Slashdot Mirror
California Anti-Videogame Bill Author Interviewed
rsmith-mac writes "As an update to last week's story about a proposed California bill to bar minors from buying first-person shooters, HomeLANFed has an interview up with Leland Y. Yee, the assemblyperson responsible for creating the bill. While there are some good intentions with Yee's actions, I can't help but feel that this is a classic case where the road to Hell is being paved with those good intentions."
It has been my observation that Public-schooled children are more violent, (generally) than those who have been educated in their own home (like myself) (I'm not trying to condemn public-schooling, it's just that a public school is naturally a more intense, unsheltered environment) I play violent videogames. My younger brothers play violent videogames. And we are all nice guys. Yes, maybe seeing violent images "inspires" people do think about acting violently, but honestly, how many people are going to act like they do in Grand Theft Auto 3, when they know that there is a real force (the Law) that will chase after them? Later he says stuff against pornography, which I agree with but--what does he mention about movies?! He makes it sound like the MPAA does it right, but ESRB sucks. Why not simply prohibit the selling of mature games to minors? They do that with movies, (R-rated, that is) and Mr. McBride seems to think that works just great, (well, he doesnt say anything against that) and I think that it would be okay.
I love NetHack.
. While there are some good intentions with Yee's actions, I can't help but feel that this is a classic case where the road to Hell is being paved with those good intentions."
Is this really any different from rating movies and not letting 18 and unders into R rated movies? Video games should be the same way, stores and parents should be monitoring what the kids are doing. If this does pass, I think we will see more games released both with and without blood included.
Perhaps they should be considering banning another violent game as well?
In the interview the guy equates the studies about violent video games effect on children to studies about smoking and lung cancer. This just happens to be the opposite of the argument I always use against this kind of legislation.
Smoking causes lung damage. Why is this? Because no matter who you are if you smoke your lungs will be damaged. If you continue to smoke it will cause a horrible disease like lung cancer.
Violent video games cause violent children. Why is this? Because no matter wou you hare if you play violent video games you will commit violent acts and become a violent person.
Notice how the second one is not true! Therefore Violent video games do not cause violence! Obviously it is something else that causes the violence. If it was the video games, then I would be a psycho killer.
Bad parenting is the problem. Use existing laws to punish parents who raise kids poorly. The same laws that get you in trouble if you leave your baby in a locked car.
And I'm tired of all these legislators trying to make laws about video games and technology when they know nothing about it. This guy probably never played a video game in his life outside of solitaire. If you don't know about it don't make a law about it. You wouldn't hire a farmer to be your sys admin would you? Then again you wouldn't want a sys admin to run the farm. Don't make laws about things you don't know about.
The GeekNights podcast is going strong. Listen!
Mr. Lee didn't really convince me on his point of why the parental control isn't enough. He says "Unlike movies, in which parents can easily determine whether it is suitable for their child, many of these games must be mastered before the interaction begins at the most violent levels." I don't see any basis for that. Video games are definitely as easy to indentify as violent as a movie. If the graphic content on the back of the package, the ESRB rating, and the hours of grisly sounds and images emanating from the living room aren't enough to allow determination then either is what's offered by movies for determination.
I think that's an important aspect because parents buy kids the games anyway. I bet that's the most common way kids get their games: from someone else buying them for them, but I could be wrong.
I guess it's not really a big deal in the grander scheme of things, just possibly a waste of money and time and effort.
Everytime I hear someone try to pin violence onto video games. Whats more bloody, watching the nightly news or pretend killing nazi's in Wolfenstein?
As a parent, its your responsibility to watch what little Billy is doing, and if you cant, to teach little Billy that killing is wrong.
If little Billy goes out and gets a gun and shoots people, its either cause he's messed up in the head, or you failed as a parent, not because the guy in Doom did it.
Heck, if you arent intelligent enough to seperate reality from fantasy (reality, killing bad... fantasy, killing acceptable) than you have deeper issues anyway.
This is my sig. Its pathetic.
If someone is sure there is a problem, find the means to solve the problem ( in that try and enfore the age rating more seriously etc ) rather than kill the entire issue off. all thats going to do is create the 'underground + illegal = more fun' aspect of things.
