Slashdot Mirror
GTA Blamed for Graffiti
Voodoo Extreme is reporting on a group of Greensburg, PA boys who went on a Graffiti spree and then blamed it on Grand Theft Auto: San Andreas. From the article: "The boys range in age from 12 to 14 and are charged with institutional vandalism, criminal conspiracy, criminal mischief and desecration of venerated objects." Is it just me or, um, should 12 year olds not be playing GTA?
The next thing you know people will start blaming the break dancing craze on Electric Boogaloo.
then the only real solution is a government ban
Oh yea, great idea, cuz the government ban on various drugs has been so successful.
No the real answer would be to stop having stupid children that are influenced by stupid crap and start putting them in jail for crimes they commit rather than allow them to blame games. Its not like the only exposure to grafitti is GTA. Its like commercial advertising, they can't sell you something you don't already want. But they can influence your descision to go with something you may otherwise have passed on. These kids are probably hoodlums with or without GTA.
"We can no longer live as rats... we know too much." -Secret of NIMH
Is there one single reporter out there who is also a gamer? If I was a reporter I would go interview the parents. So, you bought this game for your children? Do you rent adult movies for them too?
New at 10: Parents buy mature and adult video games for their children, then blame the game companies when their kids make mischief.
The GeekNights podcast is going strong. Listen!
"Is it just me or, um, should 12 year olds not be playing GTA? "
Well if the kids are that stupid - what are the chances their parents understand a "mature" rating?
No it's not just you. But it's not their fault either. Someone had to pay for the 50 dollar game. Where are their parents. My parents still don't like me playing Grand Theft Auto. Fortunately it's outside of their control. The parents should be out cleaning the graffiti alongside their children.
This news story fills me with rage.. I need to play GTA:SA to relax.. wait that will make me want to graffiti creating another news story.. what to do!?!
E.g., if I get syphillis from a hooker, can I sue/blame the hooker and not be arrested for soliciting? Or that is a context argument. If I was 14 and got shitfaced drunk and say shot somebody, could I "blame" alcohol and avoid prosecution?
So where is this tolerance level coming from? These kids admitted to obtaining and viewing for personal use what for them is illicit material. That's enough for a paedophile webring so why not a bunch of vandals who were too stupid to avboid getting caught?
Acting stupid isn't much fun when there's someone around who knows better
the only real solution is a government ban
Sure, because we all know that there wasn't a drop of alcohol sold or consumed in the US between 1919 and 1933. (Feel free to correct my dates, I didn't thoroughly Google before posting.)
I never thought I'd see anyone on Slashdot saying (loosely translated), "The US government should force more control over our every-day lives. That would make things better." Not that I agree with all the anti-government fanboyism running rampant around here, but it's a well documented fact that such restrictions as you propose, mandated from on high, simply do not work. All it does is put a greater workload on our already insufficient law enforcement departments.
http://publicvoidlife.blogspot.com
It's true that kids can be influenced, but so can everyone. If we want to say that kids cannot be responsible for their actions, fine. Then we must hold the parents responsible. You cannot blame a game that is designed for the 18+ crowd and shouldn't even be sold to minors.
Even if they really graffiti'd the streets, is this a "real" problem sufficient to warrant a government ban? You'd think we could start by banning, say, handguns rather than video games.
And no, before the libertarian flamers go high-gear, I don't think that a full-spectrum gun ban is a good idea either.
Why do people think they can blame their actions on somthing or someone else? The only thing that made those kids pick up a can of spray paint are their own minds. Even a 12 year old knows graffiti is vandalism and they know it's wrong. Society needs to stop allowing people to scapegoat their actions. We are responsible for the things we do. Were these kids going to jack cars and run people over, maybe grab a flame thrower and torch cars and then get away with it by blaming GTA. Nobody is responsible for their actions anymore, aw jeez McDees made me fat, Smith and Wesson shot my face off while I was cleaning my loaded gun and Jack Daniels made me beat my wife.
piss off
It's not GTA's fault, but I think it's naive to not realize that the media people are exposed to does influence them. Since it's obvious that corporations have no responsibility nor desire whatsoever to maintain any kind of moral standards which might be detrimental to their profitabilty, it's up to others to mediate the development, encouragement and access to questionable content of this nature.
The reason GTA is so popular is because people have a secret desire to be anarchistic. The game gives them an excuse, and makes some, usually those on the bottom rung of the intellect and discipline ladder, emboldened to actually do some of these things in real life.
So what do you do? Blame the crappy kids' crappy parents? IMO, ironically, the parents are probably crappy parents because they too, have been influenced by the media, led to believe they have to work harder and make more money in order to be happy, therefore they spend less time with their kids and don't have a clue what they're doing. It's a vicious cycle, all perpetrated by peoples' overexposure to media.
Jesus, what a lame graffiti. They should be locked up for conspiracy to commit weak-assed self-expression.
"Wow. Now THAT'S a lot of angry Indians." - Lt. Col. George Armstrong Custer
Ok, so graffiti didn't exist before GTA came out? If it didn't or it wasn't a problem, then they might have a case.
Graffiti has been a problem for decades. To blame it on a game is as ignorant as it is outrageous. I remember when some kid shot up his school and the media was all set to blame that on video games. The problem isn't the games, it's that the world that the games are based on (real-world) sucks.
