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

Well why not?

[satyap]

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

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?

[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?

[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?

[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?

[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.

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

[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.

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?

[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.

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?

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...

[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!

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.

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.

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

[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.

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.

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?

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.

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?

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?

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.

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...