The idea of rating games M for mature, and denying access to those under 17 is acceptable. But who provides the ratings? If it's not an independent, objective group, the rating will mean little. Game makers will not willingly give up a large chunk of their customer base for violent games: teenage boys.
Movie ratings provide parents a consistent measuring stick to enable them to make informed decisions for their kids. Parents can accompany their kids to R-rated movies if they wish. Likewise, parents can buy M-rated games for their kids, nomatter what laws are enacted.
The challenge will be in making the rating consistent and trustworthy enough for parents to depend on without having to research each title extensively before buying.
Nostalgia isn't what it used to be.
Firstly, I must say that some portions of what he says are good common sense.
Summary: The existing regulation isn't good enough, so lets make more regulation. This never works.
Further on:
Interesting - I see Cosmopolitan as equally damaging, or more damaging, than GTA: Vice City. It's okay to brainwash a 13 year-old into thinking she needs to be sexed-up, but being violent just isn't lady like! Maybe this guy needs to see a proposal for magazine ratings. He might reel from that and get a sense of balance.This is my sig. There are many others like it, but this one is mine.
And while he's at it, he might as well ban "Cowboys and Indians", or "World War 2"...and all those other violent make-believe games kids play before they discover first person shooters.
And ban trees and bushes too. We used to pretend sticks were guns and bazookas.
This guy is a little off base. (I am resisting the urge to be "hyperbolic.") I'd like to see some information about what percentage of sales are directly to teens. He just has.. of teens who try to purchase a game.. this percentage succeeds. So, I'd question the impact.. but I suspect that at least %25 of the sales go directly to the under 18 crowd. (Meaning, the parents didn't purchase).. who knows. He also uses the old, "Columbine killers said it was like Doom!!" anecdote. I wish some kid would shoot a bunch of people and then say that it was just like Baghdad. (oops, slipped into overstatement.. oh well.) Nevermind, that joke was crap.
p
BLOWHARD_MONOLOGUE 0
This is just the D&D Panic of the mid-80's all over again.
When are people going to realize that if you go out and shoot up your school after playing some FPS, that there was probably somethine wrong with you to begin with?
You are attempting to read sigs. Cancel or Allow?
Case and Point:
In Japan today, their comics (manga) are a multi-billion doallar industry. There are manga cookbooks, manga textbooks, all genres of entertainment and reference material; everything that in the US might be done as a movie or text (they have normal books etc. too).
In the US, comic books and graphic novels are marginalized in the mainstream. Many of the few profitable companies (those that make mainstream fare) left make all their money on merchandising, and have been run completely into the ground several times each. Why is this so?
In 1954, the Comics Code Authority was created as an "Industry Association" in response to congressional coercion. Check out their standards. This quashed much of the creativity present the in the mainstreaim industry, which was about 40 years old. Many of the true creative geniuses were forced underground for nearly a decade, and the mainstream companies that followed the code rotted from within.
In the mid-fifties, the manga industry essentially sprung from nowhere, blossoming into a huge industry over a decade. The average age for a consumer buying manga in Japan is just barely below the average age of the population there, whereas in the US the average age of the comic book consumer grows older by one year every year.
In Japan, their "industrial" complex for producing games is just as developed as that in the US. If creativity is stifled by lawmakers, it will cost the US Billions in lost revenue. If any country passes laws that restrict its entertainers or artists, it will cost that country a chance for the revenues or prestige generated by those creators.
I think the IGDA is more organized and is better capable (with benefit of hindsight) to combat these sons and daughters of those who created the Comic Code than the naive comic industry of the 1950s. I don't believe that there is any less general paranoia (Red Scare vs. Terrorist Scare, same thing) than then, and its got the populace running scared and not paying attention to their freedoms (why is it times like this that would-be censors always choose to strike?).
I encourage everyone to check out the link to the Comics Code. Its stipulations are eerily similar to many proposed restrictions on interactive software today, and as such its a very relevant piece of history.
Performing sanity checks on your own beliefs is vital in avoiding poisoned koolaid.
The reason this is different than ratings on films is that ratings on films, like ratings on videogmaes are volantary. There are no laws agains children seeing R rated films.
