Illinois Videogame Law Moves Forward

The ongoing trend of legislating the sale of video games moves forward. Gamasutra has news on the Illinois law currently moving through the legislature, which apparently has "overwhelming support". From the Illinois debate: "An industry that is making so much money selling these things to your children is dealing with things like decapitation, defecation on people. There's vivid pictures of nudity. It's an industry that needs help being policed..."

Comments

Please No

[Mooga]

Oh gosh this better not pass.

I'll probably crack if they take away my video games!

Re:Please No

[snuf23]

It's worse! I'll probably end up addicted to crack if they take away my video games!

Re:Please No

[kazilin]

I concur. This is such rubbish, too. The farthest that any policing on videogame violence should go is with parents. If parents don't want their kids playing a game because of violence or something of that nature, they can take the darn game and sell it, end of problem (however sad it would be for the kid, I'm sure). Entirely fruitless and nothing but a way to aggravate people, such as myself. This better not pass.

since when...

[takeya]

do games have people "defecating on eachother"? are they playing porno games or something? Japanese H-games?

can anyone tell me if there are really any american games with this sort of thing, or if it's just FUD.

Re:since when...

[bersl2]

Well, I do remember the cutscene from the end of the first episode of Duke Nukem 3D, after Duke kills the boss, he punches a hole in the monster and (probably---we don't see the nasty bits, thank God) defecates in it.

Re:since when...

[cgenman]

You can get japanese H games in the US legally, though not at any retailers that I know of. There are cute little animal games where your cute little animal takes cute little turds, but not on anybody. There is a webgame version of Puyo Puyo where your special attack is throwing up on your opponent. There were a few games in the 80's where birds would poo on you, though those weren't very good games. There's the 7 sins, where the point is to try to have sex with as many people as possible. There is, of course a PS2 version.

There are a lot of bad games out there. But then, there are millions of games out there. By the same token, I don't have anything morally against making parents come in and buy games for their kids if they want them to have them. I've known far too many people in the retail sector who have told kids no, and been yelled at by the parent for stopping their kid from buying, say, Manslaughter. Inevitably, the parent then comes back the following day and freaks out on the poor underpaid associate for selling such filth to their kid.

I think the generation which preceeded ours has certain expectations about cartoons and videogames which ours does not. To them, more mature cartoons or videogames is like Jack Daniels flavored breastmilk. Or black leather studded diapers. In exactly the same way that movies were seen as kid's stuff at the turn of the century, so too is videogames the realm of kids. And therefore anything that gets released in a videogame is marketed at kids, and all of that stuff that you see in videogames is people trying to mess up your children.

It's a different perspective. While I don't disagree with the idea of restricting the sale of certain videogames to minors, I do disagree with the perspective.

Re:since when...

[jcromartie]

Exactly which turn of the century are you talking about? Initially, when film was finally taking a form that was comparable to what it is today, movies were NOT for kids. In fact, there was no regulation, and many instances of graphic sex and violence can be found in pre-decency code films. Nowadays mainstream films, no matter the subject, are dumbed down to the lowest common denominator so that they don't prove to be intellectually challenging to anybody but an 8 year old. From the perspective of intelligent people: mainstream film now is mostly for children, or people with little or no desire for emotional and intellectual development.

Re:since when...

[Ayaress]

H games are very rarely available retail in the US. Very few companies import them because they're just not that popular here. Where they are sold (I worked at a book store in my area that has a few of them. Even then, not even enough to get their own shelf, and in the eighteen months I worked there, I only remember seeing one customer actually buy one), they're behind the beaded curtain next to the brown-wrapper magazines, and they usually have brown wrappers themselves. Anybody under 18 isn't even allowed in the room where they're kept (this one checked ID, too), and the store I worked at had a policy posted outside the beaded curtain room that if you had somebody under 18 with you, even if it was your child, you couldn't go inside (The justification is that they'd be left unattended, but the reason was just as much to stop people from buying porn for their younger friends). The only way to get H games in most areas is at adult novelty stores, or through catalogs like J-list or Jast USA. Most such catalogs require age verification just to order the catalog, let alone anything in it. Most also require age verification and a credit card to order. Most adult stores are almost religious about making sure nobody under 18 gets through the door. They're often unliked by the local authorities already, so even a small slip can mean getting their land rezoned out from under them.

Re:since when...

[__aaclcg7560]

we don't see the nasty bits, thank God

Nah, he's just sitting there with his pants down looking at the newspaper.

Now, if you check out the ending for Duke Nukem: Land Of The Babes (Playstation), there's a line of babes lining up at the White House to get into the Lincoln Bedroom with him since he was the only guy left alive to keep the human race going. It was a Bill Clinton moment to be sure. :)

Here's my suggestion

[QuantumG]

Let's make every game 18+ by default. Then let's set up a classification board, staffed by people who actually know how to play a game, that you have to go to if you want a game which is rated for younger audiences. Then let's change this mantra of the protectorate which I hear all the time: games are for kids. Games are not for kids. Surveys have shown that the vast majority of gamers are over 18 years of age. The fact that games contain elements which are distasteful in ordinary society is no big surprise when you stop thinking about games as entertainment for kids and start thinking about them as an escape from reality for adults.

Re:Here's my suggestion

[Mooga]

Are you out of your mind?

There are TONS of gamers under 18. Your talking about an age where kids as young as 10 (and even younger) are playing videogames. And these 10 yearolds are playing more then school games, they're fragging away at games like Halo and CS.

While young kids shouldn't be playing such FPS games, you can't simply ban games for kids under 18! Tons of teens in highschool spend their nights fragging and highschool starts at 14 and 15.

Re:Here's my suggestion

[QuantumG]

Maybe you should actually read what I wrote before replying. I said, games which are rated for children should be available. Games that are not rated (at all) should also be available -- to people over the age of 18. Parents are obviously free to allow their children to play any game they see fit -- even if it is unrated -- but children cannot buy these games.

I think that's simple and straight forward, but your government (and mine even more so) do not understand that because they think of games as being solely for children. Here in Australia we don't even have an 18+ rating for games. We also don't allow unrated games on the shelves. The result is that the vast majority of people who play games (which, as I said, is mostly over the age of 18) are saddled with kiddie junk. The few companies that actually try to make games for adults have their games effectively banned from my country (as they are refused a classification and unrated games are banned from the shelves). So think yourself lucky that you have any adult rated games there at all.

Re:Here's my suggestion

[bmorton]

The parent didn't say that people under 18 didn't play games. The parent states that survey's have shown that the vast majority of gamers are adults.

The parent also didn't say that games should be banned for people under 18. The idea is that if a company wants people under 18 to be able to play the game, they have to submit it for review.

