nipple until you're 18, but if you're over 13 its perfectly fine to see someone's head blown to bits?

As an AC once wisely pointed out, sex brings idiots into the world, while violence takes them out of the world.

Re:Different standards

[Anonymous Coward]

I like cutomers like that. They buy all the crap at the store without bothering to know what it is. Stupid people make for good profits.

Knowing what a game is, and knowing how it was rated by some random fuckup you're unlikely to agree with are two very separate things.

Sounds to me like stupid people make good retailers, or perhaps retail clerks.

Responsibility

[Wardish]

*sigh*

How about just taking them from the parents. After all our society neither allows a parent to discipline a child nor does it require a parent to be responsible for the child.

If I was a parent in California I might be tempted to sue the state for defacto removing my parental rights all together.

If the reading above makes you think I'm all about parental right, why yes I am. But I'm not letting the other 2/3'rds out of it either. I'm also a pretty firm believer in parents being responsible. And that includes responsible for rearing a child in a reasonable manner as well as being responsible for the child's actions and the results thereof.

*sigh* sometimes I think we should rename the country The United BubbleWrapped America. Some groups think I'm not capable of deciding for myself outside the house, other's want a say in what I do inside my bedroom (or bath, or kitchen, or ...).

And away I go... Time to find my thorazine.

Re:Responsibility

[Compuser]

Heh, I initially misread this as:
The United BibleWrapped America.
Works both ways.

Re:Responsibility

[quantaman]

How about just taking them from the parents. After all our society neither allows a parent to discipline a child nor does it require a parent to be responsible for the child.


Actually this just might force the parents to take a little more responsibility. Instead of the kid buying the game by themselves then if the parent doesn't like it it is too late to return the game the kid is now forced to go through a parent (or other adult) to buy the game and the parent is now by necessity more invloved in the decision.

Re:Responsibility

[fizban]

A law like this actually puts more accountability, and therefore more responsibility, on the parents of children who wish to play games with violent or sexual content. In no way does it remove the ability of parents to decide what's best for their children. In fact, it makes it even easier for parents to make those choices because now they'll have a clear indicator of what games they should think twice about getting for their kids.

No rights are being removed from parents here.

BTW, the only reason this type of law is being put forward is because game distributors are not even enforcing the industry standard rating systems already in place. If they had been living up to those promises, then they wouldn't have lawmakers breathing down their backs.

Re:Responsibility

[Wardish]

Actually I disagree. I'm not in favor of letting the government decide what is permissible for my children. Mind you I'm a realist so I'm not inclined to defy the rules unless I thought I had a good chance of winning. So being as it may I've a truckload of examples of the government doing my job for me.

As to what level of violence I consider reasonable for a video game, well, I suspect that many would disagree. To be honest I enjoy or have enjoyed many of the first person shooter games and I haven't had reason to raise my hand against another person in many years. If you exclude the 4 spankings my daughters have collected over the last 18 years I've been non-violent for much longer.

On the other hand I've no objection to my children knowing about violence and being capable and trained in applying it if it's necessary. Just as I've no objection to them learning how to butcher a pig, plant a garden, pluck a chicken, string barbed wire, skin a cow, or cure a ham. Many of such activities would cause a great deal of "stress" for some and will no doubt prompt comments of cruelty for subjecting my children to such.

Again, I'm a realist. And part of my job as a parent is to introduce my children to the realities of life. Some of which are unpleasant but it's my job to prepare them as best I can because some things in this world are considerably worse and I can't guarantee they won't encounter them. With any luck I'll have done my part in such a fashion as to produce intelligent thoughtful people that can react appropriately to whatever life and circumstance decide to toss their way.

Anyway to get back on topic. In legislating this sort of thing and doing "favors" for those parents that need the prompting the government is in fact impeding and providing added barriers to myself. And I assure you that I can indeed find groups of people in government that would consider teaching a daughter to cure a ham, including growing it in the first place, as cruel and abusive.

The fact is that far to often they insist on doing things for my benefit that I would prefer they didn't. I've learned over the years to get very curious when I hear about "this is for your own good", or "you'll thank me later", or perhaps, "this will help so many other people you shouldn't get upset".

Ok, Back to the thorazine dispenser, must remember to get the dosage increased...

Re:Responsibility

[fizban]

If you know of people in the government that object to your daughters learning to cure a ham, I'd love to hear names. But that's beside the point, because curing a ham is far different from having sex with and then shooting to death a prostitute. I think you'll agree with me there.

This type of law does not tell a parent what they can and cannot buy for their children, which I would also object to. What it does do, is give a *guideline* that parents can use to help them make their own personal decisions about what is appropriate and what is not. Just as movies have ratings systems that are based on generally accepted scales of violence, language and sexual content, so are these games rated on a similar scale and games that receive a rating equivalent to "R" would be restricted to minors and would only be sold *in the presence of an adult guardian*.

You may personally think that some games in the restricted section are okay for your children, but that's okay, because you can still go in and buy them for your kids, just as you could take your kids to an "R" rated movie if you thought the subject material was appropriate for them. No one is taking away your right to do that.

I find a lot of people who think that their moral compasses are far different from others and that's why they object to government mandated ratings systems, but the truth of the matter is that most of us think basically the same things and have the same objections to the same levels of violence, language and sex for our kids. And that's all this law is doing - mirroring the majority accepted moral standards of our society and enforcing them in a way that still provides flexibility.

Re:Responsibility

[Anonymous Coward]

After all our society neither allows a parent to discipline a child nor does it require a parent to be responsible for the child.

You don't need to strike a child to discipline him. Any parent who strikes a child for punishment is either a) sadistic, b) stupid, c) incompatent or d) all of the above. Time-outs, groundings and other denial of enjoyable activities makes for adequent negative reinforcment.
Also, negative reinforcement doesn't work as well as postitive reinforcement as anyone who owns a cat can tell you and I would submit that most children are more intelligent and independant than a cat.
I've got no problem with the criminal code prohibiting parents from striking their children.

Re:Responsibility

[Wardish]

You don't need to strike a child to discipline him. Any parent who strikes a child for punishment is either a) sadistic, b) stupid, c) incompatent or d) all of the above. Time-outs, groundings and other denial of enjoyable activities makes for adequent negative reinforcment.

Actually if you read the rest of my post you may have noticed that I've only had to use corporal punishment on a very few occasions. The methods you mentioned are preferable, but physical pain is natures way of telling us we did something wrong and in a few cases where it's important enough to get the message across in a fashion that won't be forgotten then it's effective. It is however a method that has reduced effectiveness if used often.

Also, negative reinforcement doesn't work as well as positive reinforcement as anyone who owns a cat can tell you and I would submit that most children are more intelligent and independent than a cat.

There is plenty of literature and studies with a variety of species that shows that reinforcement is most effective when used as a combination of positive and negative. Next on the list of effectiveness is strictly negative reinforcement. Last and least effective is strictly positive reinforcement. If your interested I suggest a few web search's. Note: pay attention to the source of the articles you read, I recommend reasonably well known scientific publications as being the least likely to be slanting in favor of a particular agenda.

Actually cats aren't very bright at all but perseverance pays off, for that matter you can train flea's (by the way, I'm actually very fond of cat's). Neither of which is applicable to children except in the most basic fashion. Children on the other hand are quite the opposite, very bright and intelligent in almost any measurement category. They learn best in an environment where they feel safe but have the freedom to explore. You can be overprotective of them though, it's actually very hard not to be, although there are natural mechanisms that attenuate that over time for the average parent. *chuckle* Which is a good thing or we would still be sitting in tree's afraid to venture out into the swamp and flooded terrain that likely molded our present form.

On a side note about intelligence. Humans are one of the few species on this planet that have the capability (and probably the most successful at it) of learning from other's experiences. I've often thought that the degree of that particular capability is the most indicative single trait of overall intelligence. I don't however believe that intelligence is anything less than a gestalt of at least dozens of factors and it could easily run into the hundreds. Every person is different and unique with individual strengths and weaknesses and I've yet to review an "IQ" test that more than scratches the surface.

Your last sentence has prompted a few questions in an alternative direction if I may:

What actions are appropriate for a child aged 9 to 12 who has deliberately committed a violent assault on another person?

Are there any situations where you would consider this appropriate?

Are there any situations where you would consider that there can be no mitigating circumstances?

In light of the above questions, please consider from your personal viewpoint and from a viewpoint of society at large.

I'm looking forward to your reply,

Evils and Whatnot

[hao2lian]

You can't compare two evils, pr0n and violence. They should both be locked up to minors, or minors should be taught at an early age about these things. As for the long-term effects of violence, I do think that if a kid spends 4ish hours every day shooting people for a couple of years, there will be long term effects since it's just another form of brainwashing. Sure, kids can still get these from other people, but it's better to fight a tough battle than to not fight at all.

for killing Mr. Toad's Wild Ride

[corebreech]

ride, not rice

although there is such a thing as wild rice, but it's not clear what the connection to Mr. Toad is.

groan

Increase Piracy

[Anonymous Coward]

The kids will just DL them from DC++ or Kazaa. Then they'll want more legislation on piracy and so forth. The bottom line is that parents need to do their job or just don't have kids. The next time a kid shoots something up, we should ask the parent how many hours per week they spent with their kid and if they know what TV shows they watch etc.

About damned time.

[Fantastic Lad]

The whole argument about violence in video games bores me. I guess I'm being desensitized to it.

Basically, people will obsess over what they will obsess over, and they will learn the lessons they will learn.

But if I ever have kids, and if they decide to drench themselves in needless media violence, then they can do it behind my back, thank you very much! That stuff I find upsetting and revolting on a gut level, and I don't want it in my home environment. If my kids are going to grow up to be television-watching losers, then it won't be because their home and hearth have been sacrificed to the god of Big Media. They may hate me for 'depriving' them, but by the time they are adults they will at least have sharp minds and strong spines which have not been turned to mush by television and Pastey 'success' stories like John Carmack.

What they become after that will be up to them.

-FL

Yay, another useless law

[penguinoid]

Violence is part of most games. I sure hope they don't ban NetHack! I can understand banning games with sexual content, but this is rediculous.

Re:Yay, another useless law

[penguinoid]

To clarify my previous post, I am not for very graphical violence (in fact, I find it disgusting if it is too realistic. Interestingly, I find sex disgusting only if it is not realistic)

Help me fight him.

[crism]

Now this is interesting... I am running against Leland Yee in the 2004 election. Campaign Web site isn't up yet, since I'm not officially on the ballot yet (though the filing fee has been paid), but if you are interested in helping me fight "for the children" anti-freedom legislation like this, write me at maden04@maden.org.

Re:Help me fight him.