Murder happens. Vandalism happens. Playing a game that incorporates this and then going out and doing this stuff doesn't make you any less of a murderer or vandal. These kids will most likely get sentenced as is proper in PA law.
The GTA angle is just a sad attempt to push a political agenda (far-right tightwads). I'm tired of conservatives thinking they have the right to tell me and whoever else what I should be able to buy. If they had their way, there wouldn't be any games with a hint of violence.
Where would that leave us? I dunno, puzzle/board/card games, I guess.
Tetris and Solitaire.
Yeah.
Right...
While we're at it, why not burn all the books that the government dosen't like (we all know how well that worked it the past).
These kids are probably hoodlums with or without GTA.
Agreed. People who want to do bad or dumb things will do them no matter what. There was _plenty_ of graffiti long before Pong hit the market and the alleged warping of America's youth began.
GTA didn't make stupid kids vandalize things.
Beavis And Butthead didn't make stupid kids set their house on fire.
The Program didn't make stupid college kids lie down in the middle of a street and get run over.
Notice the recurring theme, anyone?
they can't sell you something you don't already want
You put very simply what is probably going to end up being one of the best points in this thread. GTA didn't make hoodlums, hoodlums made* GTA.
* No, not the programmers (though I don't know any of them personally), the general population craving the "mature" video games and shelling out big bucks for them.
http://publicvoidlife.blogspot.com
Agreed. Stupid Irresponsible parents breed stupid irresponsible kids who need to be punished realistically.
The legal system in the US is an F'n joke. We've got people facing 15 year sentences for illegal downloading while a rapist serves 2-5 years. Where is the logic in that. Who would you rather have on the street, a Rapist or Software Pirate? The choice is clear, our legal system does not consider common sense punishment.
BTW my common sense punishment for these kids would be to kick thier asses.
But couldn't the same argument be made for adult movies that they will get in the hands of kids, so they should be banned? This line of logic can be continued indefinatly. There are many things in this world that are dangerous to children, parents have to take responsibility, end of story.
Personally I know of a woman who rented and allowed their 8 year old daughter to watch "Saw" now thats some sick twisted stuff. Either way I still wouldn't ban the movie, just really really wish parents would use some common sense, but then again maybe this kid has proved they can handle movies like that well. On the other hand noone knows what the long term effects are. So I guess my argument is circular, all this stuff is tragic, but its not new, and we can't just go around banning things we don't like.
I grew up near Greensburg, they're now putting in the largest Wal-Mart in the world there. Not much to do in the area except go to Westmoreland mall. Kids get quickly bored in that area. I wouldn't say GTA: San Andreas is to blame. I'd say corporate commercialism and liability is.
If there were places for teenagers to hangout, like skateparks, there would be less influence to go out and do stupid things. Any time a teenager brings a gun, drugs, or hurts himself on your property, you lose your property to lawsuits. So no one caters to making fun places to hang out, its nothing but people's houses and stores out there. Maybe its like that everywhere now.
God spoke to me.
could be worst... ever talked with a real graffiti "artist" about their "craft"?
They would have you think that they are the great revolutionaries, fighting the supression of the individual by putting their tag everywhere and thus destroying the mindless uniformity and attacking the collective subconscious or some such.
Now admittedly I like some graffiti.... theres some absolutly beautiful peices of artwork that people have illicitly put up in backalleys on walls. Stunning stuff. Of course thats the stuff that doesn't get washed off, because well, it really does make the place look nice.
If this was what they defended I might be with them, but the vast majority is just a bunch of silly words written in paint marker or scratched into a plexiglass bus window. Crap. Nobody appreciates it but them, it just makes a place look run down and ugly.
"Yah I am a counterculture revolutionary because I can write a word in really funked up letters that nobody can read"
At least these kids if they blame it on GTA, probably wont do it again
Dumbasses.
-Steve
"I opened my eyes, and everything went dark again"
The study found that kids who watched TV were indeed more aggressive than kids who didn't.
What I meant to say is, the study found that kids who watched violent TV were more aggressive than kids who didn't watch TV at all.
When the legal system lets clueless offenders slip through the cracks, vigilante justice is the only viable path! Call in the G-TEAM, a squad of trained graffiti professionals who will set the unguided youth on the path to artistic redemption!
*Cue music and action footage*
I was playing Mortal Kombat when I was 12 and still I wasn't thinking on ripping people's head apart off on the street.
Articulos para gente geek: Poleras, linux, libros y mas
Here we go.
[ballmer]
Parenting, Parenting, Parenting, Parenting.
[/ballmer]
Plain and simple. If the kids got the game from one of his friends whose parents purchased it for him, then the other parents involved need to get on their case.
And age doesn't mean a damn thing. I was playing Wolfenstein 3D when I was 12, and for all the screaming and ranting of "concerned" groups, I didn't end up a violent psychotic. You can be mature enough at a young age to grasp such concepts as fantasy and reality without difficulty.
I personally think these tools used GTA to avoid getting in any real trouble themselves. Why take the blame for your own actions when [controversial_game_of_the_week] is there to take it for you? Why bother finding the fault in parental responsibility when you can just sue your problems away?
"Apparently so, but suppose you throw a coin enough times. Suppose one day, it lands on its edge."
Kids spray paint shit. Most stores won't sell spray paint to you if you're under 18 to help mitigate this problem. I had a friend who spray painted his middle school and almost got caught. His parents have always thought he was the golden child, he just never got caught doing anything bad. The funny thing is they always thought I was the "bad influence" when we were kids, the opposite was sometimes true. We were both hell raisers, he just played the "good son" part better.