Review boards wouldn't be necessary for most games, as they are obviously targetted to adults and could go straight to the stores with a rating of 18+. If a game is meant for a younger audience (or for all ages), it can be submitted and reviewed and then deemed appropriate. This also has the effet of stopping violent games from "slipping thru the cracks."

Seems pretty reasonable to me

-B

Re:Here's my suggestion

[Geoffreyerffoeg]

That'll be about as effective as banning drinking and smoking for kids...except games, being software, can't be as easily controlled as physical objects like booze or cigarettes.

And there are a lot more "underage" gamers than underage smokers or drinkers.

Games are not for kids.

Games, like most things, are for people mature enough to handle it. I can play Halo and enjoy the strategy without going trigger-happy and without looking for a game with more gore. (In fact, much as I enjoy Halo, I find games with gratuitous gore very distasteful.)

Surveys have shown that the vast majority of gamers are over 18 years of age.

Ehheh. Right. Surveys show that the vast majority of people are over 18 years of age. I mean, you're comparing what, a group from roughly 10 or 12 to 18 with a group from 19 to who-knows-where? Of course you'll get more in the latter.

Is there a survey that shows that there is a vastly greater percentage of gaming adults compared to the percentage of gaming teenagers? I'm pretty sure that a randomly-selected teenager is far more likely to play video games than a randomly-selected adult.

The fact that games contain elements which are distasteful in ordinary society is no big surprise when you stop thinking about games as entertainment for kids and start thinking about them as an escape from reality for adults.

Except for one thing: lots of developers treat games as entertainment for kids. And lots of teenagers like this kind of escape from reality, and are mature enough to handle tasteful games....

Re:Here's my suggestion

[QuantumG]

Man, I can't even believe we're arguing here. The government wants to ban lude and "unacceptable" conduct in video games because they're "just for kids" and you're defending them. Games are not just for kids. Adults play video games and we should be able to get adult content in them. I don't want my choise of video games to consist of Mario and Spiro The Dragon, ok?

Re:Here's my suggestion

[Geoffreyerffoeg]

I don't want my choise of video games to consist of Mario and Spiro The Dragon, ok?

Right right. But what if I want those games? I probably misread your comment, but it seems that you want to ban Mario and Spyro so that you can get your games. Which is no different...except that it's my games that are banned.

Games are not just for kids.

Thanks for adding the word "just". That wasn't in your original comment. That's all I was basically asking for. ;-)

Re:Here's my suggestion

[Bios_Hakr]

The problem here is that the complainers want Wal-Mart to carry the games. Why? Because that's where mom and dad shop.

This is an issue of tail wagging. The only people who will be bothered by this are the ones who shouldn't be playing these games to begin with.

Re:Here's my suggestion

[QuantumG]

My original comment specifically said that game manufacturers should be able to submit their game to a review board which could hand out classifications for ratings other than 18+. I don't want to ban any games, I want all games to be 18+ and available on the shelf until such time as the manufacturer gets a lower rating.

Re:Here's my suggestion

[Eivind]

There's a problem with this, and this problem is obvious in countries that have such a law, for example Germany.

The problem is that in practice, any certification costs money. This means that any game developed by nonprofits in general will not be certified. It would be a lot of work, and quite likely costly, for a OSS developer to ensure that his game was certified according to each of dozens of different classification-boards.

And if you think large groups of countries will agree on one common standard, one common certification board, you're dreaming. That's not the case for movies and wouldn't be the case for games.

Practical upshot ? You can't legally sell a Linux-distro to a minor in Germany. In practice it's done all the time, because the law gets ignored for things which aren't mainly games, and which are obviously not very objectionable anyway.

But in principle, you'll have to strip ALL games (including solitaire, mahjong, minesweeper and tuxracer) from a Linux-distro, or jump trough expensive and time-consuming hoops if you want to legally sell your linux-distro to minors in Germany.

17 year-old linux-users aren't exactly *that* rare.

Re:Here's my suggestion

[QuantumG]

Wow. Let the children get their parent's permission to buy a linux distribution. Who cares.

Re:Here's my suggestion

[Anonymous Coward]

You're contradicting yourself. You're saying that you want every game on the shelf to be 18+. How selfish is that?

Re:Here's my suggestion

[jcromartie]

That's the most rediculous thing I've heard lately. You would sound like an idiot if you said the same thing about cartoons (and your statistics would probably still hold true... most cartoon watchers are probably over 18).

Why don't we make all cartoons rated R by default. Then, let's set up a classification board, staffed by people who actually know how to watch a cartoon that you have to go to if you want a cartoon which is to be rated for a younger audience. Then let's change this mantra of the protectorate which I hear all the time: "cartoons are for kids." Cartoons are not for kids! Surveys have shown that the vast majority of cartoon viewers are over 18.

You're just giving in to the mass-marketed over-hyped mentality that American gamers have (I'm an American, by the way, and I choose not to give in to that mentality). In Japan games are seen as primarily a child's toy, but a medium that can also be enjoyed by adults. Outside of the Hentai type genres there are very few games coming out of Japan, with the exception of fighters and Metal Gear/survival horror games, that showcase the same braindead blood, guts, and boobies that American games do.

"M" stands for "mostly crap."

Re:Here's my suggestion

[Mr.Dippy]

If you make games only for 18+ age then Nintendo will go out of business. Won't somebody please think about Nintendo

Re:Here's my suggestion

[jcromartie]

I want all cartoons to be rated R until otherwise certified to be lower. Don't be ridiculous.

Re:Here's my suggestion

[clausiam]

Did you read the suggested law? Nobody's banning anything. They will prohibit selling games marked as Mature to people under 18. What's your problem here?

Re:Here's my suggestion

[Anonymous Coward]

You're contradicting yourself. You're saying that you want every game on the shelf to be 18+. How selfish is that?

You're demonstrating that you lack even basic reading comprehension skills. He is saying that there should be an official game rating system, and any game that has not passed through that system should be assumed NOT to be suitable for children.

You can disagree with that on the grounds that it creates more beaurocracy, on the grounds that it will raise prices for children's games, or on the grounds that it won't work any better than any other ratings system. You cannot disagree with it on the grounds that it's selfish, because it isn't, nor on the grounds that it's self-contradictory, because it isn't.

Kindly learn to read before you attempt to contribute to debates in future.

Re:Here's my suggestion

[Anonymous Coward]

I want all cartoons to be rated R until otherwise certified to be lower. Don't be ridiculous.

But that's not ridiculous - it's how things ARE! Mainstream cinemas won't touch unrated movies; movies that want to be marketable to kids have to be certified to deserve a suitably low rating!

