Game Makers Could Be Liable For Violent Games

Christopher Reimer writes "KOMO 4 News of Seattle, Washington, is reporting that state law makers are considering a bill that would make video game companies liable for illegal activity that players under 17 are responsible for. From the article: 'Should the people who make and sell "violent video" games be held accountable if someone commits a crime because of playing them?'"

Comments

I agree...

[charlie763]

I agree with this law because video games actually *do* make children commit crimes.

I remember one time as a child a kid started throwing hammers at me from the top of a table. At first I didn't know what to do, but then I saw a bird in a turtle shell and jumped at the opportunity (no pun intended, I'm being serious here). I took the remaining shell and threw it at the other kid. He paused for a second and then continued to throw hammers at me. I found a second turtle-bird thing and repeated the process. The kid fell through the floor and was never heard from again. I, on the other hand, was hit by a hammer that was still flying through the air.

For the fifteen years after that event I have come to enjoy being a dwarf. It makes it easier to get under certain floating brick walls. I think I would like to one day be big again, but I still have not found the right mushroom, only the ones that make fire shoot out of my arse.

Re:Anyone but....

[ReverendLoki]

If we were to follow this line of logic, though, then why single out video games? The nightly news usually has as much if not more violence than video games.

I'm all for protecting our children, and yes, the legislature does have responsibility to that end, but it's almost gotten to the point that publishers and such need a law protecting them from consumer's lack of common sense.

(Comment about "never taking out 115 with one blast in a video game, even with the luckiest of 'deemer shots", removed for matters of taste, then included down here, thus defeating the purpose.)