GTA: San Andreas sold roughly 2.1 million copies in the first 4 days. Lets say in all there were 10 million copies sold in the US (probably a conservative estimate. I can't seem to find solid numbers, even in take2's financial statements)
Now, if 1% of the copies caused people to shoot another person, that would be 100,000 murderers created by the game since its release at the end of October. A crime spree like that would be front page headlines across the country!
So lets say 0.1% of them became murderers. (We're already below the margin of error for most polls and quite a few research studies) That would be 10,000 people out of ~291million (in July 03). New York City had a population of 8,085,742. Assuming an even distribution, that would be 270 murderers in New York city alone, half of the murders for the year of 2004 (which was the lowest rate for the city since the 60's).
Below 0.1% you're no longer arguing statistical correlation vs. causal relation, you're talking about coincidence. Or in this case, the kids blaming their bad behavior on anything but themselves.
If I have been able to see further than others, it is because I bought a pair of binoculars.
"the kids won't vandalize on their own so there must be a reason!" You don't honestly believe that do you? You never did anything bad as a kid? And when did, it was someone elses idea? And to top it off you didn't have a mind to decide for yourself whether or not to do it? You better believe kids vandalize on their own. It's assinine to think otherwise, it's like saying kids aren't capable of thought!
piss off
Which supports the biggest concern I have about the current generation and their gaming habits- no creativity. I shudder to think that in my golden years the highlight of TV will either be Law & CSI Moscow, or Family King of Simpson's Hill season 24.
If brevity is the soul of wit, then how does one explain Twitter?
The arugment is made about adult movies, and they are banned in a lot of places. It isn't equivalent to a police state.
I remember when my parents finally broke down and purchased the NES complete with Super Mario Brothers and Duck Hunt. Fortunately for the ducks at the local park, I never found a gun and started blasting away at them. I can't say the same for my little brother and his mushroom eating experiment. If Mario hadn't made it look so cool and fun to eat mushrooms my little brother might still be alive today.
Mushrooms.....they don't make you grow, but they might just take your life.
My Xbox Live Gamer Card
What are you on about? No, really. Are you talking about the Nazi book burnings? Is it your contention that it didn't work? Because the books were burned. Just not sure WTF your point is.
Parents don't buy kids adult movies because you have to go to special stores for those and everyone knows that they are for adults only. Video games are in all the stores and the parents think it's just a game so why not buy it. Also everyone knows that GTA games are made and marketed for teens and preteens. The kids scream for it and the parents finally buy it just to make the kids shut up.
Blaming GTA for a graffitti is on the same line as blaming Marilyn Manson for the Columbine Massacre... Complete nonsense... If a person is involved in a car accident, are we going to say: "OH, he crashed ... that's because he's arround too many Windows Boxes"??
Better?
Yeah, right.
. . . that if these little sociopaths are so unable to control their own behavior that they cannot stop themselves from committing crimes because they played a video game, then there's no hope of rehabilitation.
Any claim of "some vidoe game/movie/rock song made me do it" should bring automatic commitment to a mental hospital for the criminally insane, with the doctor who signs the release papers being criminally and civilally responsible for whatever they do after they get out.
You don't honestly believe that do you?
I'm going to go out on a limb here and say... probably not.
Information wants to be free.
Entertainment wants to be paid.
You just want to be cheap.
Games fall under the BBFC (British Board of Film Classification) jurisdiction in the UK (see eg http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/4069887.stm for general info and some comments from Patricia Hewitt; which also gives info on Europe wide classification called PEGI (see http://www.ps2home.co.uk/video_games_age_ratings.h tm)).
s .nsf/Links/D0183498F672087280256E1D003F1B5F)
...'. Anyone know if this has been tested in court?
However the video recordings act (1984) goes alongside the BBFC classification and states:
"It is an offence to supply, or offer to supply, a video recording to any person who has not attained the age specified on the recording. This legislation applies to video films, video games and computer games."
(see http://www.warwickshire.gov.uk/Web/corporate/page
Now, for parents they may have a get out saying it's not a 'supply' (IANAL), perhaps the legislators (sp?) slipped up and meant to say 'an offence to make available
Simple solution: Ban parenting.
Information wants to be free.
Entertainment wants to be paid.
You just want to be cheap.
Yes, but the US courts have consitantly held up these movies right to exist. Now personally I think if the judges viewed "Saw" they might think differently, hehe. Either way US law doesn't allow government banning of such material (though local community banning is allowed).
I painted 100 "Grove 4 Life" tags all over the town, now where is my AK 47? :(
(We're already below the margin of error for most polls and quite a few research studies)
The actual number of GTA murderers doesn't matter. If one thousandth of one percent of Americans were murderers (about 3000, which seems reasonable), and one hundredth of one percent of GTA players were murderers (about 1000 of those 3000), that would be a factor of ten between likelihood, and account for 1/3 of all murders. That ratio would be very significant.
What about Jet Set Radio (Future)? The entire purpose of that game is to paint graffiti. Not only that, but it was out for more than one console making it much more available. It wasn't rated M, either.
People should also stop assuming that these kids bought the games. They aren't out in the workforce making money. Hell, some kids probably grab their dad's copy and play it until he gets home 3+ hours after they do every weekday.