If you start from the opposite premise, and assume that all unrated cartoons are suitable for children... well, let's just say I sure hope you don't mind getting home one day and finding your nine-year-old son watching tentacle rape scenes on Cartoon Network.

Why should games be any different? Why should we NOT assume that games are unsuitable for children unless they have actually been checked and found suitable?

Re:Here's my suggestion

[DerWulf]

Lets make parents care for their childs past time. The set up a classification board, staffed by people who actually know how to raise kids, that you have to go to every year to keep your 'parent' status.

Re:Here's my suggestion

[jcromartie]

But as it is, most games are already rated appropriately, and most cartoons (of the TV variety) are NOT rated at all. They are simply assumed to be safe. If we can't assume a game to be safe if it doesn't have an "M" rating, then we are a sad nation of drooling smacktards gobbling up whatever crude blood-and-guts T&A garbage is shoved in front of our faces by those wanting to make a buck out of our most basic instincts... oh, wait... from the looks of it, we already are!

Re:Here's my suggestion

[lbmouse]

Surveys have shown that the vast majority of gamers are over 18 years of age.

Ehheh. Right. Surveys show that the vast majority of people are over 18 years of age. I mean, you're comparing what, a group from roughly 10 or 12 to 18 with a group from 19 to who-knows-where? Of course you'll get more in the latter.

The average age of video game buyer is now 36. The average of a player is 29. And it is getting older every year.

http://money.cnn.com/2004/08/25/commentary/game_ov er/column_gaming/

Re:Here's my suggestion

[gameboyhippo]

...which I hear all the time: games are for kids. Games are not for kids

At one point, games were for kids. After videogames died out in the early `80s and was brought back again in the mid 80`s by Nintendo, most gamers were kids. Adults didn't have as much interest in games. Since they have been producing game consoles since the time of NES, gamers grew up with videogames. Unfortunately, this has confused game makers into thinking that all we want is sex and violence in our games.

But even if most games are not for kids, then I would like to see strong laws like the one in Illinois. I think that would be a stronger argument for strict ratings. I'd like to stop hearing on the news that a kid stole a car and shot a few police officers and then the kid blaming it on GTA. I think bad games are harmful to a developing mind.

I personally use the current rating system to help me by games and I don't have kids. I don't like super violent games. Thus I usually only by E rated games and some T rated games.

Re:Here's my suggestion

[unclethursday]

Review boards wouldn't be necessary for most games, as they are obviously targetted to adults and could go straight to the stores with a rating of 18+. If a game is meant for a younger audience (or for all ages), it can be submitted and reviewed and then deemed appropriate. This also has the effet of stopping violent games from "slipping thru the cracks."

Except for the fact that most games are not intended just for people 18 and over. The games intended for that audience, the current M and AO rated games, make up only around 10% of games released each year (and AO games make up way less than 1% of games each year, and you'll never see them on store shelves anyway). The other 90% are either rated E (and soon to be E10) or T, and therefore meant for either a younger audience or deemed appropriate for all ages.

Therefor, most games would still be submitted for review by the granparent's post. Might as well keep the current rating system, then. It works, when parents actually know what the ratings are and use them to know what games are fine for their children, or what they feel is OK for them.

Re:Here's my suggestion

[superpulpsicle]

While I hate all this parental garbage talk, I am all for setting up a real review process for the sake of creating more jobs.

The reviewers need to play the games thoroughly, and some games like 200hrs. Game companies should be smart by keeping out all the gore and blood till later levels when the reviewer might have given up by then.

Games will not be released until it has been reviewed. Bang, you will need to hire hundreds of people to review thousands of games. And the reviewers should be paid by a "parental tax". All parents who have kids need to pay this tax period.

Re:Here's my suggestion

[agraupe]

Well, the problem with that is (as PG-13 caused in the movie industry), forcing game producers to dumb things down for the valuable 12-18 demographic, and take out gore, and whatnot, will result in there being very few M-rated games.

Re:Here's my suggestion

[Geoffreyerffoeg]

I want all games to be 18+ and available on the shelf until such time as the manufacturer gets a lower rating.

The problem with that (from my POV, which is of course biased) is that a divided or unsure ratings board will automatically choose not to act. If by default that means not giving authorization, fewer games will be authorized. If by default that means giving a high-age rating, games will tend not to have high age requirements unless necessary.

It's human nature. People prefer not to have made a good decision (whatever direction the decision may be) to being responsible for a bad decision. If the default is 18+, they'll feel a lot more comfortable giving M-ratings.

Re:Here's my suggestion

[tepples]

game manufacturers should be able to submit their game to a review board which could hand out classifications for ratings other than 18+.

Then how would an independent development studio afford to pay the review board's fees?

Re:Here's my suggestion

[QuantumG]

Ya know, I never said anything about fees. There should be a tax on games to pay for the board.

Re:Here's my suggestion

[tepples]

Then how would an independent development studio or a distributor of free software afford to pay the tax on distributing games?

Re:Here's my suggestion

[QuantumG]

I ment an end user tax on video games sold in stores. So when Mom and Pop go to the store to buy Billy a video game they have to pay a tax for the pleasure of having a G rating on the game they buy. Seeing as Mom and Pop are the ones demanding that games be rated as suitable for Billy to play, Mom and Pop should pay the tax which helps them make the informed decision what kind of games Billy is allowed to play.

Re:Here's my suggestion

[Alsee]

Okaaaay.... and lets IMPRISON anyone with a website with Linux or any other software for download.

Any you know what? This shouldn't just apply to games. We need to protect kids from pornographic images and text as well. Anyone who publishes a magazine or newspaper must restrict it to 18 and over unless they first get it approved by the ratings board. In fact lets imprison you for publishing your post on here without first getting it approved by a ratings board.

And don't think there's some real fundamental difference between text you post on here and software. I'm a programmer and software is nothing but a text description that happens to use using stricter then normal rules. A text description that a computer happens to be able to understand if you choose to use it that way rather than simply reading it yourself.

-

Re:Here's my suggestion

[Alsee]

Don't we need to protect kids from violent or pornographic images and text? Doesn't this plan equally apply to books and magazines and websites and your own post here on Slashdot?

No one said that people under 18 didn't read. Survey's have shown that the vast majority of readers are adults.

No one is saying that books and magazines and websites should be banned for people under 18. The idea is that if you want people under 18 to be able to read your post, you have to submit it for review.

Review boards wouldn't be necessary for most posts, as they are obviously targetted to adults and could go straight out with a rating of 18+. If a post is meant for a younger audience (or for all ages), it can be submitted and reviewed and then deemed appropriate. This also has the effet of stopping violent and pornographic posts from "slipping thru the cracks."