[Anonymous Coward]

If you are against his measure then stay outta my state legislature!

Re:Help me fight him.

[Anonymous Coward]

fuck off and lose, idiot.

Re:Help me fight him.

[rjh]

You know, Chris, I could just drop an email off to you and ask this, but... what the hell: you might get some more campaign contributions this way.

What are the California campaign contribution laws like? Can out-of-staters contribute, or does it have to be through a PAC or the like? Can you give us a campaign headquarters address for mailing checks, etc., stuff like that?

(I worked with Chris a few years ago at a failed dot-com startup. Let me tell you, you think your dot-com stories are bad... :) )

Re:Help me fight him.

[crism]

Can out-of-staters contribute,...

Yes. However, I don't have a campaign account set up yet; I can put people on a mailing list for when things get rolling.

Let me tell you, you think your dot-com stories are bad...

For the curious, the tale of the dot-com in question can be found here, including mine and Rob's stories.

This is great news

[EinarH]

Kudos to Leland Yee for his long term visions that will help create new jobs in the prison industry and follow up on the war on drugs.
A great way to catch those kids that don't do drugs.

This is what I like about California; equal opportunity for everyone to get busted by addjusting the laws so you can catch the crim.. uhh everyone.

Could work

[Anonymous Coward]

Well...someone said basically "why don't they do this with other media like CDs and movies?". I think you are right, and they should all be treated the same. However, people are used to looking at the ratings on movies, but not video games. Think of the first time grandma walks into a store and finds out that the game little Sarah wants is in the back, through the black cloth curtain...that'll make her think...seperating them will draw attention to the fact that there are in fact adult video games...I know most old farts don't really realize this. My old man went off for 20 minutes about some Volley Ball game he bought for my overweight, anti-social brother. "I couldn't figure out why he wanted it...until I saw it".

So, people who complain about this either:
1) Have nothing better to do and probably complain about a lot of things.
2) Make video games
3) Rent/Sale video games

Anyway, time for cookies!

Re:Could work - They do check ages for movies!

[EMR]

But they DO check with Movies.. Any one ever bought a rated R movie at Wal-Mart? They check ID and won't sell it to you unless you are 18.. This law is basically comes from the fact that parents do not take responsibility for their children.. There are way to many 8 year olds playing Counter-Strike and other Teen games.

Correlation != causation

[penguinoid]

From the FA:
Their study argues that playing violent games is directly related to violent behavior.

So are they violent because they play violent games, or do they play violent games because they are violent?

Re:Correlation != causation

[Anonymous Coward]

As Marilyn Manson once said in an article of his in the Rolling Stone, "Is Adult Entertainment Killing Our Children, Or Is Killing Our Children Entertaining Adults?"

hmm...

[mantera]

when i first read this i wondered why this was posted on slashdot, it didn't seem like anything worthy of regurgitating, but hey, i guess in the UK it isn't, because there already is a rating for games, where GTA is rated 18, meaning you gotta be at least 18 to purchase it.

it's only surprising that california didn't have such legislation until now.

well, that's a much better situation than australia, and many other countries, where GTA is banned altogether.

that said, i don't see a reason why i would miss such games. i enjoyed GTA III, and as for GTA vice city, which i own, i've only played it for 10 minutes and then switched it off... lately i've discovered nintendo, and i discovered the amount of fun you can have while unintentionally remaining on the innocent and cute side of life.

Kudos to nintendo, i'd totally turst them with my kids.

Re:hmm...

[Anonymous Coward]

Lately i've discovered nintendo, and i discovered the amount of fun you can have while unintentionally remaining on the innocent and cute side of life.

Right on, sir. It really came to that point - we have to rediscover the best sides of life.

Re:hmm...

[Catnapster]

Nintendo's own games are well-known for their kid-friendly nature, but that doesn't mean the platform is all happy. Ever played Eternal Darkness?

Priorities

[Psx29]

I don't think the government should be regulating this sort of thing. It's not like it will make much of a difference anyway as its ultimately up to the parents. If the kids are going to go around the parents and buy it themselves, there are other ways to play these things anyway. Friends, the internet, etc., it will probably hurt the retail stores and the companies making the games more than helping anyone.

GTA 3...

[sevensharpnine]

From the article: "Nowadays, gamers can shoot cops, beat prostitutes and torch still-struggling victims."

This reads like an advertisement for Grand Theft Auto III.

Not a good idea

[Kohath]

Most (all?) stores have this policy anyway. Why shouldn't it be a matter of law?

Because, as a law, it'll harm people.

Do we really need cops running kids into video game stores to try to trick the cashier into violating the laws? Do we really need 16-year old cashiers getting fined for making a mistake or failing to subtract correctly to determine an age from a birthdate?

Do we really need another example to show young people why they shouldn't have any respect for the law?

This law would be a big burden to stores and their workers. It's unnecessary. It'll have no positive effects.

Fewer laws, not more.

Re:Not a good idea

[reiggin]

I'm all for liberterian ideals but your argument is flawed.

What you describe is already in place for alcohol and tobacco. It's really just an extension of that. I'm not advocating for the law, just to be clear. Only pointing out that what you describe really isn't all that new. It's being done currently with two other "vices" that society deems inappropriate for youth.

A better argument against such a law is that it's a burden for tax-payers, not so much for stores and employees. Anytime such a law in enacted, a large chunk of tax-payer funds is used to implement the law, educate the public AND the companies, and monitor the effectiveness and execution of the law. Therein lies the biggest issue, IMHO. It's just another tax-payer burden.

You are correct in saying that most stores already have this policy. Therefore, it is unnecessary to shoulder such a burden on the tax-payers.

No one cares what kind of burden such a law puts on stores and their workers. But they sure do care when you talk about taxes. And we are talking about California, afterall.

Re:Not a good idea

[MtViewGuy]

Hold it right there.

We don't need to worry about cashiers checking if a person is 18 because there is already a system in place to check for age requirements, namely the minimum age in the USA to buy cigarettes (18) and alcoholic beverages (21). If convenience stores and liquor stores can implement this they can sure implement this in stores selling video games.

Re:Not a good idea

[Anonymous Coward]

May be you don't like the law of the excluded middle either? Repeal this!

Re:Not a good idea

[Kohath]

One law doesn't justify another. They're seperate issues.

I think the laws for alcohol and tobacco should be relaxed too, but it has no bearing on this video game situation.

Re:Not a good idea

[Kohath]

What you describe is already in place for alcohol and tobacco.

There's no reason to extend the problem caused by these laws to completely new industries. Just because you're burdening innocent cashiers in one industry doesn't mean it's OK to cause trouble for store workers in every industry.

No one cares what kind of burden such a law puts on stores and their workers.

I know. That's the problem. People are eager to harm other people for their own personal gain. That's what this law and most other laws are about.

Re:Not a good idea

[MMaestro]

'Do we really need 16-year old cashiers getting fined for making a mistake or failing to subtract correctly to determine an age from a birthdate?'

Failing to subtract currectly? Forget that, just think of the hell some kid will raise in the store if the cashier won't sell him the game. Video game stores aren't exactly protected too well for anyone who wants to do some damage. Those hundreds of video game box displays? Takes about 2 hours for one person to set up a 4 column high, 10 feet long shelf. Security? A few cameras, at best a security guard patrolling the area. Cashiers who are old/strong enough to handle an unruly customer? The average age of a video game store cashier is around 25.

How about we give some power to those who are at the bottomline actually selling the games rather than giving it to the already powerful people, the parents? When all is said and done, cashiers will end up having to kneel before the all mighty dollars given to them by the consumers.

Re:Not a good idea

[Lord Omlette]

I understand what you're saying, but video games don't give most people lung cancer and if you drive a car after playing video games, you're not overly likely to crash and burn.

It's basically all cost and zero benefit.

Re:Not a good idea

[MrAngryForNoReason]

What you describe is already in place for alcohol and tobacco....... two other "vices" that society deems inappropriate for youth.

Am I the only one who doesn't view gaming as a vice? Playing computer games is entertainment not a 'moral weakness'.

No I don't think children should be playing 'M' rated games. That is exactly why they have M ratings in the first place so parents can see at a glance the level of content the game has and decide if it is appropriate. No parents can't monitor their kids all the time, but they can look to see what games they are playing. Assuming of course kids play these games at home and not lurking in alleyways somewhere they should be pretty easy to supervise.

I don't have kids but if I did you could be damn sure they wouldn't be playing games like GTA until I considered them mature enough to understand that the point of such games is to allow you to do things that you can't do in real life. No person of sound mind thinks it is ok to kill and steal in real life, games allow us to express our violent tendencies in a harmless way, just as sport does.

The voluntary ratings that games have at the moment do the job they are meant to, most stores refuse to sell 'M' rated games to children. I much prefer game ratings and restricted sales to children rather than the alternative which would be censoring games. In other countries such as Germany games are often heavily censored even though they are being bought by adults.

What I don't want to see is this becoming as big a farce as movie ratings. Like the 12A rating recently brought into use in the UK. Essentially a 'make more money' rating to allow parents to take young children into films which were previously considered unsuitable so the studios can make the maximum profit.

Re:Not a good idea

[silentbozo]

You know, I think that legislators' salaries should be directly connected to how many bills they pass. The more bills they pass, the smaller their paychecks should be. If they really believe in what they're doing, they shouldn't mind the hit to the wallet. If they raise taxes, they should be prepared to take a proportional percentage out of their personal and office budgets.

We're gonna pay them a yearly salary anyways, no matter what they do. I'd rather they go home at the end of their term, with a full wallet, than run rampant, doing damage by proposing boneheaded legislation like this.

Re:Not a good idea

[Anonymous Coward]

If a 16-year-old is not allowed to buy the game, they aren't likely to be allowed to sell it, as with alcohol and tobacco. This will likely cut the job market, however slightly, for 16 and 17-year-olds, thus slightly altering the economy. (At least, in CA. But who knows? Other states might be promted to pass similar bills.)
I don't know if this seems pertinent to any of you, but if my state adopted such a bill, I might lose a chance for a job. (By the time they passed the bill, though, I doubt it would matter to me anyway.)

Re:Not a good idea

[matticus]

I don't think alcohol is a vice either. I particularly enjoy German beer and its effects on my playing of Mario Party 4.

Re:Not a good idea

[reiggin]

I put "vices" in quotes because it's subjective. No, I personally do not consider it a vice nor do I consider alcohol a vice but it is subjective.

Re:Not a good idea

[reiggin]

and if you drive a car after playing video games, you're not overly likely to crash and burn.

You obviously haven't seen my wife drive after playing Simpsons Hit and Run.

Re:Not a good idea

[Narchie Troll]

How is smoking a vice and drinking not?

How many people have been killed by drivers under the influence of tobacco?