Secondly,
I have said this many times, watching a clip of a videogame is like reading the script to a film. If you have not actually played the games, then you have very little idea what it is actually like to play them. If you have time to write a law, find a day to sit down and actually play the game. If you watch clips, surely you know that those are totally without context.
http://www.popularculturegaming.com -- my blog about the culture of videogame players
There have been a few good posts in this thread about why the video game rating system doesn't work, but how would you go about fixing it? One thing is apparent, getting the government involved will only screw things up worse so the industry at some point may have to try something new. My suggestion is as follows
1. Adopt the same rating system as the MPAA and keep the ratings systems the same, this way parents can't complain they don't know what the ratings mean.
2. Make retailers sign an agreement where they must check for ID on any game that is rated NC-17/R. Failure to do so will results in a fine, $500 for the first offense, $1000 for the second offense, etc. 3. Hire 16-17 year olds as "checkers" to go to the stores and try to buy games. Raise the price on every game sold in North America 25-50 cents to cover the price of these checkers. Eventually, the fines may cover the cost of checkers. 4. All the game publishing companies need to make a group like the MPAA and the RIAA (yeah, I know they are evil but...) to lobby against government laws against them. It's sad, but in todays world that is what a big industry has to do to survive.
Guess kids will never get to see Pokemon Snap 2.
"...1,000 studies conducted by distinguished scientists that showed a correlation between the viewing of violent media images and increased aggression and acceptance of violence among children." The above statement is one of the more misleading parts of the story. Let me give you an example of a study on violence and video games. Put a bunch of kids in a white room, with a one way mirror, surrounded by adults asking them lots of questions while forcing them to watch or play something that they don't necessarily want to play, and you will get increased aggression. What I've seen in most of these studies is they view the behavior of the children exposed to these kinds of media right after their viewing, which doesn't tend to give you valid results. You have to examine the children on a longer term, even say, the next day after playing these games, and see if their aggression is still up. That is what is missing from most of these video game aggression studies.
The logic must remain consist. That is, if one contends that children learn to read and do math through interactive video then one must also believe violent behavior is learned by playing these games. In fact, you don't even need to bring in behavior to see that these games are learning tools. For example, a child can learn how to create a kill zone by playing many of these games.
Math and Reading are not the same thing as killing. Math and Reading are things you can REALLY actually do in a game. Killing is not. This isn't the holodeck, you aren't physically breaking someones neck. While math and reading in a game are the same as math or reading in real life, fighting in real life is nothing like fighting in a video game. Driving a car in real life, isn't like driving a car in most games.
And what the hell is a kill zone? I've been playing FPS games online forever now and I'm not sure what the heck he's talking about.
In light of these facts, the government is compelled to act to protect children from the affects of violent video games. Similar to pornography, there must be a penalty imposed on stores who sell or rent these types of games to children.
What a joke, he is comparing video games to porn now. Most games have very little sexual content, nothing outside of what you would see on public (free) TV.
HomeLAN - Why do you also wish to make a separate section for restricted games and how would the retailer decide which games are supposed to be in that section? Leland Y. Yee - It is important that these games not be marketed towards our children. For instance, legislation has been passed that makes it illegal to place tobacco products next to the candy.
I missed the part where video games were found to give people cancer...
They shouldn't be next to the games teaching little kids how to read and count.
Why? In blockbuster they have 'R' rated movies next to 'G' rated ones in the new release section. Of course Mr. Yee won't compare video games to movies, because if he took these extremist views against movies the MPAA would make his political life hell.
(about what should happen to people who sell video games to children)....The same penalty that currently exists for selling other harmful material to children (he means porn) will be imposed....(snip)...punishable by fine of not more than two thousand dollars ($2,000), by imprisonment in the county jail for not more than one year, or by both that fine and imprisonment. If a person has multiple convictions they may be imprisoned in the state prison.
Someone needs to explain to him that video games aren't the same as porn. Also, this is the reason our prisons are so overcrowded, our taxes so high, and our legal system is so screwed up. He wants to sent a retailer to JAIL for selling kids GTA, Postal2, etc. Give me a break. Should a man or women really have their life ruined if they mistakenly sell a game to a minor? Should that really be a criminal offense?
he type of evidence that suggests a correlation between smoking and lung cancer is the same that suggests a correlation between violent media images and future aggressive behavior. If tobacco conglomerates controlled the message about smoking and lung cancer, it's likely that the public would be confused about that too.