Yes yes, you wrote a pretty ordinary little text post. However it doesn't matter what you wrote. We would only be imprisoning you for allowing your post to be read by those under 18 without first getting it rated.

Seems pretty reasonable to me.

-

Re:Here's my suggestion

[bmorton]

I understand your point, but I'm not saying that minors should be banned from playing video games. Neither was the grandparent post.

The idea is that the game won't be sold to a minor. If their parents don't mind them playing it, then they can buy it.

That neatly puts the control of what children are playing where it belongs: the parents.

-B

Re:Here's my suggestion

[Alsee]

I understand your point, but I'm not saying that minors should be banned from playing video games. Neither was the grandparent post.

Which I repeated. Minors should not be banned from reading books, magazines, or your post.

The idea is that books, magazines, and your post will not be available to a minor unless it has been properly rated, or with the permission of the parent.

I only suggested they you be imprisoned for making your post available without getting it rated first. That neatly puts the control of what children are playing where it belongs: the parents.

-

Re:Here's my suggestion

[thedustbustr]

Just because a game makes a Teen rating does not imply that the game's target audience is teens.

Errrrr

[schild]

Defecation on people?

I play a _lot_ of games, and I'm pretty sure there's no game out there where you can squat and take a cleveland steamer on someone.

Sure, you can pee on people in Postal 2, but that's surely what they aren't implying, or they would have used the word urinate.

No matter how you slice it, the government's (local and national) obsession with controlling what media our children see is unhealthy. Hell, I don't even know how any lawmakers got it into their head that this is somehow important.

Re:Errrrr

[Koiu Lpoi]

Perhaps they're making stuff up to get this bill passed - or perhaps it's some fetishist game from Japan we've never heard of, but some congressperson's son has.


And, yes, government control of the media IS bad. But we knew that.

Re:Errrrr

[arh9623]

and the nuidity? maybe on some imports again. but come on
oh well
common sence need not apply
or speel cheeckers

Re:Errrrr

[Bios_Hakr]

The "Bubblegum" crew on CounterStrike (mostly on the Tokyo servers) will spraypaint their balls (an actual, hi-rez, digital picture of each player's manberries) on your corpse. I've seen these guys actually sacrifice themselves to jump across a level and spray balls on me.

Another crew has a pic of poop in a urinal (WTF people) as their spray.

So, yes, people do deficate on each other.

Re:Errrrr

[Anonymous Coward]

Yeah, but the Japanese think piss and shit jokes are like, "TEH FUNNIEST THING EVAR" And we wonder why they have "Beware of pervert old man" signs in their subways..

Re:Errrrr

[WaKall]

Anyone who has played Black & White has seen their monster poop after it eats. Depending on how you trained it, it might do this on houses, people, fields, whatever. It's completely innocent in that game though - not like it's scat or anything offensive.

Re:Errrrr

[obeythefist]

In Duke Nukem there's a cutscene where you rip off some bad alien's head and do the proverbial down his throat. Strange but true. I imagine that was they're referring to.

I wouldn't recommend Duke Nukem for kids, and I'm all for classification instead of outright censorship. If you're over 18 and you can buy any game you want to, where's the bad? If you're a kid and you want to play a game that has sex, graphic violence, nudity, whatever in it, perhaps that should be up to your parents to decide whether they want to buy the game for you.

That's a lot better than saying "Well this Superbowl game has a wardrobe malfunction in it, so we can't let anybody on earth see it. We're just going to burn down the warehouses that it's stored in now."

Re:Errrrr

[slavemowgli]

Spraypainting (I assume you are talking about bottled paint in spraycans... right?) is not defecating, though. And even if the crews actually *did* defecate on you, that wouldn't be the fault of the game, much like it isn't the fault of the game (or, for that matter, the game manufacturer) when you *say* things to other people in a multiplayer game that might be considered offensive.

Re:Errrrr

[Flyboy Connor]

I play a _lot_ of games, and I'm pretty sure there's no game out there where you can squat and take a cleveland steamer on someone.

But it would make a fun sequel to Katamari Damacy (sp?). You start as a tiny beetle, who lays tiny little turds, which you try to dump on ants. And you transfer through different stages -- you become a mouse who dumps on beetles, a bird who soils statues, a rabbit who lets people slip on tiny marbles, etc. -- until you reach the final goal: you become a huge mammoth who completely COVERS people in poo! I would play that!

Re:Errrrr

[mausmalone]

I think that if he's talking about stuff like that and graphic nudity, he's talking about games clearly labeled Adults Only. To see how much this plague of bad taste was corrupting the youth of America, I went to the ESRB site and compiled a list of all Adults Only games:

All Nude Glamour
All Nude Nikki
All Nude Cyber
Body Language
Cyber Photographer
Crystal Fantasy
Critical Point
Leisure Suit Larry: Magna Cum Laude Uncut and Uncensored
Playboy Screensaver: The Women of Playboy
Peak Entertainment Casinos
Riana Rouge
Singles
Snow Drop
The Joy of Sex (CDI)
Tokimeki Checkin!
Wet - The Sexy Empire
Water Closet: The Forbiidden Chamber
X-Change

Some of you may recognize some of those titles from various Something Awful hentai game reviews. I've noted also that the only AO title on a console is "The Joy of Sex" for the Philips CDI, which is a digital version of the classic 1979 book by the same title which is considered to be both in good taste and respectable as a serious look at sex.

Also worth noting for its oddity value, there are exactly 18 games intended only for people over 18. :P Also worth noting is that most video game stores won't touch these games and that the only way to get them is online directly from the publisher.

The reason that congreess people are so up-in-arms about this is because there are 3 sides to this issue. Pro regulation: You think that video game violence is dispicable and the sexual content is deplorable, even though you've never played a video game nor have you ever seen any of this content you're so enraged at. Anti regulation: You think that the industry is doing a good job of regulating itself. You play games and if you have children, you monitor what they play and consider the ESRB ratings before making any purchase. Apathetic: They're just games... who cares?

What makes lawmakers so fervent about this is that the type of people who are for regulation call them and write them constantly to make sure it happens. People who are anti-regulation write reactionary articles and either post them online or send them to the lawmakers, but since the lawmaker doesn't want to look like a "flip flopper," they refuse to change their stance. And the vast majority of people are apathetic on the subject, so even though they really aren't calling for regulation, nobody notices because they're not saying anything at all.

Re:Errrrr

[justforaday]

I play a _lot_ of games, and I'm pretty sure there's no game out there where you can squat and take a cleveland steamer on someone.