Re:Not a good idea

[reiggin]

A vice is something that is addictive and dangerous, not necessarily deadly via vehicular manslaughter. Smoking is more easily considered a vice because it contains ingredients that are, by their nature, addictive and it also contains other ingredients that are, by their nature, carcinogens.

Maybe if you didn't play so much "Vice City" you'd know that the term "vice" isn't always related to automobiles.

Re:Not a good idea

[Narchie Troll]

I've never played Vice City. In any case, a vice is simply an immoral behavior, not necessarily something that is dangerous and addictive. Prostitution is considered a vice.

Alcohol is addictive and contributes to stomach and liver disease. I don't see how smoking is any worse than drinking.

Re:Not a good idea

[Zoshnell]

Alcohol in small quantities can be helpful in the digestive process. Tell what helpful benefits that smoking a cigarette gives in small, moderate of heavy quantities? I'm a light smoker too, and I take my life in my hands.

Sillyness

[Anonymous Coward]

Who paid for this, the waning video game industry?

LoL

I'm sick of this

[Anonymous Coward]

I may not be a minor anymore, but I still think this is rediculous. The parents need to be the ones parenting their children, not the government. In my opinion, this is a violation of constitutional rights, of course if it passes, good luck having the supreme court even looking at the law.

Re:I'm sick of this

[slothman32]

I wish you weren't anonymous so I could make you a friend. I haven't been a minor for many years now and I am fine. When I was 10 I didn't want cigs or alcohol. When I was 20 I didn't want them. Now that I'm 25 I still don't want them. As I said before, age doesn't matter, only wisdom. Age is in fact bearly related to wisdom. The problem is parents don't care weather kids play these games. Now I was brought up with Super Mario Bros. and such which aren't quite as violent as GTA. It's education that these kids need not an age limit.

What?

[sevensharpnine]

From the article: "[It] would regulate the display of violent video games, requiring that games with a mature rating be stocked on a shelf separate from other games and at least five feet off the ground."

Did I miss an important study or something? Do psychotic killers now average under five feet in height?

Re:What?

[Schnapple]

Do psychotic killers now average under five feet in height?

If they want them to be less noticable then put them on the bottom shelf. After all, when they put Corn Flakes on the bottom shelf, the sales dropped like 70%.

Then again perhaps they're going for the never look up notion. My sister was never too bright in her youth - if I wanted to hide something from her all I'd have to do is put it slightly above eye level.

Re:What?

[Skeeve]

This has to be the funniest/craziest part of the whole thing. Boy, being 5 feet off the ground is sure going to stop my kids (9 & 14) from getting the game. Hello, maybe this schmuck should take a look around and see that some of the 'kids' he wants to stop are taller than 5 feet?

My 9 year old son is 5' tall, and my 13 year old if 5' 10". Granted, they are a little taller than most, but their mother and grandmother are only 5'3". So, this would stop them mostly because Mom couldn't reach up to buy it.

If we are going to pass a law, lets at least do it for the right reasons, and make it effective. This law fits neither.

Arnie's Take?

[BW_Nuprin]

Will the Governator sign this, though? Kids might have a harder time buying the game based on his latest summer hit, T3: Rise of the Machines! Its a lot funnier when you hear the voice from the Conan O'Brien show in your heads.

Re:Arnie's Take?

[MichaelGCD]

The Terminator makes a conscious effort to not kill cops. Sure he'll cap them in the knees or explode the vehicles they were standing two feet away from... But never kill!

Not the games, its the people who play them.

[insmod_ex]

The problem is not the games with sexual/violent content. The problem is the people that play them. If some jackass goes out and plays GTA:Vice City, then goes to the local interstate/highway/parkway then shoots someone, its his fault. He committed the crime. The disc of Vice City did not fly out of his PS2/PC/Xbox and pick up a gun and shoot someone. However, he did act out the game and should be punished as such. And with those 14-16+ aged kids that went out and shot that person, they should be charged as adults. Murder is no joke and it should not be taken lightly.

Don't most stores already do this

[d3faultus3r]

I think most video game stores do this already or at least pay lip service to doing it. Unless you have cops staking out video game stores and asking the cashiers if they let anyone under 18 buy an M rated game it's not going to do a whole lot. And video games only cause a slight increase in violent tendencies if any, certainly not enough to demonize them so.

Re:Don't most stores already do this

[Anonymous Coward]

I believe video games cause a very slight decrease in violent tendancies, due to relieving stress.

It's all about the kids

[WildBeast]

"It's a scam to get game companies to give us donations, you know just like we did with MicroSoft. Oh did I say that? No, it's all about saving our kids from the hellhouse of violence and sex."

yuuuhhh, moron sighted

[Anonymous Coward]

Do we really need 16-year old cashiers getting fined for making a mistake or failing to subtract correctly to determine an age from a birthdate?

First of all, the cutoff year would posted on or near the register, so the cashier doesn't need to know math. Secondly, what's up with cashiers who can't do simple arithmatic? This is what our ridiculously low min. wage gets us.

Fuck the cashier. If s/he is too stupid to do their job, they ought to lose it.

What is the age of majority ?

[tumutbound]

Slightly off topic but what is the age of majority as it would apply to this new law? In Oz (at least in my state), such classification of video games has been in place since 1995. There are various categories, the most restrictive being MA15+ meaning mature adults over 15. As long as you are over 15, you can buy whichever game you like.

Oh well...

[M3wThr33]

I'm all for freedom and no ties to the government, but we've obviously not educated enough people.

Is it too radical to consider that we should impose SOMETHING against stupid clerks who could care less about their job?

Terrible

[Anonymous Coward]

My God, that's awful. Next they'll be stopping kids from watching X-rated movies and denying them the right to purchase cigarettes and alcohol. Those bastards.

g0d of pr0n.

[Grendel Drago]

As the local Slashdot g0d of pr0n (now that Keslin has vanished), it's good to hear your opinion on it. More power to you.

--grendel drago

MOD PARENT DOWN

[pilot1]

Watch me get modded down for saying this, but I'll risk my karma for the point.

Why is this moderated as insightful?
AC was being sarcastic. Either that, or he doesn't know what he's talking about.

Do you think there was no rape or prostitution a few hundred years ago, before porn? Of course there was.

Do you think there were no violent kids a few hundred years ago, before video games? Of course there were.

It's the PARENTS fault that the kids are violent, they just want to blame the video game industry for THEIR inability to raise their children.

Re:MOD PARENT DOWN

[Anonymous Coward]

It's the PARENTS fault that the kids are violent

and the parents' parents' fault that the parents are violent,
and the parents' parents' parent's fault that the parents' parents' are violent
realise how long this post could become

Re:MOD PARENT DOWN

[penguinoid]

Watch me get modded down for saying this

Slashdot FAQ: Some of my favorite "bad" or off-topic comments are things like "Slashdot sucks!" and "This isn't news for nerds!" and "Moderate this XXX!" Any of these may be true, but they're probably off topic!
--CmdrTaco

Lucky you said something useful as well.

Re:MOD PARENT DOWN

[yourmom16]

I think his sarcasm was kind of obvious; but the point is that since those obviously aren't true, video games and porn aren't the causes.

Sex, Drugs, and Video Games

[Anonymous Coward]

Yes, that's it...guns don't kill people; video games people.

Re:Sex, Drugs, and Video Games

[Anonymous Coward]

I don't know about you, but those edges on CDs seem rather sharp, now if hypothetically could throw a CD, as well as OddJob, you could cause some serious damage, don't even get me started on cartriages.

No. It's the "!" symbol which drives violence.

[Fantastic Lad]

Can people please just say, "Doesn't equal" already? This way I might actually take the time to read the attached argument because I'll know there is a chance it won't be just another appearance of pre-fab, bumper-sticker geek dogma. If you have something to say, take the time to argue it. "Correlation != Causation" has been keyed into subject lines so many damned times, I'm fairly sure that explanation point keys all over the West will soon need replacing from over-use.

Do you use 1's and 5's instead of I's and S's too?

(Pardon me. I'm grouchy today. DO carry on.)

-FL

Harrumph

[Cuthalion81]

Parents need to be responsible for their kids, not the government or some store.

I just wrote about this!

[herrvinny]

In the Bloodvertising /. discussion, I just wrote about how the parents groups are going to go nuts over the newest advertising thing.

Re:No. It's the "!" symbol which drives violence.

[penguinoid]

Can people please just say, "Doesn't equal" already?

I'm sorry, there's so many programmers here, and != is shorter and (for me) clearer than 'doesn't equal'. Look on the bright side, though, you won't be so clueless when you decide to start coding :-)

This is how it is.

[Mullen]

Americans limit Sex in the media while the Europeans limit violence.

After World War II, the Europeans sought to limit imagery of violence for their own reasons (War, genocide and all that.) while the Americans, being based on a Puritanical roots wanted to limit imagery of Sex. So if you can't have one, you have the other. The Europeans see Sex, and the Americans see Violence and neither see the other. Kind of lame, I would rather see sex on TV than violence.

Re:This is how it is.

[slothman32]

I wonder what Europeans want to see. You, and I, probably don't see sex as much being 'taboo' so we want that. I would guess people from Europe might want the other. And of course people from countries like Singapore would want to see both. Since we see violence all over the place we are used to it.

Re:This is how it is.

[/dev/trash]

But what about Violent Sex?

Re:This is how it is.

[Anonymous Coward]

I live in Europe and I have never seen any signs of us limiting imagery of violence in favor of sex.

Re:This is how it is.

[Anonymous Coward]

My thoughts exactly!
Then there's always Japan...

Re:This is how it is.

[Kashif Shaikh]

This is why there is hardly any sex depiction in games or mainstream TV...but the top 5 games online are war games:
- counter strike
- medal of honour
- call of duty
- rtcw
- the free "america" game.

Re:This is how it is.

[Anonymous Coward]

But I want both! Sex and Violence in entertainment is a good thing, using the pragmatic test, where good entertainment is entertaining entertainment and sex and violence are entertaining.

Too lazy to read 146 prev. comments

[tibike77]

But still, who cares?
Kids still drink beer bought by bums for 5$ extra.
What makes it so hard to get an "illegal" game then?

Thank God for this provision

[Anonymous Coward]

Now I will never have to worry about buying a kiddie game again... just head straight to the sex and violence section of the games.

Should apply to books as well

[Jordy]

I'm sick and tired of kids reading all the violent books out there. A couple books I've read recently had description of sexual encouters and that's not something kids should be exposed to!

Therefore, I propose we adopt ratings for books. Anything too complex for a young mind to grasp should be rated NC-17. This of course goes for all books critical of the government as well since we can't have that. This goes double for any history books. Those things are just dangerous.