Jet Set Radio would be a much better scapegoat, but since it isn't M-rated and being targeted by mass-media it would be less likely to get them a win. After all, M games are corrupting society so how could something rated for children compell them to commit crimes?
DeMeH?
I just thought they had dumbass parents who don't give a shit about their children and let them play violent video games and run the streets with weapons and spray-paint.
But now I realize, no one can control these children. At 12, they are so intelligent and powerful that parents are helpless to stop them from doing whatever they want.
FYI, there's a 12-y-o under my roof who watches nothing pg-13 or above (because he's obnoxious enough as it is, that's way). He also doesn't buy spray-paint.
Changa hates change.
Well, no, now you're arguing that murderers play GTA. In order to say that GTA turns normal law-abiding people into murderers, you must consider the population of normal law-abiding people.
The statement you have is "Of murderers, 1/3 were murderers because of GTA". Its certainly a big number and I'm sure there are lawyers who would love to flaunt numbers like that around, but its not as interesting or useful as "Of people who played GTA, X were murderers because of GTA".
If I have been able to see further than others, it is because I bought a pair of binoculars.
Wow. That's a really interesting story, especially the part about the movie "Saw."
Especially since it's not scheduled for DVD release until February 15, 2005. But it's good to see that you care about this tragic stuff.
--AC
Any idiot knows that GTA leads to carjacking, murder, and solicitation of prostitution, not graffitti.
Super Mario Bros. leads to possession of illegal narcotics (but only if they're 'shrooms).
Jet Set Radio Future leads to graffitti.
The least they could do is pick the correct game for their crime.
DUH!
--AC
Wow, I love the knee jerk reaction by the slashdot crowd whenever the media mentions a video game releated to a crime. Everyone gets so touchy, its not like any of the articles even mentioned banning games or anything...
It is entirely plausible that these kids were *inspired* by their video games, or perhaps by a movie they saw. Gotta get your ideas from somewhere... However, acknowleding that point, there's also the fact that pretty much *everyone else* who played the game didn't up and go graffitti their neighbourhoods.
There's also many people's "bad parenting" cries... Come on gang, do none of you remember what its like to be kids? Damn, I was a good kid. Smart, polite, respectful of my elders, but from time to time I did dumb ass stuff like this too. It doesn't mean I had bad parents, to be honest I think my parents did an outstanding job (I'm 35 these days and still not in jail, good credit, professional job, university educated, animals and people like me.).
Kids do dumb shit sometimes. It doesn't always have to be bad parenting, and it doesn't necesarilly imply that the kids in question are juvenile delinquents.
Right now they don't. But the US Supreme Court is a weather vane. Who knows what they'll say the Constitution says 50 years from now.
Vandalism has always been a problem, and barring technological solutions, it probably always will be. Kids want to make their mark on the world, and if their parents don't do their duty and teach them the ramifications of their actions they will choose to do so in ways that hurt society.
Whatever else you say it is not the fault of the video game. The parents let them play it, so even if they got the idea from a video game, that is irrelevant. You are [ostensibly] responsible for the actions of your children for a reason - in order to have the right to be their parent you must take on the responsibility.
To me, this points directly to the real problem. We do not allow people to have any real rights until they are 18. Since you cannot enter into a contract and all your posessions belong to your parents and not you, you effectively have no rights except when it comes to abuse. Meanwhile, we are prosecuting minors as adults - responsibility without privilege. Having one without the other is always a recipe for disaster.
"You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
It's a well known fact that before video games, TV, Rock&Roll, Movies, and books were invented, people never did anything stupid and the world was crimeless.
It's all the fault of Gutenberg, the Lumiere brothers, the Beatles, Walter Cronkite and Rockstar Games!
And can already get a headshot in UT2004. She loves to watch me play Doom3, and as a result has ceased to be afraid of the dark. Granted, part of my duty as a parent was to explain to her in depth that John Carmack is just a mere mortal (let the flaming begin!), and I also used it as an opportunity to show her how many wonderful opportunities there are for her in CG and technology when she gets older. True, I've taken some of the magic out of her childhood, but I also feel that I've given her more of a pragmatic outlook on life. She's watched all 3 of the LOTR movies, Matrix movies, X-Men movies and Spiderman movies, but I've also made sure she's seen the 'Making of' portions, so she can see things like the good guys and bad guys hanging around the makeup trailer together, the CG used to create Gollum, etc. In a nutshell, we refuse to shelter our daughter from what the world has to offer, and not only has it made her smarter and more critical as far as her thinking skills go, but I believe it has given her an advantage her classmates haven't been afforded the opportunity, and her counting, reasoning verbal, and reading skills prove it.
End of Line.
Sorry I know it was stated that the parent was going to rent the movie for their kid, didn't know such actions hadn't occured yet, thanks for the clarification.
Yes, but the question is: did you get a sudden craving for Smucker's Jelly?
It would be cool if it didn't suck.
is the media.
How else would the kids know they can deflect blame by blaming something else?
A proper corrective measure for these kids should be a 48 hour marathon of every 'positive/inspirational' TV and movie in existence (disney, care bears, etc). That way, since they are so easily influenced, we will have happy, sharing, giving, happy members of society as a result.
THEN they can go to the media and say "its a wonderful life" inspired me to help my community'.
So you can spray paint graffiti too in GTA:SA ? What doesn't the game have?
I've got to get this game when it comes out on PC.
