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.
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?