Won't someone please think of the children?

Re:Should apply to books as well

[TXG1112]

I think some mods sarcasm detectors are on the blink....a three digit id troll?

Re:Should apply to books as well

[chill]

Except those who read actually use their mind, whereas most movies are viewed with the mind in neutral or off.

THINKING is a benefit that outweighs the rest. The reason a lot of restrictions are put in place is because people DON'T think.

On a side note, history books ARE dangerous. Many of them are dangerously inaccurate or biased. Actually, this applies to most school textbooks.

Re:Should apply to books as well

[oskillator]

Don't worry, as soon as movies and video games are out of the picture, they'll get right back on burning books.

Back when books were the most immersive media, children spent much of their free time reading, and here was a lot more furor over violent and sexual scenes in books. Now that children are gravitating to movies and video games, that's where the furor goes.

Sometimes books get a revival, too. There were people who accused the Harry Potter series of corrupting young minds, and you sure could hear those people loud and clear.

Re:Should apply to books as well

[monkeyfinger]

Won't someone please think of the children?

I'm surprised that wasn't said sooner :-)

Re:Should apply to books as well

[Anonymous Coward]

Back when books were the most immersive media...

Books are still the most immersive media. Well, compared to movies or video games anyway.

Re:Should apply to books as well

[ShadowBlasko]

Agreed! Especially ones with violence and rape against women, beastiality, murder by the score, bloodshed, incest, slavery, adultery, self mutilation, cannibalism.

Much like that nasty "Bible" thing they keep shoving down my daughters throat as a "required historical reading" at a public school.

She's 10.

Flame me if you want, but check out a few of These examples first.

The left hand, the right hand

[AstroDrabb]

It seems one doesn't know what the other is doing.

The left hand is saying that kids should not be allowed to buy/view this "harmful" stuff.

The right hand is saying that it is OK to use the F-word on TV networks

You just gotta love the American government.

A parable

[veritron]

Back in the 1980's, some dumbass driving a particular brand of car in the United States put her foot on the gas pedal instead of the brake pedal and lived to sue a major car company. Hundreds of other dumbasses, knowing a good thing when they see it, also sued the major car company. The media latched onto those reports, and dubbed the incidents "SUAs" or "Sudden Unintended Accelerations." A particular brand of car mentioned in the media report had NO mentions of the defect before the report aired - within a month, it had hundreds of mentions. An investigation was launched by various government agencies - they somehow found it impossible to replicate, being physically impossible, and released a report blaming "pedal misapplication." To this day a cabal of conspiracy theorists believe that the auto industry and the government are covering this problem up. SUAs my ass - more like "Sudden Unintelligence Accidents."

How does this relate to the current story? Well, it goes to show how much personal responsibility goes in today's society. The government can't tell people that they'd have to be imbeciles to buy their three-year-olds copies of GTA, so naturally they have to "look out for the public." Naturally, the media, knowing a good thing when it sees it, runs stories every time some dumbass with a copy of FF7 burns down a 7-11 or some goth with doom shoots up a high school in Hell's Asshole, Suburbia.

How do we stop this influx of idiocy?

A. Vote. Too many old people do it and not enough young people do. The reason that medicare and social security are going to bankrupt this country is that the politicos are too afraid of pissing off the old people and losing their votes to make any substantial changes to those horrible, horrible systems. At the very least, vote out of office everyone that supports stupid bullshit laws that'd regulate video games. Perhaps you don't support any candidate - but you can still use your vote as a weapon against the particularly dumbassed ones.

B. Get your news from the internet. Don't watch the news, ever, even idly. Read, or do something else with your time. Face it, wouldn't you rather you didn't know who Ashton Kutcher or Britney Spears or Madonna were, or who they were sleeping with? Every single fucking time I've been involved with something before it got media attention, I noticed grave factual inaccuracies and general dumbassedness - the media is a big fat pile of sad.

C. Take some personal responsibility. Now, remember, "responsibility" is a direct synonym for "blame." When you fuck up, take the blame. Don't tell yourself that you didn't do well in high school because "only 10% of people do well in that type of environment" - tell yourself that you screwed up because you suck at life.

D. Make the lives of idiots living hells. Don't suffer fools gladly. Be sure to use sarcasm to belittle them, and lower their "self-esteem." Hopefully, they'll fail to attract mates, and then eventually the suck will be bred out of humanity.

A story about self-esteem: At my HIGH school, there was recently a seminar called "Words can really hurt." On this, students were invited to get up to share their experiences of being picked on, which was supposedly supposed to get us to realize our HURTFUL WAYS. One child got up and told about how people would make fun of him for being diabetic. Now, this child had a fucking insulin pump attached to his body. He was so diabetic that he actually had a computer that would monitor his blood sugar in real time. But he LOVED candy. So, he'd go on these binges, eat a fuck-ton of candy, and compensate by pumping himself full of insulin. Naturally, every time we did this, we'd tell him "Jimmy, you're going to fucking die, you stupid diabetic!"

This is our future. Remember kiddies - even though voting gives you the illusion of control, and probably matters less to you each individual time than the amount of taxes you pay to register, you can't bitch about the government if you didn't even try to play by their rules.

Re:A parable

[sploxx]

> D. Make the lives of idiots living hells. Don't suffer fools gladly. Be sure to use sarcasm to belittle them, and lower their "self-esteem." Hopefully, they'll fail to attract mates, and then eventually the suck will be bred out of humanity.

That is just plain social darwinism.

Re:A parable

[StyleChief]

I like how you think my friend. It's too bad more folks don't see that the inability of people (read that Americans) to accept responsibility for their own actions is killing this country. It also seems as if the ones that are breeding are exactly the ones that should not.

Negative Backlash

[cgenman]

I agree that there is generally a negative backlash against regulating videogames, but that is because regulations have traditionally been knee-jerk reactions blaming an industry for something it had nothing to do with. Up to this point they've been overly broad, and almost always prohibitive.

This bills do have some of that knee-jerk tone to it. "Operating through the eyes of video game killers trains kids to stalk victims, take aim and kill, Yee said." Yee failed to mention where the child is to get practice assembling a gun, re-loading a gun, or smuggling a gun into school. Even then, FPS gaming is not necessarily a good training tool... I can rack up a pretty decent frag count, but I can't shoot a paintball gun to save my life. The ten year old kids at the local arena with the $200 Birthday Special laser-scoped fully-autos shouting "Die, F(#$ers, Die!" seem to be a bit more adept at stalking, aiming, and killing. Aiming with an optical mouse and keyboard is a whole lot different than aiming with 20 pounds of hardened steel.

In his defense, perhaps Yee meant metaphorically that we shouldn't teach kids that violence solves all of life's problems. If that's so, then we shouldn't have elected the Terminator to the state's highest office. Glorification of violence happens on all levels in our culture.

Likewise, the separate shelf 5 feet above the ground is a little cruel in a state with a large asian population. And that the "Harmful Matter" provision does not refer specifically to ESRB ratings leaves it quite open for interpretation.

Personally, I see this kind of regulation as a next necessary step in the entrance of gaming to mainstream American life. The sale of violence-glorifying media should be restricted until one has a grasp of the horrors of real violence. I would be surprised if a study showed persistent increased violence levels in non-self selected groups, but I don't particularly want my kids to spend their time torturing and maiming digital bunnyrabbits either.

We should support a bill giving the ESRB's ratings the weight of law, the same way that the MPAA's ratings hold true in the movie realm. If this turns out to be one, that's great. But if this turns out to be a no-sales-to-anyone won't-someone-think-of-the-children bills, we should stop it cold. Videogames are not more responsible for the culture of violence than the rest of the culture of violence.

Re:Negative Backlash

[geekoid]

rating are almost always an industry created system that is used to stop the government from interfering with there own rating system.

Anything violent contributes to a culture of violence, even something that's supposed to be a 'reflection' of a particular aspect of culture.

Re:Negative Backlash

[shostiru]

Anything violent contributes to a culture of violence, even something that's supposed to be a 'reflection' of a particular aspect of culture.

This is tautologically true, insofar as the violent item itself is a part of culture. One could as easily say that the addition of sugar to one's coffee contributes to its sweetness.

If you are asserting, however, that a violent video game (or other medium) makes any statistically significant, lasting contribution to real world violence, I would like to see support (as in peer-reviewed, replicated studies, not the carefree assertions of media talking heads). I am familiar with studies demonstrating that people who play violent videogames (or watch violent TV programs, or read violent books, or even imagine violent scenarios) exhibit different behaviour in the short term, such as judging defendants in imaginary criminal cases more harshly. I have yet to see any support for long-term changes or for increases in actual violent acts.

There are far, far better predictors for violent behaviour than videogames. While I don't think this is exactly a nail in the coffin of civil rights, I do think our government could be spending their time and our money more effectively, and I think we have plenty of near to totally useless laws already.

Re:Negative Backlash

[silentbozo]

"Operating through the eyes of video game killers trains kids to stalk victims, take aim and kill, Yee said
Taking that a step further: Joining the United States Army trains our kids to stalk enemies, take aim and kill.

I'm assuming Mr. Yee will next propose a bill forcing armed services recruiters to be cordoned off in an isolated area during career fairs at Junior, Middle, and High Schools throughout California, to prevent our impressionable youth from being exposed to glorified depictions of violence. Then, he'll ask to ban contact sports in high school like football and hockey...

Seriously though, I wouldn't be surprised if he did - they've already more or less banned shooting sports in the state, recruits from California (either for law enforcement or military) probably have never even been taught basic firearms safety, much less the basic points of shooting. God forbid anyone should propose something unpatriotic these days, but throw out a chorus of "please think of the children!" and we've got another brainless law in the making.

Did anyone stop to think that maybe the children need a little less protection from themselves, and more protection from stupid lawmakers like this? Of course, he is from San Francisco (aka Feinstein-land...)

Another thought - this law would affect purchases of first person shooters. What about America's Army, which is downloadable for free? Wouldn't that create an uneven playing field, and jeopardize the jobs of thousands of programmers, animators, artists, and modelers, many of whom live and work in California and pay taxes here? I guess they could all go to work for the US Army...

Re:Negative Backlash

[silentbozo]

One more observation: "Operating through the eyes of video game killers trains kids to stalk victims, take aim and kill, Yee said."

If Yee wishes to make sure nobody in California learns how to "stalk, aim, and kill", he'll have to ban (or otherwise segregate) hunting publications as well, for obvious reasons, along with any fictional or reference book, video, which depicts, or otherwise provides information on hunting. The next step is to restrict what you can see on the internet and other game-related print publications, since preventing kids from looking at the box won't stop them from reading gaming magazines, or visiting official or fan websites.