You're just not playing these games with the right people. Oh, and BTW, it's not a videogame (unless someone's filming it)... :p

Re:Errrrr

[lgw]

A "spray" in CounterStrike is indeed much like paint in a spraycan - the player hit a key and the wall or other surface is marked with an abitrary image. It's up to the individual server to police this, based on the community they want. There is no "ball spray" feature of the game, so your point is quite valid.

If there were a game where the game designers actually put the ability to defecate on someone into the game *as sold*, I could see the point of the objectors, but I've never heard of one.

Re:Errrrr

[pyrrhonist]

Anyone who has played Black & White has seen their monster poop after it eats. Depending on how you trained it, it might do this on houses, people, fields, whatever.

It's worse: Your monster can be trained to throw poop and eat poop. Sometimes it learns it on its own without training.

Re:Errrrr

[__aaclcg7560]

Another crew has a pic of poop in a urinal (WTF people) as their spray.

That's probably in reference to one Counter-Strike level that has a toliet with a turd in it. Shoot the turd, the toliet explodes. Bathroom humor. Heh-heh...

Re:Errrrr

[Alsee]

Hell, I don't even know how any lawmakers got it into their head that this is somehow important.

Because it can get on the news and because they can say that their opponent SUPPORTS it because they aren't trying to pass a law against it.

-

Re:Errrrr

[Money for Nothin']

Are you retarded? You did not cite an example of 1 person defecating on another. Re-read your own statements:

The "Bubblegum" crew on CounterStrike (mostly on the Tokyo servers) will spraypaint their balls (an actual, hi-rez, digital picture of each player's manberries) on your corpse. I've seen these guys actually sacrifice themselves to jump across a level and spray balls on me.

Pictures of men's balls are not pictures of shit. There is thus no poop contained in the picture, negating the possibility of person-on-person defecation.

Another crew has a pic of poop in a urinal (WTF people) as their spray.

Here you cite an example of poop in the picture, but there are no people in the picture -- again, without both entities in the picture, you cannot logically say that there is person-on-person defecation.

So, yes, people do deficate on each other.

According to your own 2 cited Counterstrike examples, no, this does not occur.

Find an example of person-on-person shitting in a video game, then I'll agree. Until then, you haven't proven anything.

Re:Errrrr

[Bios_Hakr]

Listen, tool, if a render character in a game is standing over the rendered corpse of another character and you see rendered poop on the ground (that occoured as a direct result of the former of the two characters) that constitutes pooping in the game.

Re:Errrrr

[Money for Nothin']

if a render character in a game is standing over the rendered corpse of another character and you see rendered poop on the ground (that occoured as a direct result of the former of the two characters) that constitutes pooping in the game.

And in which game does this occur?

The "problem" of person-on-person defecation in video games requires at least 3 entities in the scene for the scene to occur:

* Player 1
* Poop
* Player 2

In each of your examples, you were missing one of those elements. Again, you wrote:

The "Bubblegum" crew on CounterStrike (mostly on the Tokyo servers) will spraypaint their balls (an actual, hi-rez, digital picture of each player's manberries) on your corpse. I've seen these guys actually sacrifice themselves to jump across a level and spray balls on me.

Balls != poop. Thus, poop is the missing entity from this example.

Your second example was:

Another crew has a pic of poop in a urinal (WTF people) as their spray.

Here you have the poop. But you are missing the other 2 entities (the 2 players) from the scene. Moreover, the poop is not being placed on other players, but rather, it is placed in a urinal, and further, this scene is contained in a spraypaint picture -- *not* as a set of character animations within Counterstrike.

Thus, when you use those 2 examples as claims of people pooping on each other in video games, as you did in the following:

So, yes, people do deficate on each other.

I can't help but think you are incapable of accurately relating objects in a given scene. God help us all if you ever take the witness stand in a jury trial, because if your understanding of object relationships and your reasoning ability were as bad as you've demonstrated here, the chain of case law would be FUBAR (were it not, thankfully, for lawyers and judges who are trained to sort out nonsensical thought such as that which you've described).

It all went down hill...

[vistic]

...after Custer's Revenge for the Atari 2600.

No more than other media...

[gimpynerd]

Seems to me video games should not be regulated any more than movies or music. If children playing mature video games is a problem then it is their parents' problem not the government's.

Re:No more than other media...

[BoomerSooner]

Common sense need not apply in America. Everyone will blame someone else for their problems before they look in the mirror. That is why it is so easy to be successful in this world. The only leg up you need is drive to succeed, the desire to keep trying until the day you die, and the ability to see your faults and improve upon them.

Lesson on how to succeed:
If you fail, try again. Repeat.

I've worked for 5-6 failed businesses before getting sick of it. I am on my 3rd company and it will succeed or fail. Either way I'm going to start another business. My 1st failed due to inexperience, 2nd is breaking even which means I don't make any money and get to work on it for free, 3rd is slowly taking off and looks like I'll recoup my investment by the end of the year.

I'd rather make $20,000 a year working for myself 80 hours a week than take shit off some dipshit manager for $70,000. Life's to short to work with assholes. At least when I'm the boss the blame is valid when it stops at my feet. Now if my employee's weren't so expensive!

Re:No more than other media...

[gimpynerd]

If you want a funny take on your philosophy on how to succeed then look at my site. Kind of coincidental. But I agree with you. I plan to start my own company. It gives you much more freedom to do what you think is necessary and there is no one to hold you back.

Re:No more than other media...

[Bios_Hakr]

Movies and music are (somewhat) regulated. And it should be so. Basicly, nothing Il does will prevent you from playing a game you want. Wal-Mart may not carry it anymore, but you shouldn't shop there anyway. You can still buy Doom3 at EB or online with no problem.

This will prevent 13yo boys from giggling each other to death while playing Vampire: Bloodlines.

And it should be that way.

People need to understand that parents cannot possible watch their kids 100% of the time. It just isn't feasable. The best we can do is to teach them well and hope they make the right choices when we aren't around.

Unfortunately, not every parent teaches their kid properly (whatever that is) and peer-pressure is very strong.

Remove cigiratte laws and kids will smoke.

Remove CD warning labels and kids will listen to fiddicent singing about shooting 2pack and fucking his mom.

Remove MPAA ratings and kids will end up watching violent movies.

Why not limit the avalibility of HL2 to prevent 13yo boys from fragging each other?

I know most people say that watching something or doing it virtually will not cause it to happen in real life. I tend to agree.

Most kids will never shoot an AWP into a crowd. But how many of them will call women "bitches" and "hos"? Kids may never do battle with the legions of hell, but how many will think of shooting a gun as "cool"?

A good quote (badly paraphrased) is: Thoughts lead to actions. Actions lead to habits. Habits build your character.