Maybe it's just me, but it's stupid kids like this that are going to cause big restrictions on video games. Just for that these kids should get a nice little stay of juvy. Who REALLY buys "Uh...the video game made me do it!" That's something that would get you commited and the old days.
Just a thought.
Your ad here.
No no no, those titles are the outdated/un-noticed evils, you have to mention the more new and noteworthy titles.
GTA SA has graffitti, GTA series is known for it's EVIL, the media "loves" this EVIL, GTA branded EVIL = ratings, the accused/guilty knows blaming GTA solves all their problems and makes everything "right."
I might have been impressionable at 12 but I know that when I was sitting around with my friends playing Mortal Kombat with blood and guts turned on that none of use were having any ideas about doing it in real life. Just because it looked cool didn't make us think it might be okay to do. People who actually think like that are called psychopaths, not children misled by video games.
This graffiti thing is silly though. Are you going to complain about everything that causes graffiti? I was browsing a graffiti book at Books-A-Million the other day and wanted to try my hand at it, I just don't own any walls or rail cars. Every time I see graffiti behind buildings and on trains in my town I want to try it, but I have this funny thing my parents instilled in me called respect for other people's property.
Blaming graffiti on a game... silly. The problem isn't the desire to do it, the problem is that they actually carried it out.
Direct away from face when opening.
Thanks for remaining sane. My kid was 6 when he started playing Doom on my 486. I think he knows the difference between fantasy and reality.
I've responded a few times to this subject because I think it's important.
My son plays GTA (myself, I don't see the attraction at age 42 - I prefer strategy-based gaming), but he likes it and is well-balanced as an individual.
Things were so much easier when I was growing up. If I shoplifted a can of spraypaint and desecrated the walls of my school it was because I was a dumbass, not because of playing too much Donkey Kong.
get up with thier lawyer, he'd love my lawsuit against hustler for giving me carpel tunnel syndrome
I was being a little American centric with my post when I said most places.
/. and are usually spoken against here.
But since this took place in America that is where I based my statements from.
As it is some towns and states in the US are attempting to enforce these "recomendations" as law, and these are mentioned whenever they turn up on
I think parents should be parents (note that I am not a parent) and not expect the state to parent, but at the same time you can't control your child all day every day and some regulation might not hurt, it is not like it is going to affect me as I'm well over the age any of this stuff would be restricted to.
That ratio shows correlation, but it fails to show any causation.
/Not/ that playing GTA makes you prone to murder.
It may be that people who are prone to murder like to play GTA.
I just pimped my sister for 100$. Now i'm going to court and probably jail. I'm gunna blaim it on grand theft auto san andreas.
Flat Screen TV for F
People blame everyone but themselves. I also see this as a big scheme to make the parents rich at the expense of the rest of us. Kids get caught, claim the game made them do it and are now emotional distraught at being prosecuted for something that really wasn't their fault. The lawsuit is dropped, but replaced by ones from the parents who sue the makers of the GTA for millions of dollars. The suit is settled out of court because of the millions that will be spent just trying to defend it because some lame judge won't immediately throw the case out. Don't trial lawyers rock?
Seriously why they didnt just said "the devil made me do it" instead? is just as valid as an excuse and makes just as much sense. Did the church prohibited it or is just not "in" any more, Is gta and MM the new devil and someone forgot to update the holy manuscripts or what?
Seriously I invite you (and any judge and lawyer) to exchange, "I saw it on a movie/game hear it on a tune" for the Phrase: "The devil made me do it" I wont asure you the same level of success (specially on the media). But I do can asure you is a valid sinonym with just as much value.
p.s. PLEASE do NOT RTFA all you do is to give hits to yellowish journalism and encourage the media to support cases like this.
Heres an advice for the kids case, make them pay the ticket/bill make them cleanup and add a fresh coat of paint to all of their mess and then gently remove their ps2(s) from their tiny clutches for a period from 6 months to 2 years. They probably wont be forced into crime by satan for a pretty good time. Do otherwise and most probably the devil will be whispering another tune up their ears quite soon.
Go ahead MOD my day!
More opinions here
I can't believe that never got mentioned on Slashdot, but some graffiti did.
In the past, I've figured that the things that go on in GTA are so severe that rational kids won't do them. Carjacking, murder... if a kid is involved in these things, they were probably a bad seed from the start.
But with vandalism...... Well, let's just say that in my old (28) age, I was shocked and appalled by the inclusion of vandalism as a central (read: featured prominently in TV ads) theme of Tony Hawk's Underground 2. Teenagers might have enough sense not to go bust a cap in the ass of some old guy driving a land barge, but then again they might just tag a shop window or slash somebody's tires, figuring that - since it's the most basic motivator of what to do or not do - they won't get caught.
In the process, THUG2's creators worsen the public's perception of skateboarders, console gamers, and game developers.
Now, does this let kids off the hook, saying that they were told to break the windows out of somebody's car because of GTA3 or THUG2? No, of course not. They're just as guilty as they would be in the absence of those games. But in the context of games marketed towards teens - THUG2 is in fact rated T - game designers need to understand that there really may be societal impacts to the things they release. They have a moral imperative to voluntarily limit themselves in order to protect society.
And the ESRB has a moral imperative to make sure that games which prominently feature property crimes - not just violent crimes or drug crimes - are given the M rating they deserve.
It translates to pretty much the same thing either way.
William of Ockham had no beard. The most likely explanation is that it was chewed off by squirrels every morning.