Can everyone see where this is going? And I'm paying how much a year in taxes to pay the salary for this bozo to propose crap like this, which will inevitably cost millions of dollars in court time, and weeks, if not months of a judge (or even a jury's) time, if passed? What about the costs of enforcements? More tax money out of my pocket!

Re:Negative Backlash

[zenbrew]

"In his defense, perhaps Yee meant metaphorically that we shouldn't teach kids that violence solves all of life's problems. If that's so, then we shouldn't have elected the Terminator to the state's highest office. Glorification of violence happens on all levels in our culture."

America is a violent society. All of our major historic events have precipitated from war or violence. I wish Americans would stop trying to fix our "barbaric ways" and just accept and embrace what we are. America loves to see things go boom! Otherwise Sylvester Stallone would have needed another profession. Parents need to learn to parent again, not trust the video game store clerk making minimum wage to enforce a law that he/she doesn't give a rat's ass about. This law should be: "Parents are to be held accountable if your child ends up being a screwed up, anti-social, animal violating, mass murdering little monkey. We will not hold a faceless game store clerk accountable for your neglect."

Re:Negative Backlash

[Anonymous Coward]

Football, hockey, and armed forces recruiters are far more violent influences than any video game ever has been or could possibly be.

The video game law is a stupid idea, and if I lived in CA, I'd go out of my way to help kids get these video games if the law passed.

Re:Negative Backlash

[nlaporte]

We should support a bill giving the ESRB's ratings the weight of law, the same way that the MPAA's ratings hold true in the movie realm.

The MPAA's ratings are actually completely voluntary, and do not have the weight of any law whatsoever. However, any movie theater/video store that is found by the industry (they send people around, anonymously, to test) might have a hard time obtaining anything new. Therefore it's in the best interests of the stores and theaters to control who gets in/rents movies.

Re:Negative Backlash

[nfg05]

We should support a bill giving the ESRB's ratings the weight of law, the same way that the MPAA's ratings hold true in the movie realm.

I'm not sure if this is what you're trying to say, but the MPAA ratings have no force of law behind them. The industry is self-regulated and enforced. It's not "illegal" in the sense of federal law to sneak into an R-rated movie when you're under 17.

Re:Negative Backlash

[Josh, Xbox Samurai]

I dont know. Halo has certainly made me a hardened killer. Problem is, I dont come with a targeting reticle or a controller. Opening doors to commit atrocities is a little rough, too. X, damnit, X! The worst ones arent the FPS's though. Its Pac-Man. When someone starts gnawing on you and mumbling "High Score" around your arm, youve got a problem. Plus, they eat all your fruit. In all seriousness, I think that the real problem is that the "scientists" looking at this data are interpreting it to suit their purposes. A large number of violent people play violent video games. So, if Im a shithead "scientist", I say, "Ah. Violent video games make violent people." My partner, who pulled his head from the nether region, says "Ah. Violent people enjoy violent video games. Interesting. Whats for lunch?"

Might be off Topic

[PakProtector]

This might be all little off topic, but...

What the hell is going on? I'm one of those 'bad' kids. I'm currently 18, living in a College town, planning to start school when I can save up the tuition ( sometime in fall. )

I've been smoking since I was 11 -- My parents told me not to. I did it anyway. It was my choice. No one elses. It's something I wish I'd never started, but it's not up to anyone else to tell me I can't smoke but my parents. They said they didn't want me to, but they knew I would do it anyway.

I also drink. Alot. On average, once a month or so I go out and get so drunk I can't play pool anymore for the fact that I have to ask every 5 seconds if I'm solids or stripes. Note that it is illegal for me to do that.

I may not be the perfect person, but I was raised by my grandparents for the most part, and for a long time most of my friends where senior citizens. I seem to have adopted their attitudes towards some things. I find it rediculous that I can't smoke at 17, but I can die for my country. At 18 I can smoke and die for my country and pay taxes, but I can't drink. And don't get me started on consentual sex between minors. When I was fifteen if I had sex with a 16 year old girl because of the laws in my state, I would have been guilty of statutory rape.

I'm all for government looking out for my interests, but government seems to have forgotten what my interests are. Parents have to be allowed to make decisions for their children as long as they aren't starving or beating them to death, scitisne?

Re:Might be off Topic

[Anonymous Coward]

Problem is you do not know what your own interests are. You are taking the easy way out. Your life will be worthless to you, and the rest of us will have to pay to fix what you do, like health care when you get older and have schlorosis of the liver. You ever hear of alcoholism? I bet you are an alcoholic. I do not say it in any condesending way, but as a person who thinks life can be better than what you are living. As for dying for your country at age 18, that is a lame excuse to get drunk, nobody will draft you and force you to go and die. But drinking like you are increases the chances that your life will be meaningless.

Re:Might be off Topic

[Anonymous Coward]

If you dont drink your life is meaningless.

gotta love

[Anonymous Coward]

them fucking democrats....

they're on the march again to strip away rights...

Secret Shopper

[Anonymous Coward]

Why dont they do like grocery stores with alcohol. Have an older person around 21 go into a video game store and see if they sell him the game without checking his ID first. Some nice cash could come in from video game stores along with the quickie-marts and gas stations selling to minors.

Good first step...

[John Seminal]

People are what they experiance. Crap in = Crap out. It is not right to force feed this crud down the throats of kids, which is what the game advertisers do. How much money do these game companies want to make off the well being of kids? How about teaching kids something worthwhile in games, like team play in real sports? At least with sports, they will be contributing to their health.

Re:Good first step...

[sgt_what]

I dont really feel like going on and on about everything i think so i'll just make it "short and sweet" because I'm really tired right now. Computer/video games and "real" sports, require TEAMwork to accomplish and objective. "Real" sports, for the most part, do require a certain amount of physical skill, while computer/video games require more of a mental skill. It seems to me you are misinformed/inexpeirenced the area of video/computer games. Please do a little bit of research and post agian. Thank you.

Re:Typicial leftist nanny state crap

[Anonymous Coward]

this shouldn't be a troll....

only on commie slashcunt do people deny the truth so vehemently...

Am I missing something?

[ex_ottoyuhr]

Quote from the article:

"The games that I don't let this 13-year-old have are the games that have sexual content," said Michael Hill, who was shopping with his wife and son at Sacramento's Downtown Plaza. "Those are what worry me, not the violent ones."

I didn't know that much of *anything* had sexual content yet. And assuming (as I hope) that he doesn't have GTA prostitutes in mind, what are these games he's thinking of and where do I buy a copy? Has this guy been importing Japanese dating sims for the express purpose of not giving them to his kids?

Not to mention that the American perspective on violence vs. sexuality is rather badly fouled up, as many other posters already remarked. Sexual behaviors -- love and physical reproduction both -- are quite thoroughly natural to humans, for obvious reasons. But any human's one strongest inborn aversion is against doing harm to another human. Even armies have never done well in overcoming all of a person's instictive aversion to doing harm or taking life, and I suspect that the totally unnatural is a bit more harmful to kids than the obscure but natural.

Someone tell these idiots that this isn't the 19th century any more, thank the Lord -- and that the US is no longer a frontier...

Re:Am I missing something?

[Anonymous Coward]

Playing games is a safe substitute because parents are too scared to let their kids interact in a real world.
No 'sensible' parent in America or Europe would allow their kids to have the childhood experiences now in 2003 that I had back in the early 70s. ... aged 7 I could wire mains electricity and was trusted by my parents to fix household electrical items. 8 I had supervised use of a gas rifle and shotgun. At 11 I had built a tesla coil
and could strip down internal combustion engines of any motorbikes and tractors. By 16 I was 2 or 3 years ahead of my peers and studying organic chemistry, I already knew how to synthesise about 10 types of explosives, and actually had made them all and blown up countless things with them. Thats not to mention the catapults, beercan mortars, crossbows, 5hp RIB boat, evil kenevil stunt bike ramps and other mad shit we had to play with as kids. And don't get the impression we were a rich family, no way we were pooor! I spent some time being patched up, but no more than other kids of my generation.

Ok I know what your thinking - typical geeky spod, to an extent yes - late sexual developer, first dated a woman at 20 years old. I remember being pretty shocked by the first pron film I saw too, probably aged 18 or 19. So yes we were sheltered and naive in an a funny old fashioned way. I guess my parents sheilded me from that somehow. Perhaps I had a more American upbringing than British.

Anyway the point is actually having a LIFE , in the big world OUTSIDE, playing with real dangerous shit is good for kids.

You get a grounding in physical reality. You get a certain intuition , such as that a car travelling at twice the speed takes distance squared to stop.
Abstract theory in the classroom or computer can't teach you that in any useful way. You have to actually put a hole in your leg sometimes to reach the empirical enlightenment that lead travelling at 500M/s will HURT YOU.

I feel sorry for kids now. They are wrapped up in virtual cotton wool. because their parents are so scared of being failures they will be too. :(

Re:Am I missing something?

[ex_ottoyuhr]

Dang, you had a good childhood. :)

Re:Am I missing something?

[Arco0]

and thank you mom and pop that im not american Hallelujah!!!!

Parent is +1 Insightful

[Anonymous Coward]

Sarcasm too sharp for mod's mushy minds I guess.

For godsakes

[CelticWhisper]

When are people^H^H^H^H^H^Hsoccer moms and technophobic legislators going to realize, VIOLENT GAMES DO NOT CAUSE VIOLENCE. Can they help promote it? Possibly. Can they encourage it? Perhaps. But there is no way a well-adjusted, mentally stable child who happens to enjoy playing Quake or Grand Theft Auto is going to decide "cool, I think I'll go take a nailgun to little Jimmy's head."

How do I know? I'm living proof, and I'm also living --with-- proof. My brother is the kindest, smartest, most low-key 12-year-old I know, and he spends hours on end playing Counter Strike with his friends, making comments along the lines of "Ooh, right between the eyes!" and "Headshot, b*tch!" When he leaves the computer, the game stays there. He doesn't take it with him, and his killer persona is restricted to the online world.

As for me, I scare people when I play Carmageddon. I literally laugh like a madman as I smear pedestrians all over the sidewalks. People have asked me if I'm okay, or need help.

But the same thing applies-it's all an in-game persona, all a character. I would never dream of going around and aiming for pedestrians in my car, trying to knock them to pieces...I love my car too much (kidding, kidding).

Children who have trouble, however, with separating fantasy and reality are the ones at risk, they're the ones who are unable to detach that killer instinct and leave it sitting by the headphones and joystick, and it's simply bad or inattentive parenting that prevents parents from seeing that there were problems to begin with and that perhaps these children in particular should not be playing games as intense as some of those out there today.