Looks like video games are causing cancer again. If the problem is violent media, why doesn't this guy go after the MPAA? The TV networks? Oh right, because video games are the easy target....
Also, human nature is violent. People may want to deny it, but it's true. Did the first caveman hit the second one over the head with a rock because it reminded him of pong, or because he wanted the second cavemans resources?
However, many live very difficult and busy lives and can not possibly monitor their children at all times. Unlike movies, in which parents can easily determine whether it is suita
If they can't buy the games thay'll just download them.
Is that SHE'S(Read the quotes, people, she's a mother) never actually played these games, only seen other people play it.
It's another hyper-sensitive person who is a ludite. People fear what they don't understand and with games being the latest medium, she'd like to see it stomped out, similar to bad movies, music, plays or books.
History has proven itself that there are always something the parents believe to be a negative influence, and eventually it passes.
Of course, I will say this, when you ring up an M-rated game at Target, it pauses the checkout and forces the sales clerk to check your ID. If violent games are a concern to her, just have her shop elsewhere. Oh wait, she can't give up her Wal-Mart.
I hope you choke to death on a bold tag. Your posts are fugly.
Lets face it. It may not be true for all but I'm sure a small percentage of children are going to be affected by viewing violent media over and over again. Its only common sense. You pretty much don't need a study to figure that out.
Not every child would be affected of course. Most would probably ALREADY HAVE SOME TYPE OF MENTAL OR EMOTIONAL ISSUE. The question is, would that mental issue cause them to kill on their own or does repeated images of violence act as some type of catalyst? How would a store clerk know if the kid buying the game has issues or not?
Studies show that it does act as a catalyst. You might not agree but many people smarter than us have proven it. Different stimuli affect different poeple in different ways. Most people will not be affected. Most people don't have emotional/mental defects as well. Most people are not treated like those kids were at Columbine HS.
There are many factors that contribute to teenagers becoming violent. Bad home life, bad social life, mental/emotional problems, drugs, alcohol, etc. No need to throw violent media in what could already be a bad mixture.
This law pretty much has no effect on most people and it gets game companies off the hook. The blame is set squarely on the parents shoulders where it belongs. Isn't that what we want? If kids get ahold of a violent game and use it as an excuse for commiting violent acts then the parents should be blamed for buying them the violent game and being bad parents, not the game company who made the game for adults.
I don't have kids but I know that when I do I won't want them playing games that I dont think are appropriate for their age. I can't follow them around everywhere they go so I won't know what they are spending their money on. Its nice to know they can't buy smokes, porno, beer, and video games I don't want them to play until they are older. I will make the decision if they are mature enough or not after I play it myself. This law gives the parents more of that control Right now the control is in the hands of the piply face youth working at Best Buy.
Even if the kid goes through another avenue to get the game, its still the parents fault because as a parent you should be aware of what your children are up to on the computer. Knowing what I know about the Internet, I don't even know if I want my kids using the it.
Leland Y. Yee - I certainly believe parents have a responsibility here. However, many live very difficult and busy lives and can not possibly monitor their children at all times. Unlike movies, in which parents can easily determine whether it is suitable for their child, many of these games must be mastered before the interaction begins at the most violent levels. Parents are the ultimate shields against their kids drinking alcohol, smoking cigarettes and exposure to pornography as well. But as a society, we recognize the need to protect children from harmful material and we make laws to restrict access to these products.
How about the big fucking letter(s) on the box that tells you what ages it is suitable for? Just because parents can't understand this doesn't mean we should make a law against it.
HomeLAN - Have you personally played games such as the ones you have mentioned in your proposed bill? If so which ones and what did you think about them in terms of an artistic endeavor?
Leland Y. Yee - I have not personally played these games, however many of my staff members have. I have seen numerous footage pieces of these games, which clearly shows the need for such legislation.
Personally I find it ironic that every time this issue comes up the politician involved, despite the amount of work and preparation put into the campaign, never manages to pick up a controller or pop in a cd himself in order to personally judge the material he is seeking to censor. No other form of media gets this type of blame for the problems with our kids. I for one am sick of video games being treated worse than hardcore pornography.