PLEASE get this into your head.
GTA is a GAME, it is ment to be played FOR FUN. It's like cops and robbers in the playground. As long as people understand that it's ment to be fun and nothing more then there is no problem.
It's exactly like nudists for example. Some people see it as sexual and may want to abuse it to get their own way (GTA made me shoot my baby, rob a drug store then hump a lamp post!), where as the real people involved just see it as "What we want to do".
Everyone "outside the box" doesn't understand what is "inside the box". So they fear it and try to warp it into something else.
I like muppets.
Parents can say that they don't want the state to parent, but then the parents should be the ones out cleaning the ditches and being subjected to whatever fines or criminal penalties that their kids are liable for - otherwise the parents obviously DO want the state to parent, because they have reliquished their parental authority to the state.
;}
Whatever happened to good old beatings? Taught me good
Gekido's Lair
Conservatives don't want to lower taxes, by the way - they just want to take more of the money from the people who hardly have any money, and spend it on invading third world countries instead of providing for americans.
Boy, I hate to point this out, but you should really check the facts first. The fact is that the Bush tax cut skewed more taxes to the wealthy and took more low income earners off the tax rolls. Currently the top 50% of wage earners pay over 96% of the taxes in America. The real numbers.
Also, during W's first term, social spending has increased in almost every area, including a huge new prescription drug benefit. So, your premise about conservatives and spending is wrong.
As a pretty staunch conservative myself, I can concisely say that I am not against video games with violence, crime, murder and mayhem in them. I am against minors being exposed to these games which are clearly not tailored for their experience level or moral maturity. For a parent to hand this game over to a child is to provide tacit approval of the actions that the game contains.
Children don't have rights for a reason, namely that they aren't mature enough to accept the responsibilites that go with them. In this country I have the right to own a gun, with that comes the responsibility of A) knowing *how* to use it, B) knowing *when* to use it, C) knowing *why* to use it, and D) knowing that there are consequences, many severe, for that gun's use. As an adult, I can see beyond the immediate gratification to the consequences. Children do not have this ability.
I have two children, I know that the consequences of their actions don't go through their mind until they start hitting them between the eyeballs.
Yes, we sometimes choose to prosecute children as adults, but usually only in very specific cases, such as when they are very near the age of majority (17+ years of age) or when they demonstrate to a psychiatrist that they have a clear understanding that their action was wrong and would have consequences, but they took the action anyway.
Personally I don't like the idea that something just happens when you turn 18 that makes you an adult. I know a bunch of 12 year olds who are more mature than some of the 20-somethings that I work with. Why do we give rights to the 20 year olds instead of the 12 year olds? The answer is tradition, but it's not the best answer. How many 25 year olds do you know who get stone drunk every weekend? Is that showing a level of responsibility?
Besides, the prosecution of minors as adults is relatively rare in this country, probably less than 1 in a 100 cases. And it's usually only used in the case of major felonies. Even then, children convicted as adults are often sentenced as juveniles, which means a maximum imprisonment age of 25. Now that's a privilege without a responsibility. It cuts both ways.
Life, the Universe, and Everything... in my image.
the only real solution is a government ban
Government bans don't work. See prohibition, the drug war, blue laws, DeCSS, speeding...
i'd hit it so hard, if you pulled me out you'd be the king of britain [bash.org]
The same thing would just alienate already frustrated people in the US... I run the software/games department of one of the local electonics stores where I live and it is part of a large multinational chain, so I have a fairly close view of the matter. We have a corporate policy stating that we can't sell 'M' (their are no real 'AO' rated titles available so they don't bother to mention that rating) games to anyone under 17. Failure to obey this job requirement is terms for being 'let go'. Now that being said, when we tell kids we can't sell them the games they go find a parent and the parent verbally bitch slaps us for having to be bothered to act as a legal guardian of a minor... It only gets worse when I explain that while I can sell it to the parent, but not the child when the parent doesn't want to be involved anyways. The parents invaribly complain to store management and I then get bitch slapped verbally by management for them having to have listened to the prattle of the parents over it...
All in all making it a requirement to card (aka check ID like we do for cigerettes or alcohol) everyone buying 'M' rated games would just get me harrassed more by customers who don't care about the law and who don't care about their kids... Not a big suprise when we have people leave their kids for 4+ hours (up to 9 hours once) in our game section (where the video game demo systems are) while the parents leave the store and do other things... So it's not really a suprise to me that parents don't want to be responsible for their kids...
we are all invisible unless we choose otherwise
Buy Steampunk Clothing Online!
My brother is turning 12 this month and my parents would't have been caught dead buying him that game. I've played it and think its real great but they are right, kids his age are not even CLOSE to being mature enough to handle a game like that. Like he listens to Good Charolotte for God sakes.
I suggest if she wants to rent horror flicks for her kid, that she at least choose something that isn't so crappy.
Dear God - Saw? What a steaming pile of *$%&!
The only nightmares the kid is going to have after seeing that are the ones where she thinks the director and scriptwriter are going to work again.
I saw some blokes around 18-20 take a 6-8 year old to red dragon on the cinema. Unsurprisingly, the kid didn't make it through the film, and they left halfway through...
But, Speeding laws aren't designed to prevent speeding, only to generate revenue for state/local gov't. :-) Just like taxes on cigarette.
The solution I guess is to heavily tax violent games, and use the money raised to fund Anti-Violence programs.
Ingenious!!!