Re:For godsakes

[Artifakt]

OK, so you're not seriously maladjusted. So 90% of your friends and acquantences aren't either. But as you put it, you scare people when you play Carmageddon. Why? Because they worry without a particular reason? Or because they have a very good reason?
That reason doesn't have to be you, mind you. It doesn't really sound like it is. It could be that everyone knows some person that is not-so-together, personally. If you are still in high school or younger, how about answers to a few questions. If I wanted to find a poorly adjusted, memtally unstable child, who might just be influenced by a game to take a nailgun to somebody's head, could I find one at your school? Could I find one in some of the particular classes you take? Could I find 2? 5? 10?
How many out of the population of your school do you think might be pushed over the edge? How many are you SURE could be?
If I met you in the cafeteria (if you still have manditory on school lunch) or in the hall between classes, and said "Would you please point at the ones you think are unstable?", would your arm get tired?
Now of those kids, how many have pretty good parents, who are trying to help the kids with their problems, and how many have screwed up parents who helped create the problems?
Some people may even see you as part of the problem. You're a false positive of sorts. A normal person who gives off signals that may make it harder to spot the really dangerous kid.
The more paranoid ones don't just want to control what games you play, they want to stop you from wearing a black trenchcoat, or dyeing your hair blue, or wearing a Marilyn Manson tee-shirt. They may go as far as school uniforms, or even try to make you act like something out of 50's TV. They're willing to go that far to control you, because there are dangerous kids in every school, in every class, maybe in every group of 10, and it's easy to try anything that might work and a lot of things that won't.
As for me, I was in the US Army, during the time things changed. In a few years, we went from having to 'toughen' up many new recruits, convince them that there were times to use violence against an enemy, to having to teach more and more of them to hold back, or at least keep it focused on armed opponents.
Belive it or not, the army tries to weed out people who could shoot unarmed little kids and rape their older sisters. The numbers of people who wanted to go kill someone, just about anyone, increased several times over, and the numbers who cared that some orders were unlawful and should not be obeyed dropped. The generation that sounds like it is just a few years ahead of yours is genuinely different, and we don't know why (I'm assuming of course that you are not that much older than your brother). We don't know if it has peaked with them or if it's going to keep on getting worse.

Re:Could work - They do check ages for movies!

[Catnapster]

There are way to many 8 year olds playing Counter-Strike and other Teen games.

I always thought this was a major problem too, but not for the reason you do.

The right solution is to make ESRB ratings law

[jonwil]

Bascily, do the same thing as for the Movie industry ratings.

If a kid walks into a video store or a movie theater and wants to see a violent/high-rated movie, they cant see it unless they have parents/guardians with them (or a fake ID :)

The right answer is to force the stores to get better at not selling violent games to minors (and, like how video stores keep "mature" type content away from other content, the stores should keep "mature" games away from other games)

Also, parents need to take more notice of the ESRB ratings on the boxes of the games they are buying.

And, people need to trust the ESRB ratings. Instead of all these calls for bans, restrictions etc that are outside those ratings, like in whatever state it was where they wanted to ban games where you shoot cops.

There are differences

[atrader42]

I'm slightly torn about games, as there is, in fact, participation in anything that goes on. However, there is an extremely important difference between R rated movies and M rated video games (let's face it, how many video games really are analogous to X rated movies? Duke Nukem doesn't count). The difference is that movies, and especially at theatres are fully realistic and fully immersive. Even on the best currently available gaming machine, nobody could mistake the action onscreen for anything real.
Music is even one step further, as very little music is intended to be taken as any view of reality. Rather, much of it is artistic in one way or another (yes, in the eye of the beholder) and is not a specific view of something unacceptable in reality (ie shooting lots of people). Even in the cases of songs about such things, I would be very hesitant to say that they are an influence toward anything beyond stupid fanboyism.

Compare to film...

[Coryoth]

It's interesting how the ratings work though isn't it. With video games violence is the death knell, but in film violence seems to be fine.

A wonderful example of this is American Psycho. The film had to be cut for US release else it would have recieved and NC-17 rating (which is box office death apparently) from the MPAA. What had to be cut was a not especially graphic scene of a threesome. It was in the international release, and was really not of any note. It did show a threesome though, so was obviously morally evil. Of course all the perfectly normal and morally respectable scenes of Bateman carving people up with axes, chainsaws, and a variety of other interesting implements was fine with the MPAA.

Put the same violence in a video game and you probably wouldn't be able to sell it to ayone under 25.

Jedidiah

Research??

[Anonymous Coward]

Is there even any research to prove that kids will "become shooters" if exposed to violent video games. I think this is total crap. Not only is it totally rediculous coming from a politician who probably has never played a video game, but I just think it is plain stupid.

Re:Research??

[sgt_what]

yes, they have done a ton of research, they take crazy people, put them in places where they get beat up a ton and then give them a "violent video game" then let them get beat up some more untill the person finnaly snaps and kills. Thats pretty much what they go off of. In my opinon, the few people that go crazy killing people liek that are already crazy. The people doing this "research" dont seem to realize that these people are the minority, not the majority.

well good

[KalvinB]

Now kids have one more reason to give a begger a few bucks.

Ben

More Legislation == BAD

[Goyuix]

You know, I am certainly of the opinion that children should be "protected" or "discouraged" from purchasing "questionable" material. That is just my ethical standpoint - and really I think it should be the parents policing not the stores or governments... but I digress...

The real point of this post is to point out my more firm belief that less government intervention is certainly a good thing - particularly in relatively trivial issues such as these. The feds and locals are already far too involved in my life and decisions that I make. I would much rather see this as an initiative started as stores grouped together or a group of angry parents convinced the stores to separate the games out instead of uncle sam forcing them to do so.

I work for Target

[MacFury]

I can tell you...we get alot of parents that come in and say things like, "my son likes to kill things, what's a good game where you shoot people up, like GTA?"

It's really quite sicking to see a parent willingly put Vice City into the hands of a six or seven year old.

Then again, you get the messed up kids who are screaming at their parents, while the parents are telling me mario kart is too violent for their brats.

Have you heard of Cinemax?

[Sycraft-fu]

aka Skinemax :)

Seriously though, it's true. Europe is way too scared of violent imagery and America is WAAAAAY too scared of sexual imagery.

Fry Mumia

[Rayonic]

If you want, you can check out this list of myths about Mumia. In particular, the last one deals specifically with Arnold Beverly.

The arguments there are long and well-researched, so if you're not up to it, feel free to ignore it all and stick to supporting the murderer.

Progressive?

[eraser.cpp]

It's completely unjust that gaming companies be restricted by the very system they established to help parents do their job of raising the kids. However certain titles (Vice City comes to mind) are so filled with sex and violence that I shudder to think of anybody under a mature age playing it. This is why I would agree with legislation restricting children under 16 (chosen arbitrarily) from buying games listed as grossly violent/sexual. There are plenty of implications here though. Who would govern this list? Will the legislation stop here or is this merely a stepping stone for the anti-videogame community? Would creating an adult video game section make kids not want the children's titles?

New video game idea

[Anonymous Coward]

maybe they should make a new game that gamers can shoot senators in. ph34r.

Perhaps...

[spudthepotatofreak]

...If the parents would raise their children so they would have the ability to actually realize the difference between real-life and a virtual-world, none of this would be necessary... The problem lies in the belief that the GOVERNMENT should raise your children, and is responsible for them... this is FALSE!!! I've played every "violent" video game since doom, which means that i'm a serial killing mad-man... My goodness, they better come and arrest me before i commit an awful crime! Errr, Minority Report anyone???? This other bill that's most likely soon to become law, the one that would prohibit games with cop-killing... It's pure thought-control, that will only lead to the prohibbition of cop-killing in movies. They will stifle our thoughts, they'll tell us what we can and cannot think, they'll have us under their control before you even realize it...

Re:Perhaps...

[sgt_what]

" ...If the parents would raise their children so they would have the ability to actually realize the difference between real-life and a virtual-world, none of this would be necessary..." Thats the thing, most of us gamers DO now the difference between real-life and the "vitural-world", its just the goverment thinks we are dumb.

another stupid law

[Anonymous Coward]

Another stupid law that's not going to be enforced... put out by a clueless politician...

just what we need...

Again!

[cliffy2000]

Damn those Republicans and their censorshi-- oh. He's a Democrat.

zerg

[Lord Omlette]

I could be wrong, but given the horrendous beating we liberals have been taking in the last few elections (I'm thinking the ones we just had, and 2002, and 2000), I think Mr. Yee needs to reassess his motherfucking priorities!

Re:zerg

[crism]

Leland Yee doesn't need to worry about re-election. He is an incumbent Democrat in a district that is overwhelmingly Democratic. There are a Republican and a Libertarian running against him, but he is unopposed in the primary.

Welcome to San Francisco. In partisan races here, the Democratic primary is the real election.

NC-17 kiss-of-death = bad?

[TrekkieGod]

Worse, filmmakers can't even make a realistic sex scene without the dreaded NC-17 kiss-of-death promise from the moralists at the censorship board, thus less realism and a damaged national cinema.

Unrealistic sex scenes are damaging the national cinema? How exactly does that happen? The important thing is the story, and how it is conveyed...now, I'll grant you that it could be very possible that having "realistic sex scenes" can be necessary to do just that, but if that's the case, no one is preventing you from going to see a movie that is NC-17 rated.

On the other hand, I don't want to walk into non-sex movies and get sex. Matrix Reloaded's rave scene comes to mind...and the movie was rated R, imagine what that would be like if they could get away with more and still have it rated the same. Having that scene even more realistic wouldn't have made the movie any better. My enjoyment of a movie depends on how good the movie is, and who I can enjoy it with, and that scene limits the amount of people I'd feel confortable watching that movie with.

You mention that mainstream movies in Europe and Asia have a lot more T&A that our NC-17 movies...I've seen european movies like that, and that's what I'm afraid of really. Love is a theme in every genre, so we'd start having these "realistic scenes" pop-up everywhere, because let's face it...sex sells. I'm no "moralist", and I'm perfectly fine with movies containing such things, but I do like to enjoy the occasional movie with my parents and grandparents, and there are some things I just don't feel comfortable watching around them. The dreaded NC-17 rating makes sure that sex doesn't make it to ALL new movies

Re:NC-17 kiss-of-death = bad?

[Narchie Troll]

"""I'm no "moralist", and I'm perfectly fine with movies containing such things, but I do like to enjoy the occasional movie with my parents and grandparents, and there are some things I just don't feel comfortable watching around them. The dreaded NC-17 rating makes sure that sex doesn't make it to ALL new movies"""

How many NC-17 movies can you name that were released in the last year? I can't think of one. NC-17 is the kiss of death because it scares away moviegoers and basically eliminates a large portion of the audience.

