Slashdot Mirror
California Legislator To Introduce Games Bill
Thanks to Reuters for their report that California state legislator Leland Yee will introduce two bills restricting sales of violent video games next week. According to the article, the bills will continue Yee's previously reported plans: "The first bill will expand the 'harmful matter' definition to include games where the player can injure another human character 'in a manner that is especially heinous, atrocious or cruel'", and "The second bill would require games with a 'Mature' rating from the Entertainment Software Ratings Board, meaning they are not intended for children under 17, to be stocked above children's eye level and separately from other games. Stores would also have to display signs explaining ESRB ratings." However, although Yee "has signed on a number of co-sponsors" for the California-specific bills, their passage into law is not assured, and the piece points out that "Federal courts have previously struck down laws in Indianapolis and St. Louis" drafted along similar lines.
Putting in for video games what we do for Magazines and Movies already. Hopefully this will eventually lead to a wider range of content in the 'adult' section of my video rental place. I can only take so much in flesh tones.
If Mr. Edison had thought smarter he wouldn't sweat as much. --Nikola Tesla
The previous poster wonders how this can be a Bad Thing.
Well, imagine a society where instead of just all the "good" videogames being segregated to a single "special" location, that it was a society where all the "good" books were segregated to a single "special" location and the government kept records of who wanted to read the "good" books.
Slippery slope arguments are tiring and boring, but that doesn't make them any less valid. I'm against almost any form of government censorship, and that includes videogames, books, magazines, whatever. If an actual, living, breathing, real human being (and no, the pixelated Haitians in GTA:VC don't count) isn't harmed by some work of art or book or videogame or whatever, then the government doesn't have the right to tell me I can't see it, or restrict how it is available.
And I don't care about how it affects children. Children need to be protected by their parents, not by government. Parents who let television and an anthromorphic mouse raise their children while they go off telling me that the videogames I like to play are harming kids should have painful electrical shocks applied to their naughty bits.
Raise your kids the way you want to raise them, protect them from whatever negative and harmful influences you can. I applaud that, even. But when you insist on using the police power of the state to control my access to the books, movies, and videogames I want, then you've crossed the line - even if all you've done is move the "good" stuff to a "special" part of the store.
Blogging Weight Loss, Distance Education, and more at verlin.com
Slippery slope arguments are tiring and boring, but that doesn't make them any less valid.
On the contrary - the "slippery slope" is a recognised form of false argument. If the argument was valid, then America would still be a British colony, and by now you'd be laboring under 150% taxes - since the "slippery slope" that was started with the Stamp Act would obviously have continued, and of course nobody would ever have said "this far and no further" and actually overthrown the government that was trying to take things further than the people would bear.
Ratings are good. You're saying that parents should be the ones responsible for what their children play? You're quite right. Hey, guess what - that's what ratings are for! And arranging stuff on the shelves according to its rating is just a way of making it easier for parents to choose games that fit what they want their children to see.
Well, imagine a society where instead of just all the "good" videogames being segregated to a single "special" location, that it was a society where all the "good" books were segregated to a single "special" location and the government kept records of who wanted to read the "good" books.
Want to know where the mistake in your argument is? It's right there in the above paragraph. We're talking about a society where the "good" videogames are in a "special" location. I don't see anything there about "the government keeping records of who wants to play the 'good' videogames".
By the way, in case you hadn't noticed, our society already segregates books. Or did you think the "adult" section in your local bookstore was full of Thomas the Tank Engine?
Ratings are good. You're saying that parents should be the ones responsible for what their children play? You're quite right. Hey, guess what - that's what ratings are for! And arranging stuff on the shelves according to its rating is just a way of making it easier for parents to choose games that fit what they want their children to see.
I don't take issue with the idea that ratings help parents pick out what children should see/watch/listen to/play. But current ratings systems (ESRB, MPAA, etc) are *privately* run. A goverment mandated ratings system makes content subject to the whims of special interests and big donors of elected officials.
We're talking about a society where the "good" videogames are in a "special" location. I don't see anything there about "the government keeping records of who wants to play the 'good' videogames".
That was a worst-case scenario thrown in for effect, and you know it. The problem is that once government assumes a power, they almost never give it back. Whether it's a new entitlement or a new regulation, once you create a law, it's really hard to undo it. The fact of the matter it is the tendency of government to become more tryanical with time.
By the way, in case you hadn't noticed, our society already segregates books. Or did you think the "adult" section in your local bookstore was full of Thomas the Tank Engine?
Snide comments don't make you any smarter. The classification of books into similar categories is done to make it easier to find those books (or, alternatively, to keep kids from finding them). Again, it's a service that private industry provides to their customers. When the government mandates it, it stops being a service and starts being an undesired form of control.
You mistake guidelines for rules. Guidelines can be ignored. When you break rules, you end up in prison. I think it's fine that society makes the guideline that some videogames are too violent/sexist/racist/whatever. But when government makes rules that prevent people from creating the works that allow them to express themselves, then a tragedy has occurred.
You can dismiss a slippery slope argument as false logic, and you're technically right. A does not necessarily always lead to B. But when the topic is the defense of our rights, why would you take chances? A lot of people like to quote Ben Franklin: "Those who are willing to trade liberty for security deserve neither liberty nor security." That is a *classic* slippery slope argument, but few Americans disagree with it. Look at the outcry over the Patriot Act, etc for details.
I don't disagree with the fact that the children are our future, that we should teach them well, let them lead the way, show them all the beauty they possess inside, give them a sense of pride, etc, but I will be damned if I am going to stand by and let my government supress the right that authors, artists, musicians, and yes, even videogame programmers have to create and distribute their work. It isn't the government's place to do so.
Blogging Weight Loss, Distance Education, and more at verlin.com
the second bill (the one that enforces ESRB M ratings) is one that most chain stores already follow.
No, they don't. They already display signs detailing the ESRB ratings-- little itty bitty Extra Fine Print ones-- but there's no policy in place *enforcing* the "under 17 + M rated game = no sale" guideline. At least, when I quit EB a year ago, there wasn't. It's there but never really enforced, kind of like hand-washing in a factory men's room.
"Why Subscribe?" Good question...
It isn't a bad thing, it's a good thing. All it does is say "if kids under 17 want this game, then that's fine, but a parent needs to approve the purchase by buying it for them." This is a good thing. It puts the parents in more control, and it fends off attacks from people who would ban the games entirely. There is no problem here, except for kids who would buy the games without their parents' approval ... and as a parent, I consider that *good*.
It just kills me when people say the government shouldn't be involved, this is an issue for parents. Hello, brainiac: that is what the law DOES, it puts the parents in control.
I love GTA: Vice City. I plan to get the next installment when it is released. I am an adult, I can make that choice. Kids can't make that choice responsibly, because kids are little piles of stupid. I was a kid once, I remember what it was like. Don't pretend you were/are any different. Parents exist because kids are stupid. You don't like it? I don't care.