Just because one government law (and the example you chose is more than 70 years old) doesn't work, in no way means that all government laws won't work. That's ridiculous - why would there even be laws if none of them worked? Absinthe, for instance, was banned about a decade before prohibition, and is still pretty difficult to get a hold of in the United States.
Slashdot: providing anti-social weirdos a soapbox, since 1997.
and also the hardware store owners that sold the paint!
Am I the only person who thinks that maybe, just maybe, your actions are your responsibility? I mean damn... if these kids are smart enough to know that they can just blame their actions on a video game, they're smart enough to know that said game wasn't made for their age group, and shouldn't be played by their age group. It's people like this that keep people like Joe Liberman up our collective asses.
--- kthxbai
BROCKMAN: Now at the risk of being 'unpopular,' this reporter places the blame squarely upon you, the viewer.
How blessed I am to live in a universe where some people believe that "inspired by" and "caused by" mean the same thing.
Here is a clue for those who haven't thought it through: saying something "inspired" you is not "blaming" that thing. [insert perjorative directed at people who think otherwise].
GTA, from GTA 1, right to San Andreas, has inspired me.... To scream at the stupid press! These idiots think that violence, sex, and crimelife won't affect 12 year olds? Of course it will, that's why the game's rated MA 15+ (Australia). Now these kids are stupid and impressionable, but these reporters twist things around so that it looks like the game (creator's) fault! Rockstar rock. They did nothing wrong. They knew their game was going to be rated for older audiences. The reviewers did nothing wrong, putting the game on the MA 15+ list, so that things like this wouldn't happen. The parents... Don't get me started on them. Parents: DON'T BUY YOUR KIDS NASTY GAMES!!! /Whitey
mAiLtO: Admin@UberSkilled.com
I am a bitter sarcastic computer programmer, you insensitive clod!
Must be nice to see what's going to take place months ahead of time. Must make playing the lottery a breeze.
Laura Bush has killed more people with her car than you have with your rifle. So what?
My father is a blogger.
I've always said it and will always say that when you start laying blame on games for stuff like vandalism ... you desperately need a good fuck and a life.
:)
I mean, WTF.... for how long has vandalism and graffitis been around ? As far as spray paint cans have been around
People seem to think its so cool to blame games, it allows them to comfort their mind and forget how badly they rose their own children.
I let my children play most video games with little regard for ratings on them. But then I have reasonable parenting skills (read I bother to spend time with my children and teach them amonst other things what is acceptable behaviour in our society). Games are not to blame for these grafitting kids, their parents are to blame!
A case of prior art already exists on this one... Rockstar can't claim any rights for the graffitti patent this time.
See what happens when you can't hit these dumb-shit little punks? Video games aren't the problem, they give kids ideas yeah, but if you know there are consequences, either having a conscience and knowing that wrong means don't do it or being fearful of the consequences and not wanting to get punished keeps you from doing something bad then we don't have a problem. However the problem lies in that punishment doesn't exist anymore because lack of discipline and acceptance of this scapegoat makes everything okay bullshit.
I propose a drastic change: add a fourth branch to the U.S. government. The new addition to the checks and balances system would be called the House of CommonSen$e (note the format of the name: it will be created in the technological age and therefore must be new. It's also a lot cooler than 'judiciary' or 'executive'.)
The implementation is simple: every court would receive their own HoCS representative. A rep for HoCS would be the man from the community most likely to be stereotyped as the father from A Christmas Story. A HoCS-man's job would be simple. When the plaintiff's claim is stated, the rep considers whether or not the blame is at the level of common sense. If the blame is valid, the HoCS-man bangs his gong once. If the plaintiff's actions were within the bounds of common sense, the gong sounds twice (after banging the gong twice, the HoCS-man may or may not throw feces at the plaintiff).
With a House of CommonSen$e, we would able to view perilous car advertisements and dangerous 'ideas' without the need for Do not attempt or The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way messages.
Hey baby, you want some genetic code? These pants are open source.
Is it just me, or will 12-year-olds inevitably get a hold of the world's most popular video game?
If this conclusion is inevitable, as you say it is, then logically even a government ban won't stop 12 year-olds from getting hold of the game.
So, then, what's the point of a government ban if it is ineffective?
Government bans on the sale of any product are, and always have been, well-meaning but flawed and failed policies. We've banned the sales of certain drugs, various weapons, and so forth; yet those transactions continue to occur...
Is Capitalism Good for the Poor?
Heh, one of the hair-splitting types? Add "short of a government ban" to the end of my sentence. But you do have a (minor) point. What a government ban is really good for is stopping the game from being produced in the first place.
Your argument in the last paragraph is one against laws in general. It is directly equivalent to 'since no law works perfectly, we might as well have no laws at all.' Why don't you start your own country, give it a try, and let the rest of us know how well it works.
WTF does Bill Clintion have to do with this?
So when will we start blaming stuff on Halo 2??? Someone should do something really stupid then sue Micrsoft. The downside would be losing Red vs Blue. This is one reason why manufacturers of nondefective products should be protected from frivolous lawsuits.
-- Early computers (Dos and Windows 95 series) did not have any form of access control unless you went out and purchased specialized software - there is a BIOS password, but that's an all-or-nothing deal. As a result, even installing a 16+ rated game on those older computers could give the feeling that the law is being broken.