If you want to go to a movie without realistic sex scenes, there are three very good ratings that guarantee that: G, PG, and PG-13.

Re:NC-17 kiss-of-death = bad?

[monkeyfinger]

It would be good if there were two cuts for every film, one for adults and one for under 18.

Then adults wouldn't have to put up with watered down films and the under 18s would still have something to watch.

In this age of digital film it wouldn't be that hard to do, would it?

Re:NC-17 kiss-of-death = bad?

[gad_zuki!]

>no one is preventing you from going to see a movie that is NC-17 rated.

Yes they are, if you are under-17 it is no admittance. That's exactly the problem here, these aren't just content descriptors they are implemented as censorship either by theater management or by state law.

WARNING: GOATSE.CX LINKS!

[Anonymous Coward]

Well, ok, so thats not what it is but you would read more truth at goatse.cx.

Nanny Law's

[Jaysyn]

Oh look, another Nanny Law & from California too, who would have thought.

Jaysyn

Re:No. It's the "!" symbol which drives violence.

[Narchie Troll]

"explanation point"

Do you have any fucking right to be a pedantic asshole?

bullshit

[KeelSpawn]

god why do I always hear this kind of bullshit. Senators just don't realize that video games aren't the source; the kids *themselves* are the problems. Fix the kids, not the games.

Not that I approve of this legislation...

[Qrlx]

But it's not too horrible. is this much different from not letting kids into R-rated movies?

And if it does prove to be a big problem for sales, the video game industry will come up with a "pg-13" rating, and slowly shuffle all of their R-rated content into the new rating. Just as jack valenti has done over the past two decades.

how about a law that sends parents to jail when their kids shoot up the whole school? Clearly the parents had more to do with it than Rockstar Games.

Keslin sucked

[autopr0n]

She was obviously just here to promote her site, while I'm obviously just here because I'm rediculously addicted. In addition, she wasn't even that hot, and her porn was boring!

Re:Keslin sucked

[Anonymous Coward]

She was obviously just here to promote her site, while I'm obviously just here because I'm rediculously addicted.

You even spell 'ridiculous' with an 'e'. Truly a Slashdot icon.

Tell you what?

[SharpFang]

Sometimes, a decent game just begs for a good sexual interlude. But 'games are for kids', so no matter how much blood, no sex allowed. Sucks. Maybe plain restricting target audience will finally allow unrestricting the contents?

How about ratings for books?

[Anonymous Coward]

I find it amusing that they will rate music, video games, TV shows, web sites, but never books!
Anyone will tell you, that the ideas in books can be far more dangerous. Why are books not rated? How long will we stand for allowing first graders just learning to read to be able to buy Stephen King books, Bored Wife Porn (romance novels)and dangerous, and dangerous islamic / communist / racist propoganda such as Malcom X?

GTA3 cartoony? As if.

[tepples]

If Knothead Jr. is that likely to mistake the cartoony animation of GTA for reality

Perhaps GTA1. But I've seen GTA3 played on a PS2 system, and by the time the "hero" got to defeat an innocent bystander with a chainsaw, I was too scared to watch further. It might not have been as scary had the game been cel-shaded.

An RIAA loyalist would say that.

[tepples]

>>Under 21s can't even enter a bar, thus banning them from their own local music scene until they turn 21.

>Any you have no idea how grateful those over 21 are for that.

I'm 23, and I'm not grateful at all. People who believe local music should remain inaccessible to minors are a large part of what give the Big Five record labels their power. Lacking any experience of local music, teens and young adults will turn to the major labels instead, buy RIAA members' products, and feed the lobbying machine.

To those who would take this the wrong way: No, I do not necessarily advocate serving alcoholic beverages to minors.

Re:An RIAA loyalist would say that.

[Triskele]

To those who would take this the wrong way: No, I do not necessarily advocate serving alcoholic beverages to minors. Well I, for one, do. What is your hang up with alcohol, America? Here in Britain the legal age for drinking is 18, but you can also drink with your parents in a pub from 16 onwards. My parents (who are very conservative) fed us small amounts of wine and beer at Christmas and birthdays in the belief that exposing us to it from an early age would teach us how to handle the booze. The first time I got seriously pissed was at the school disco when I was not quite 16. Saving all that up til you're 21 sounds like a recipe for disaster! Whenever I've visited the US I've always been amazed by the level of phobia about alcohol. And I could not believe that I was asked for proof of age (carded you call it) when I had grey hair - and the hassle of persuading them that a British passport was valid proof of age.

It's a subject line abbreviation

[tepples]

Can people please just say, "Doesn't equal" already?

They do say "Doesn't equal." The limited length of the subject field forces them to spell "Doesn't equal" as "!=".

Hundreds of Californians playing games

[Vexar]

Okay, not to scare anyone, but California just elected The Terminator/Mr. Freeze/Conan. Sure, the wealthy citizen has fewer special interest groups diving into his politic, but come on, the fantasy played a factor (or McClintock would have won).

When I was a teenager, I'd go off and buy video games, of course back then, they were too crude to be violent. No one stopped me, I just came in and paid with cash. There was this one game, Technocop, it was pretty brutal. You'd kill bad guys and they would turn into a twitching jambalaya of green ooze and body parts. What makes anyone think that the greedy faces at Electronics Boutique, and all the other "shop-sized" games stores are gonna cut sales because they have their own conscience?

Unless you make it illegal to sell these games to minors, and then create sting operations (like selling alcohol or cigarettes to minors) to catch and fine the merchants, nobody's going to play fair, except a few Wal-Marts, which I've noticed do listen to the letters they receive from shoppers.

Making the game outright illegal in California would probably do a ton to the market as a whole. Some of those games companies are IN California, for starters. Losing the market within the 35 Million residents would be a strong message. Sony Entertainment might start putting shirts back on the women in EverQuest. GTA 5 might be more of a GOOD driving simulator, which, frankly, would be a boost for the streets of Los Angeles. I can just see the speed traps in Liberty City, and the good samaritan subduing your attempts to force your will upon a bystander. Traffic cameras capture your face, your short-lived violent killing/crime spree is brought to a swift end, when you get to play virtual prisoner, with 9 hours of interactive stories, brutality, harsh language, and realistic prosecution and parole hearings. There's even a few mini-games where you can stamp license plates, do the prison laundry, and peel potatoes before the time runs out.

To be fair, these ubernanny laws are difficult to enforce. In my city (no joke), the environmentally obsessed have succeeded in banning phosphorous fertilizers. Don't ask why, it's based on some cock-eyed theory regarding lake pollution. Anyway, the merchants are complying, but if you want to get the illegal fertilizer, you need only drive out of the metro area, and you can get hooked up with the good stuff. There's a guy on my street, he's gotta be using illegal fertilizer, his lawn is immaculate. I know he waters every day, which is also illegal. I even think he's got an unregistered well, so he doesn't have to pay the city water and sewer prices. He is breaking half a dozen laws, and the city can't do a thing about it because they made laws they can't enforce. I bet he even rakes his leaves into the street, the cad! He would be just the sort of guy who would get some twisted kick out of selling M-rated video games to kids at school, out of the trunk of his car from the parking lot across the street. Like a drug dealer almost.

Payton: "Hey, Hunter, where'd you get GTA Vice City? I thought that was illegal?"
Hunter: "From Mr. Johnson; Taighler told me all about him. He sells all the good M-stuff. I think he also sells C-class fireworks, ring pops, and Red Bull energy drink."
Payton: "Boy, that Taighler always is the first kid to get hooked up! Do you think Mr. Johnson sells porn?"
Hunter: "No way! Cameron asked him that once, and Mr. Johnson got all defensive and yelled at Cameron because he thought Cameron was city vice. You can go to jail for that, you know."

Re:No. It's the "!" symbol which drives violence.

[Anonymous Coward]

Yes its a provocative character. Its the phalic symbolism. My blood pressure often rises reading code with a lot of comparative logic. Its like reading signs in German, they always seem to !BE ANGRILY! SHOUTING! AT! YOU!

I say we switch to more feminine and facilitating Perl convention of A ne B.

It wont work

[xQuarkDS9x]

It wont work for the simple reason that a *LOT* of retail stores will just sell violent games to kids anyways to make a profit, especially the homegrown mom n pop video stores like Microplay and others in every town or city trying to compete with the big retailers.

More brain damage

[StormReaver]

At first I was going to label this post, "More right-wing brain damage", but this particular brand of idiocy seems to cross party lines.

I remember being a teenager when all the "Dungeons & Dragons makes people kill people" stupidity was all the political rage. My mom fell victim to it for a while, until I persuader her to sit in on a few sessions with me and my friends. Her eyes were opened, that much is sure. She finally realized how insane the mass media, parents' groups, and politicians were by blaming an intellectual exercise for some kids' twisted world perceptions.

It's now 20 years later, and the entire process is repeating itself. Different names, different games, same complete lack of comprehension and neural activity.

Read my lips: the kids doing these things want to do these things because these things are ingrained into these kids' personalities, not because of some stupid imagined connection with video games. These kids (and their willing adult accomplices in psuedo-scientific psychological fields and media) use what they think is the most likely excuse to deflect blame from themselves: violent video games made me do it.

Think back to your own childhood (and for many of us, our current adulthood where our jobs are concerned). When you got caught by your parents doing something you knew was bad, didn't you brainstorm for some excuse you thought your parents would buy to let you off the hook? Of course you did. It's exactly what these kids are doing now. Why do so many people think this is so different from the past?

If they couldn't blame video games today, they would blame it on movies again. When they can't blame it on movies, they blame it on the parents (which at least has a kernel of truth in some, but not many, cases).

This artificial distinction between childhood and adulthood provides a false sense of control and understanding for too many people. To say that a teenager's mind isn't developed enough to understand death and that killing people is wrong represents a dangerous plateau of irresponsibility.

Again, I only have to think back to when I was a teenager. I knew right and wrong fully well back then, and this stupendously moronic notion that I was too young to understand the consequences of my actions was implicit permission for me to break all those rules I was being made to follow.

I got punished for the small things like shoplifting candy bars, but I was completely off the hook for big things (I won't go into the details, except to say I never crossed the line into hurting people) because adults were so easy to manipulate into blaming everything but the real problem: my bad attitude and lack of respect.

The real irony here is that Dungeons & Dragons was the key to igniting my creative desires, and changed my direction from thief and vandal to productive member of society. Had these stupid laws been in place then, taking my focus away from insighful creativity, I would likely have ended up becoming a criminal instead of writing software.

How poetic that my career ended up with me writing software to help manage the criminal justice system.