This law should prevent kids from playing violent games in the same way that it prevents them from seeing a violent movie. It won't be 100% effective, but it'll help when the parents can't be there. And this law will never prevent you from buying violent games, cigirattes, girls gone wild, or anything else that adults generally enjoy.

Re:No more than other media...

[macrom]

I know most people say that watching something or doing it virtually will not cause it to happen in real life. I tend to agree. Most kids will never shoot an AWP into a crowd. But how many of them will call women "bitches" and "hos"? Kids may never do battle with the legions of hell, but how many will think of shooting a gun as "cool"? A good quote (badly paraphrased) is: Thoughts lead to actions. Actions lead to habits. Habits build your character.

I used to not put a whole lot of weight into the rating of games. Until I got married last summer and was suddenly tasked with making parental judgements for 2 young stepsons, 8 and 10. We played mostly Gamecube games, but eventually my wife and I bought them a PS2 and started with Jak & Daxter, Sly Cooper, etc. Then it became Ratchet and Clank, Jak II (both rated 'T', both slightly violent). Then came the phone calls from the teachers. Both kids were talking back, pushing other kids, throwing things on the playground, etc. We took away all but Mario Party and saw results almost overnight. It was then that I became a believer that video games CAN change the way children behave. I can only imagine what changes take place when kids play 'M'-rated games from the time they are 13 and younger.

And before you respond to say, "It's just your kids that have a problem", we have talked with other parents at school and in the neighborhood and they all have seen the same thing. The more the kids play games with violence (even cartoon violence), the worse their behavior.

Note: I am COMPLETELY against censorship. If you want to shoot cops, rape prostitutes and mow down aliens with rocket launchers in a video game, be my guest. But any tools that the government can provide that help us raise respectable children are welcome by me, and I'm sure many, many other American parents.

Re:No more than other media...

[Anonymous Coward]

Thoughts lead to actions...

So, the state should control thought to prevent bad actions from developing into bad habits?

I see your point, but I disagree with the premise.

Parents raise children. The state enables parents via governance - it does not mandate how they are to be raised. If you want to know what state-raised kids are like, check out the Illinois Department of Child and Family Serivces - a google search will give lots of news stories, virtually all terrible.

State != fit parent. And, I would even generalize to add, EVER.

Re:No more than other media...

[mausmalone]

You have to understand that there's really only one fatal flaw in all game regulation legislation that we all rail against. The laws can be made good in theory, but in practice they're all legislative turds.

Yes, movies and music are regulated.... but the movie ratings and the parental advisory labels are all generated from within the industry, not from the government. The act of peer review allows for a quality assessment of the product and a determination on the character by a group of people who are knowledgeable enough to do so. It also allows for an ever-changing standard that matches the cultural mindest as it evolves.

Every piece of video game regulation legislation has tried to codify which content is "good" and which content is "bad," and this is where they all inevetably fail. Allowing the government to decide which content is good and bad is a quick and ugly way to invite in propoganda (which, while a worst-case-scenario, it must be considered when you have a legal system that works off precedent). A law that, while I may not get behind it, I could live with it, would ban the sale of games to minors that are judged by a peer review process to be unsuitable for children, and also have a caveat for MA17 titles and 17 year olds.

By the way,... the law does not prevent kids from seeing violent movies at all. The only legislation of age regulation in the movie industry is the prohibition of selling pornography to minors. Everything else is handled by the industry itself via the MPAA. And the next time you think it's working so well... go get a kid to go into any non-video-game store and buy an R rated movie... you'll realize quickly that they only ever check that when you go to a theater and that nobody really cares on the home video side of things. The reason nobody's up in arms about it is that movies have been around so long that something goes off in our brain when someone says "movies make you do bad things" that says "what a load of horse shit!" Those of us who have been playing games for decades now have that same alarm going off in our heads now.

Re:No more than other media...

[obsid1an]

Except there is no law stopping a kid from seeing or purchasing a violent movie. There is no law stopping a kid from buying a CD with explicit lyrics. There is a law for cigarettes but that is only because there is serious physical health affects. If anything, video games are easier to regulate by the parents than both movies and music. They are generally much more expensive, and they must be played at a house. No, we don't need a law for this. The rating is as clear as light and day on the package. We could use better regulation by the stores themselves but that is improving too. Heck, it is still easy enough for a kid to buy CDs with explicit lyrics. It doesn't mean we need a law passed about it.

Re:No more than other media...

[DerWulf]

I shouldn't shop there? I should shop where ever the hell I want! And I should be able to buy whatever I want and the retailer be able to sell whatever they want to carry. Its a little thing called liberty, people died over it. Where in this equation is the single responsible variable, the parents? THEY should regulate what their kids get to see and not see.

Re:No more than other media...

[Anonymous Coward]

But shooting a gun is cool. My parents never had them but sometimes they'd go shooting with us kids when our Uncles or Grandpa would do it. I like shooting guns. I'm not too knowledgable about them in regards to names and such, but I know enough that shooting a bottle on the side of an embankment way out in the boonies or at a gun range is ok. I know not to shoot into the air or ever point the gun at someone even if I think it's empty. I will take my kids to go shooting someday unless they don't like it.

I know one guy who has a whole collection of guns. The boy scouts wanted him to bring them so they could earn some merit badges and he did with the condition that his 9 yr old daughter got to come. She was a better shot and more responsible than some of the 15 year olds. Why one might ask? Because from an early age she learned to respect the power of the gun. She learned about them from a guy who knows their power, not from some game or movie where they always hold the 9mm sideways and say "I'm gonna pop a cap in you @$$!" and whose parents think guns are nothing but spawns of Satan. Not all parents have guns. But kids who play those games, which I do and did, can still have parents who teach them the differences between right and wrong.

Re:No more than other media...

[ElleyKitten]

Movies and music are (somewhat) regulated. And it should be so.

And games are regulated too, almost exactly like movies are. This law will either be completely ineffectial, or, like simular laws, will be too confusing to enforce (what counts as excessive violence?). Basically, it's a complete waste of time.

Re:No more than other media...

[lgw]

The ages of your children are key here (younger than the 'teen' the games were rated for). This is why the existing rating system is pretty good. There's a *lot* of content in games that's not at all appropriate for a 7-year-old, but perfectly fine for a 14-year-old.

I still don't see the need for a law, however, any more than we have a law enforcing PG-13 movie ratings. Unless this is purely focused on X-rated games, of which there are only a handful.

Re:No more than other media...

[Anonymous Coward]

Then came the phone calls from the teachers. Both kids were talking back, pushing other kids, throwing things on the playground, etc. We took away all but Mario Party and saw results almost overnight.

