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.
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.
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! .
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
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.
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.
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
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.
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.
It's all fun and games until someone takes an eye out!