Of course, Dungeons & Dragons wasn't any more responsible for my positive behavior than Grand Theft Auto 3/Vice City are for shooting sprees. It was merely the lense through which my personality was focused. My creative desires and motivations were already there. D&D just helped expose them. It also introduced me to mythology and religious history, two things in which I would otherwise never have shown an interest (and one of which I still think is absurd).

People proposing these laws almost show almost as much intellectual damage as the people committing the crimes.

Re:No. It's the "!" symbol which drives violence.

[Anonymous Coward]

To be even more pedantic, x != y doesn't even mean that x doesn't equal y, it means that x and y are compared to see whether they are equal.

assert(x != y); would be better.

Either that or use a better approximation of the mathematical notation, x =/= y.

It makes perfect sense ...

[Luscious868]

... because afterall, people don't kill people, video games do! People have been committing violent acts against each other since the beginning. You know if you want to really cut back on violence then you should probably ban religion. Throughout our known history, religion has been one of the leading causes of voilence between groups of people.

But hey, why propose rational solutions, we might actually acomplish something.

Kids usually fuck themselves in school

[Kashif Shaikh]

And coupled with domestic problems like an drinking mother and/or father, with lots of fights, yelling/screaming, unpleasant atmosphere, father's mad 'cause he hardly makes enough money to feed his family, etc.

Then they'll screw around in school, not giving a fuck or a rats ass...and if socially the kid can't fit in or has general problems with friends...a kid is just...fucked up.

Video games is just a past-time that does help channel aggression(helps me relieve my anger), but it can't be used to blame the ills of society.

To solve the ills of society, you have to understand how it got there and why. Then what to do about which conflicts with "profit", which leads to gov't/parents trying to blame something instead of themselves.

Obligitory Family Guy Quote

[Anonymous Coward]

Remember, guns don't kill people, dangerous minorities do.

Loss of identity

[MasTRE]

Pretty soon you won't be allowed to fart^M^M^M^Mexpose others to second-hand flatulance if you're not 18^M^M21.

exclaimation, not explanation

[Anonymous Coward]

...for the grammatically-impaired.

Re:Thanks god!!!!

[botzi]

I've sat and listened to Rage Against The Machine for a good 10 hours straight before.

I was scared that I'm the only one who mentions RATM on /.....;oP

When I was a kid...

[Monkey Liar]

I think i first played doom when I was 12. Didn't do me any harm. FRANNG. Before that, i was playing for several years Commando on the spectrum zx81, Elite 2, Dune 2, Alien Breed on the amigas, and then onto the pc with descent, doom and eventually quake. I wasn't really very old then. I was generally a bit weird at school though (mainly because like most kids i generally hated it) but i'm still alive, kicking and mostly intact. I rest my case. Wibble.

The Wig party

[Anonymous Coward]

I could not believe that I was asked for proof of age (carded you call it) when I had grey hair

That store probably got burned when it sold to some underage undercover agent who was wearing a wig.

rEdiculous.

[Grendel Drago]

He's gone native.

Government uber alles?

[NathanH2]

The question comes down to this: Is it alright for the government to dictate what is viewable material for our nation's youth? Or is it the responsibility of our nation's parents to make that decision?

I side with the latter because I feel that families and individuals are the most apt to make the right personal decision, not some over-arching monster of a bureaucracy that we now call the US government.

We do not need the government to hand-feed us because once they have that ability they can just as easily shove poison down our throats. To anyone who supports such measures: Take a dose of personal responsibility.

Re:Government uber alles?

[lpq]

The parents still have control. Nothing prevents them from buying the game and giving it to their child.

The law only affects those parents who don't want to take such responsibility.

Who do you think should be taking a "dose of personal responsibility"? The child who is restricted from most things until 18 or drinking till 21, or who doesn't have to take responsibility for most law breaking until they reach adulthood (except in cases where they acted as only a completely, gone-wrong, adult could).

You don't like the law, then get your parents to take some responsibility and buy the game for you. Many parents have no clue what their children are up to and are uninvolved, in many cases, because the parent is overwhelmed in their own life, perhaps by "just", "bringing home the bacon".

Sorry, too much evidence exists that violence training begats more violence.

It's only the possibility of 'intellect' asserting itself and controlling violent impulses that prevent laws being enacted to put down 'aggressive humans' like multiple strike 'aggressive dogs' are. It's only the hope that some people will behave responsibly that even allows the concept of freedom. Unfortunately, you need to go fix the mentality of those who sue when spilling hot coffee, or those who knowingly release 'bad software' to meet a schedule or to extract money from the next MS or violence addicted software junky.

We know software makers don't release software 'responsibly'. Why don't you try getting them to show some "personal responsibility" (vs. managers who hide software flaws from 3rd party evaluators during a security audit for CAPP or LSPP evaluations -- something totally legal, I might add). How many software manufacturers don't knowingly release software with known bugs, these days? Even among "open software projects", how many are released with zero bug counts (assuming a bug-tracking mechanism is in place). Not just zero "critical"... How many are released with test-suites that show %code coverage or how many products are designed for testability during the design and initial coding phase? How many times have I seen (or anyone else) a bug reclassified from critical or severe, down to moderate, or low priority just to pass an internal requirement of all "P1-S1" (priority & severity) bugs fixed before release? Or, later on, watching the process change to allow shipping of software with P1S1 bugs, if they were "exceptioned".

Americans don't behave responsibly -- that's why we have needed drunk driving laws. Otherwise we'd have common sense laws like Texas used to have: open and drinking alcoholic beverages were ok for drivers as long as they were not drinking unsafely (so as to exceed state blood alcohol levels and so as to not be driving unsafely). But people couldn't handle such responsibility -- and they were supposedly, over-21-year-old, adults (actually I think it was to come into compliance with Fed. laws to get highway money that it was finally changed). But if adults can't be expected to behave responsibly, why do you think those cruel" and "animalistic". Young kids often haven't been taught rules of society and may have little concept of "right" and "wrong". As a society, we expect that by age 18 or 21 most people will have learned proper restraint, though given the increasingly higher violent-crime incarceration rate of adults, its obvious more of the non-socialized ones are making it into adulthood.

Given the state of software, and my own personal experience, I know that ethics in the sw industry are quickly swept aside in the name of the almighty buck --- right down to a previous manager who claimed "it isn't a bug unless a customer finds it".

Unfortunately, the sentiment in the US has become "anything not illegal" is "ok" to do. Many people have lost their sense of "right" & "wrong" (and BTW, I'm generally against laws addressing "consensual crimes" (supposed "crimes" affecting only one's self

Pornography

[Lemmy Caution]

Likewise, some kids will get their hands on copies of Playboy and other skin magazines, despite laws restricting their sale to minors.

What really worried me isn't this legislation per se - restricting the content that is sold to minors is something done in other media and is already done in videogame when the game is pornographic. It's the parents in the article who are worried about their kids getting access to sexual material, but don't care about the violence. For me, that was completely chilling.

It bears noting...

[Sangloth]

That the P, PG, PG-13, R, NC-17 system is not endorsed or enforced by the government. It's a form of self-censorship voluntarily undertaken by movie theaters. Here's a more in depth explanation. The explanation does not note that the ratings system can often arbitrary or illogical.

What's being proposed here is Government legeslation. It's entirely different. The article does say that stores aren't rigorously enforcing these voluntary ratings, but I think that argument's crap. Before I got a job, (age 16), there was no way I could afford a video game, or a video game system. I was completely dependant on my parents. The ratings are there for parents to see. The scenario where a child scraps together enough money for a video game is of an entirely different magnitude from where a child scraps together enough money for a video game.

The Bee article just says it's legaslation pending, but usually anti-video game legaslation has extreme fines in response to any infraction. This isn't the way it should be.

Sangloth
I'd appreciate any comment with a logical basis...it doesn't even have to agree with me.

FYI: SOE and EQ

[Joe U]

FYI:

EverQuest accounts can only be created by adults.
Sony will kick you if you are a kid and don't have your parents permission to be there.
EQ is pretty much PG-13. The shirts might be a little skimpy, but there's no nudity, and the violence is pretty low-key.

America's army

[miketauraso]

This will be shot down eventually (pun intended) b/c the us army needs to get kids hooked on america's army. If this law has any effect the powers that be will find a way around it.

The only way to keep kids off of games that will screw up their minds through violence and disturbing imagry is through parental control. The government has it's hand in the cookie jar right now, and it's too late for them to do anything about it

Yes, this is just a california bill; however, california has enough people that I think the army will notice if all their GI potentals stop buying america's army.

anybody know any statistics on how many america's army games are sold in CA vs. in the rest of the US? How much army recruitment in CA vs. the rest of the US?

At least it could be worse..

[rofthorax]

It could be outright outlawed altogether, such as how it is in Greece.

But, Isn't it ironic that such a law is coming out of a state that just put Arnold Swartzenager in office?

Hey but where did you get your ethics?

This didnt work in Germany either

[michaelsimms]

In Germany, they have a similar system. All games need rating and you can only sell to people who can prove they are old enough to play them.

However what it comes down to is that small game makers can't aford to pay the fees to have a game rated just to sell it in one area, and the online stores cant prove the age of the person buying the game.

People just buy the games online elsewhere, and you are left with the German retailers losing business and web stores in neighbouring countries are laughing as the underage kids buy the games from them instead!

Ha ha!

[Fantastic Lad]

"explanation point"

Do you have any fucking right to be a pedantic asshole?

Ha ha! Touche. Totally missed that! But spelling errors aside, I still find canned responses of zero imagination to be little better than spam.

Honestly. Do you find "Correlation != Causation" to be compelling or original in the least? There was virtually nothing in the comment section itself and you've seen the damned line used a hundred times before. The poster was on auto-pilot, for crying out loud! Sorry. But I can't see myself as being pedantic in the slightest for pointing and laughing at this kind of low watt, formulaic idiocy.

-FL

I also object to movie ratings

[Anonymous Coward]

I don't like any censorship at all. I can live with it if it is parent's choice to allow their spawn to see an R rated film (they should have the same choice regarding NC-17 films), play a M rated video game, or listen to Marilyn Manson, but would rather a government which allows any child to see/hear anything and leave parenting to the parents.

IHBT IHW HASD

[Anonymous Coward]

Back under the bridge troll! You start censoring books and I'll start voting with my 12 gauge, seriously. Governmental censoring of the printed word is grounds for armed revolt.

My parents didn't care if I got violent games

[Anonymous Coward]

My parents weren't bothered by the fact that I wanted to buy games like Doom, or Quake, because they new I wasn't going to go out with a shotgun(my parents didn't own a gun anyway) and shoot up the neighbors, I knew the difference that the violence in the games would never translate well into reality, and shooting someone is wrong unless they are pointing a gun at you. If my parents did think that I was going to do something like that I probably wouldn't have been able to get them.