Or it could have been that you were disciplining them for their bad behavior. An equivalent punishment may have resulted in the same outcome.

A lot of people say that spankings kept them in line then they were kids. But does that mean a lack of regular pain can lead to bad behavior?

Re:No more than other media...

[mobby_6kl]

>This law should prevent kids from playing violent games in the same way that it prevents them from seeing a violent movie.
No laws prohibit kids from viewing movies. Yes, I started from the end, but it looked like the main idea.

>This will prevent 13yo boys from giggling each other to death while playing Vampire: Bloodlines.
Yeah, that's right. Giggling is a no-no.

>Remove cigiratte laws and kids will smoke.
Of course, because with these laws kids don't smoke....

>but how many will think of shooting a gun as "cool"?
Many of those who never played a video game think that shooting is cool. And how is the quote even relevant? You think about killing people, you kill people, again, again, and again, and you've got a habit of killing people. If this happens in a game, you're a "gamer". If this happens in real life, you're a "serial killer".

That's a fraction of what I wanted to point out, but I don't have the whole week. This should be enough for now. To sum it up:

-1, Bullshit.

Re:No more than other media...

[snuf23]

"Remove CD warning labels and kids will listen to fiddicent singing about shooting 2pack and fucking his mom."

I don't know about that - when I was kid and they introduced labeling it just made it easier to figure out what music would be good for pissing your parents off.

Re:No more than other media...

[Bios_Hakr]

The ratings are clear, but retailers do not honor them. I've seen stores that wouldn't sell Marilon Manson CDs but carried Doom3. WTF, people?

If the market would push for good internal controls, then lawmakers would keep out.

Re:No more than other media...

[Bios_Hakr]

Parents cannot watch their kids 100% of the time.

Retailers should be able to carry whatever they want. However, it the package is marked "T for Teen", they shouldn't sell it to a 12yo. If it's "M", they shouldn't sell it to anyone under 18.

And no, if you are American and you love liberty, you shouldn't shop WalMart. WalMart forces their suppliers to offshore to China so they can reduce costs. They encourage wage reductions and overlook atrocious working conditions. WalMart means fewer American jobs, higher trade deficits, and less liberty for overseas workers.

Search for the WalMart/Rubbermaid story if you are interested.

Re:No more than other media...

[Bios_Hakr]

I remember tons of congressional hearings to get the music industry to regulate itself.

In my home town, a retailer was arrested for selling "Luke Skywalker" CDs.

Today, it's much better. The industry stamps labels on it's merchendise and the retailers can choose to carry it or not.

People can shoose to buy it, but they have to meet age requirements. Parents who buy it (hopefully) see the warnings.

The games industry is in chaos now. There are reccomendations, but no enforcement. Even the reccomendations are fucked.

As I was typing this, I saw a commercial for "Fight Night", an EA boxing title. The commercial shows close-ups of boxers bashing the shit out of each other. Rated "T for Teen". WTF guys? You'd let a 13yo play a game where the point is to violently bash the shit out of someone?

Maybe lawmakers should step in.

Re:No more than other media...

[Alsee]

A good quote (badly paraphrased) is: Thoughts lead to actions. Actions lead to habits. Habits build your character.

Well at least your honest. There are not many people will the balls to come right out and advocate government engage in thought control.

By the way, you should be in prison for making your post available to those under 18. It was not first rated for under 18 approval. It could have contained explicit sexual text, or even a link to Goatse. It does not matter that your post did not contain any graphic sex or violence, the crime was making an unrated post available to minors.

-

Re:No more than other media...

[ElleyKitten]

Retailers should be able to carry whatever they want. However, it the package is marked "T for Teen", they shouldn't sell it to a 12yo. If it's "M", they shouldn't sell it to anyone under 18.

Teen games are rated for 13 year olds. The difference between 12 and 13 isn't that much, and how is a store clerk supposed to know they're 12 and not 13? Also, Mature games are rated for 17 and up, not 18 and up.

Re:No more than other media...

[DerWulf]

Yeah, its still their fault if their kid screws up in the remaining 2% of the time. It's called 'upbringing' and makes sure that the kid respects certain rules all the time. Some should try it.

No, maybe I'm a liberty loving chinese, just got my job with a WM supplier and thats working out so well that I can finally afford a computer to confont protecionists like yourself. Liberty is not just for you. The owners of companies have the same liberties as you, free association, free speech, free travel. No one has the right to job, a certain wage or certain labour conditions, though. Think about it and stop high jacking key concepts.

peer 2 peer

[Neo-Rio-101]

Sure, they can ban the sale to minors in order to prevent children buying games with questionable content..... .....but they can't stop kids getting these games from P2P, and they can't stop their parents buying it for them.

Re:peer 2 peer

[keeleysam]

or buying online like I do :-D

PS: Im under 18 and in IL

Re:peer 2 peer

[PyroMosh]

How do you pay for them online? Credit card? Don't you technically need to be 18 for that too? Or if you use your parents' isn't that basicly keeping you from buying something they wouldn't approve of anyway?

Just curious.

It's about time...

[robw810]

Yeah, it's about time the government figured out that all of us citizens are too ignorant to make our own decisions. We don't know what's best for us, and we certainly don't want any personal accountability involved. It's easier if they make all of the important decisions for us...
/sarcasm

I for one am sick and tired of living in a nanny state. Government's only legitimate function is to secure individual rights; unless someone else's rights are being infringed upon, government has no legitimate interest.

RW

Re:It's about time...

[aztektum]

The funniest thing is they say "they make a lot of money selling to your kids." Immediately I picture parents totally unaware of what their kids are doing. And secondly, it wasn't until I got a job in high school that I could afford them. So who is REALLY buying these games, is it really the kids or ignorant, lazy parents?

Re:It's about time...

[obeythefist]

It's more complicated than that. You can't have 8 year old kids going out and buying alcohol, cigarettes, Playboy magazine, whatever. Sure, 90% or better of the underage population wouldn't be interested anyway, but that isn't exactly the point. 8 year old kids shouldn't go out and buy Playboy:The Mansion, either, and not just because it's an awful game.

Alcohol is a serious drug and it can cause serious problems. Likewise, some explicit material just isn't right for people under 18 to get involved in. It really isn't. So how do you ensure that people under 18 can't access this material? What's your solution?

Are you seriously advocating that explicit material should be available to young children?

The solution suggested is one I consider to be the only workable scenario. As an adult, I can get whatever computer games, alcohol, cigarettes, whatever I want to get, I'm entitled to go out and get it. People who are too young for these things just have to wait, like I had to wait before I could legally buy alcohol.