-- Windows NT-XP as well as file-sysems that provide private user spaces can be setup to allow only one person to access such a game. But by default, other users are given full read access and the average person doesn't know how to configure it otherwise. As a result, even installing can give the same feeling.
-- Some games have allowed a parental lock that cuts down on the gore and blood (where the toned down version would receive a lower rating.) I'm sure this would make a real mess of the law - does the law apply the 'R' rating to everything including the toned down version, or does it take the toned down 'T'een version where a parent needs to type the password to make stuff gruesome?
You'll have an instantly large number of cases which fall into one of these three cases.
My personal opinion - how the parents raise their children is their own business, provided that it doesn't mess up other people's lives. Sadly, not all parents understand how to raise children and you end up with these kinds of laws (or attempts to make them into law).
IANAL, so no.
Cosby had a great bit in the 60s/70s where he described a child who was standing near a half eaten pie, with pie all over his face. When he asked the kid, "Did you eat the pie?", the kid says, "Nooooo!"
The point is, all kids do this. That the journalist(s) who first examined this story didn't dismiss the ploy as normal behavior, but instead ran to their editors with a "scoop" is remarkable. That the editors agreed and pushed the story through is pathetic. These people bear the responsibility to report accurately and fairly on events, and this is where they put emphasis? Koyaanisqatsi.
Man, I got caught graffiting when I was a peckerhead... my parents didn't even come pick me up at central booking. I had to walk home. When I got there, my dad hauled ass on me. I had to go to court, plead, pay a fine. Nobody blamed anyone but me. Nobody coddled me. There could not have been a more appropriate way to handle it. *I* had to face what *I* did, and was not forgiven until I faced the music.
Very nice statistical argument, by the way!
Your argument in the last paragraph is one against laws in general. It is directly equivalent to 'since no law works perfectly, we might as well have no laws at all.' Why don't you start your own country, give it a try, and let the rest of us know how well it works.
Some laws work better than others though, and this is usually due to their (necessarily) higher priority over others. Laws against murder and rape, although violated often enough, are also punished relatively severely and instances of these actions in-progress are typically given higher priority than most any other crime (e.g. which will a cop find more important: busting kids smoking weed, or a guy shooting up a coffee shop?).
Some things -- such as smoking weed or playing violent or sexually-graphic video games -- are far more socially-acceptable (and therefore, less-punished by law) than other things, again, such as murder or rape. That acceptability means that the public isn't as concerned w/ those issues, and thus, they're not as strongly enforced, leading to increased levels of breaking of that law (e.g. weed-smoking). Speed limits are another example. Again, it's a matter of priority.
All that said, there is one example in history of a nation without even a prison or a police force: Iceland.
Also, the U.S. started off as a nation with very few laws, and in many ways, we were better for it. In terms of foreign relations, the 1800s were relatively-peaceful (domestically, of course, the Civil War was not). Our economy grew by leaps and bounds compared to the 1900s and current economic growth (this can arguably be attributed to America's development from basically a third-world nation to a first-world nation, during which in most nations, such transitions involve more-rapid growth than at any other time). People were freer to do as they pleased; gambling was less frowned-upon, people could buy whatever medicines (snake oil or not) they pleased, and so forth.
The rise of the "my morals and religion must be shoved down everybody elses' throats" mentality of modern-day Republicans and the "steal from the rich to feed the poor and middle-class" Robin Hood socialist mentality of modern-day Democrats has worked in tandem to restrict such freedoms and growth.
I'm far from an advocate of anarchy and seriously doubt the Iceland example I cited could work in the U.S. (our culture has always been far too violent to be feasible), but the idea that we should restrict the rights of the many for the benefit of the few is abhorrent and dangerous where the issue doesn't involve force against those few (and somebody else's playing GTA certainly does not restrict your freedom not to play it or to disallow your children from playing it, just as somebody else's worship of Allah or Buddha doesn't restrict your freedom to worship God or be an athiest, because these are all negative rights).
Is Capitalism Good for the Poor?
...some of the stuff that Banksy does (http://www.banksy.co.uk) is absolute genius. He now gets commissions for doing works, has put on an art show (which prompted a rival tagger to scrawl "Banksy is a f**king sellout" over the entrance, which Banksy decided to leave there as people thought it was part of the show!).
One of my faves is this little ditty, yes its vandalism, but just look at it, it's damn funny! http://www.banksy.co.uk/outdoors/outdoors.html
I am NaN
Hey befor computer games came along, kids had to do with being influenced by satan using rock music!
Kids these days have it so easy... just blame the game!
from the San Francisco Chronicle. No soul-selling required;h ronicle/archive/2003/02/10/BA200304.DTL
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/c
Dealing with lawyers would be a lot less tedious if they all looked like Casey Novak.
Wait, let's blame everything on computer games, that way our education department gets let off the hook for not educating kids correctly!
Counter Strike
That said, those were fairly degenerate cases. Most children instead come away from gun safety courses with an increased understanding that guns really can kill even when you don't mean to whether it's from accidentally triggering the gun when fiddling around with it or if it's brandishing your gun at someone while in a fit of anger and having it go off. They face the reality that when they pull that trigger, someone's likely to get badly wounded or killed. Given as most people are not murderers at heart, they're probably less likely to wind up killing someone.
This sig has absolutely no significance and serves only to take up screen space and waste the time of the reader.
They start playing as soon as they press the keyboard and look at the screen at the same time.
If Google really cared they would fix Android Chrome to reflow text, instead of discriminating