Slashdot Mirror
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."
Kids will still get their hands on violent video games either through clueless parents or bigger brother/sister/friends.
I still don't understand why people accept this with movies (R- and X- ratings), but have problems when applied to games and music.
Learning HOW to think is more important than learning WHAT to think.
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?
The Braying and Neighing of Barnyard Animals Follows.
yeah, we never had violent kids before these dang newfangled video games. Never had rape & prostitution before porno came out either.
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.
autopr0n is like, down and stuff.
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.
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.
*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.
Ward
. Silence! Be thankful thy species is unpalatable! .
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.
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.
Melius mori in libertate quam vivere in servitute.
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!
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.
"You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
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?
Don't waste your vote! Vote for whoever you want, unless you live in a swing state it won't matter anyways
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.
"She's a scientist and a lesbian. She's not going to let it slide." Orphan Black
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.
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.
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.
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.
do not read this line twice.
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.
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.)
Dude, I think I can see my house from here.
Parents need to be responsible for their kids, not the government or some store.
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*.
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.
"You tried your best and failed miserably. The lesson is...never try. Heh!" -Homer
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?
The world is neither black nor white nor good nor evil, only many shades of CowboyNeal.
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.
The ______ Agenda
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.
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.
Help protect civil rights from abuse by the TSA - visit TSA News Blog.
http://www.tsanewsblog.com
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.
R: That voice. Where have I heard that voice before? B: In about 365 other episodes. But I don't know who it is either.
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
Craft Beer Programming T-shirts
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.
...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...
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.
God save our Queen, and Heaven bless The Maple Leaf Forever!
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
Warning: Opinions known to be heavily biased.
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.
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.?
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
Mr. Hu is not a ninja.
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?
It's all fun and games until someone takes an eye out!
Well, uh, if it's not going to solve anything what the fuck is the point of creating another useless law?
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.
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