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...

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?

[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?

[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?

[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?

[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?

[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?

[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?

[Azghoul]

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

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

[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

[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

[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

[Dwedit]

BTW, what game promotes shooting at passing cars

Roadblasters anyone?

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

[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

[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.

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?

[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?

[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?

[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.

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

[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

[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

[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...

[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.

Great idea!

[DogIsMyCoprocessor]

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

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

[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.

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..

[CaptBubba]

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

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...

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...

[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.

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

[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

[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?

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.

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: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?

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.

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

[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.

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.

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?

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.

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.

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."

Sex, Drugs, and Video Games

[Anonymous Coward]

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

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.

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

[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.

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.

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

[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!

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?

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...

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.

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

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.

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.

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?

[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?

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."

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: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