Instead of spouting all this crap about "first person shooters" and "violence" and so on, just do 1 simple bill that gives the ESRB ratings the force of law in california.
i.e. games rated EC and E can be bought by anyone.
Games rated T can only be bought by older kids or by adults
And games rated M and AO would only be purchasable by adults
That would solve all the issues. (and as far as I can tell,
The buggest problem I have with the debate over computer game violence and the laws connected to same is that they seek to circumvent the ESRB ratings system and impose totally new definitions on what is "acceptable". If people dont like how the ESRB has rated a game, they can get together and put pressue on the ESRB to re-examine it. If the governments just legslated ESRB ratings into law like has been done with the MPAA ratings (and more pressure was put on stores to not sell the violent stuff to minors), all these idiots and their "think of the children" arguments would go away.
So, preventing minors from severing limbs in video games is the road to hell, eh?
<dripping sarcasm>
Yeah, I think young children practicing exploding peoples heads is what they really need. We clearly need MORE death and dismemberment to prevent our children from becoming violent criminals. They need to learn that humping hookers will give you more health, not AIDs or other STDs! And young children should know that killing people in cruel manners is fun. That way when they grow up and go out into the real world, they'll be less likely to commit acts of violence against others when they are under stress.
</sarcasm>
Look, I don't like government regulation - I want less government, not more. But I don't think what this guy was saying is out of line. Don't sell violently rated games (M) to young children. Fines and jail time for repeat offenders. Place the violent games in a separate location from games for younger children.
<more sarcasm>
Well there go our rights! We'll never get the right to have Bloody Carcases displayed next to Count 123 again! Oh, woe to us. What a sad day this is.
</sarcasm>
Look, I love the first amendment and I'll defend the right of people to say what they want even if I don't like it, but minors do not have the same rights as adults. We forbid them to drink alcohol, smoke cigarettes, and view pornographic material. Frankly, I don't see how this is any different, and I don't have a problem with it.
This guy isn't trying to restrict the rights of adults, he's merely trying to protect minors from dangerous material. I think we can all agree that virtual violent killing is not helpful for young minds. Maybe it does harm, maybe it doesn't - the jury is still out on that. But I will say this: Arguing that extremely violent video games are good for kids is like arguing that porn teaches teenagers how to respect women. Go ahead, say the phrase "Porn teaches young men to respect women" to the next woman you see and find out what response you get.
// harborpirate
// Slashbots off the starboard bow!
from what i have seen, many parents just buy the game for "little johnny," becuase he requested it. then johnny ends up with grand theft auto 3 and he learns that it is ok to drive like any way that he pleases. it is the parents job to decide what games are right for our children, not the government. furthermore, the parents should be teaching their kids that violence in video games should not transfer to real life.
I have been playing FPS since I was just a wee teen, and for some reason, I have a life*, and I have not gone out and wiped out the block with my shot gun.
This is bull hockey, games dont cause violence, bad parenting causes violence. My kid won't be allowed near a FPS until he can kick my ass at Netrek.
* ok, i read slashdot, so maybe I don't have much of a life.
Similarly, the effects of low doses of ionizing radiation does not cause cancer in most cases. for a dose of, say 200 mSv (20 rem), your increased risk of dieing of cancer is still less than 1% (this is far above the legal limit of per year exposure to radiation workers). i.e. almost all people will see no illeffect what so ever.
Even with large sources, your risk of dieing is completely unaffected, it is still 100%. So in the vast majority of cases, radiation has no effect on outcome what so ever!
So lets undo our licensing restriction on radiation sources, right?
okay, now mod me down flame bait for making a point against one of many slashdot reader's pet points.
Can we get this guy for a slashdot interview? I'd be quite happy to see what his replies are to some of our more intelligent posters' comments and questions, including some of the quite logical and well-articulated of those posted in this thread.
-z-
-z-
We don't need stores to create separate sections for adult games, what we need is mainstream retail stores openly selling Adults Only games and mainstream theatres showing XXX porn. If that was so, game developers and movie studios would be more willing to honestly rate their titles.
P.S. I personally find this guy repugnant. If I had a chance to do it without repercussions, I would be content to kill him in the most graphic way possible.
Future Wiki -- If you don't think about the future, you cannot have one.