But you seem to think that this is a bad idea. Okay then, I'll throw down the gauntlet. What's your solution? How do you make these products available to people who are emotionally mature enough for them, whilst preventing their availabilty to people who aren't grown up enough for them?

Re:It's about time...

[Anonymous Coward]

Likewise, some explicit material just isn't right for people under 18 to get involved in. It really isn't.

Why not?

Please explain. If possible, cite studies published in peer-reviewed journals which support your position. It would help if you would be kind enough justify your blanket assertion in the face of different cultural norms around the world.

The question I would like you to answer is this:

Given that the legal age of consent in most parts of the world (including many states of the USA) is below 18, meaning that many minors can quite legally participate in any sexual activity they choose, why should it be illegal for them to look at pictures of other people doing the same things?

Are you seriously advocating that explicit material should be available to young children?

No, actually. But I consider "young children" to mean under-12s, not under-18s.

Re:It's about time...

[DerWulf]

what is wrong with sex anyway? Is it corrupting? I mean, as an adult, do you feel you need to struggle against dark forces whenever 'its on'? What exactly is wrong with a 10 year old seeing a *OMG* vagina? Oh wait, you said it 'it jut nod riuurght!!!111!!'. I guess that justifies giving the freaking government (! never trust your government, don't you people remember anything?) control over media content.

Re:It's about time...

[antifoidulus]

It's the ignorant, lazy parents who give their kids gobs of money then drop them off at the mall alone for the day and don't really care what they get there, as long as they aren't complaining.

I think the biggest problem in American education today is that kids expected to be handed everything, they don't want to work for anything. I paid my own way through college, and 30+ hour weeks of work while doing 18 credits of CS and engineering really blew, but I am glad that I did it. It REALLY imprinted on me the value of education and hard work. I see a lot of rich kids who go totally crazy in college and end up dropping out/dying/getting a girl pregnant etc. and having to live off mommy and daddy the rest of their lives......

Re:It's about time...

[Shadow99_1]

I work retail (in fact I head the game department at my stoe) and I can tell you it's the stupid lazy-ass parents buying them in the first place. 7 year old don't come up to me with cash in hand to buy GTA: San Andreas... No the parent comes up to me with cash in hand to buy GTA: San Andreas for their 7 year old kid.

I've never had a kid under 15 try to buy a Mature rated title from me. Most no we wouldn't sell it to them anyways as part of our corporate policy to look 'family oriented'. Now above 15, well I'm sure some have tried and some have probably suceeded... We are supposed to check ID for anyone under (visually) the age of 21... Which works til you try to figure out what a 21 year old is supposed to look like and then is demolished by people getting annoyed by having to have ID to buy games...

A state bitching about things like this won't help unless they ban the sales of games, rather than trying to enforce a ban on the sale to minors... Every company I know of already has a ploicy not to sell to minors and we know from the efforts of TV news programs to expose the sale of mature rated titles to minors that some due happen... I dont' see a law changing that...

Re:It's about time...

[patternjuggler]

I for one am sick and tired of living in a nanny state

Then go join the political party that isn't in power- you'll find plenty of company complaining about not only whatever the ruling party is doing but also that the government shouldn't be involved in doing that thing pro or con at all. But as soon as your minority party wins the next election they'll forget all that BS they told you they were about and start spending money like crazy and enacting new laws to extend the role of government into aspects of your life that had been overlooked before.

Re:It's about time...

[robw810]

Perhaps if you were aware of the existence of political parties (note plurality) that aren't in power, you would reasonable conclude that I am already a member of one.

While it is certainly possible that my political party would enact "new laws to extend the role of government," and "start spending money like crazy," it's highly unlikely considering the fact that my party is the Libertarian Party.

In essense, you're wrong; however, we wouldn't want to ruin your pleasing visions.

Praise be to the state, amen.

RW

Re:It's about time...

[antifoidulus]

s00tfajl;fjkdflakndalwdfnk q3oerfhjiq3oretijwerogfneognwor[ijweelgkjaeelfgkja eglgajssdvl;akjsdfaldfjasldfjasdl;fkjadflawjieoieg nqeeorginjocompressthisjslfkjasdflnkaoefijqwoerijq woe0rjq3weoinogvead fovaendfgaoerntfjhq30erijqi3owtrn23t0n230tgn23oi24 wnejofg23nirgoeifgnwsnfg2q3oijtr1o23ijrwlekjfqawl; kdfjadf;alkdsjfa;slkdjfa;slkdjf;alksdfjnq3woejnrfq eo[wirqoe[iwjrw[oqeirgjf0w[4io3jgf[0wqeoirjtfq039u jrt09243igrj4ntmtgvow4ingr0o[3whjrtg0o234jirt039wr f0pjrterwfj

Getting my goat

[tsm_sf]

What would you call a hybrid scapegoat/bandwagon... I like GoatWagon. Senators with too much free time on their hands will jump on any goatwagon "for the children". (This stuff practically writes itself, folks.)

Re:Getting my goat

[Anonymous Coward]

In Soviet Russia, GoatWagons like you!

Re:Getting my goat

[Anonymous Coward]

I call it the american inquisition. Not many expects that one either.

Re:Getting my goat

[Ender Ryan]

That is definately an instant classic post if I ever saw one.

defecation!

[\\]

Whoa, whoa.. "defecation on people"? There's a Veronica Moser of video games? Someone is going around Mosering (or Tobias Beechering, maybe) people in video games?

WHY DID NO ONE INFORM ME OF THIS EARLIER?

Re:defecation!

[Anonymous Coward]

I was thinking, "There's a tubgirl game?"

Re:defecation!

[slavemowgli]

"Tobias Beechering"? I'm almost scared to ask Google about that... o.o

Re:defecation!

[Anonymous Coward]

It's not that bad. He's a character on "Oz". From that page (emphasis mine):

Tobias Beecher, the mild mannered inmate with no street skills. Formally a lawyer on the outside, Tobias Beecher was originally bunked with Simon Adebisi. After chatting with Verne Shillinger who seemed to be genuine in trying to help Beecher, he requested to be moved to Shillinger's bunk. Beecher wold soon realize he had been decieved by the leader of the Aryan Brotherhood. That night Shillinger burned a swatsika into Beecher's backside. Tobias befriended Ryan O'Reily, when O'Reily asked him to look over his case to see if there is any possibility for him to appeal his verdict. Beecher was exposed to heroin via O'Reily and subsequently became an addict. Beecher continued to be Shillinger's prag through most of the first season, but everything that Verne did to Beecher, or had Beecher do, along with the heroin in his system caused him to snap and break the plane of glass in Shillinger's room with a chair, thus injuring one of Shillinger's eyes. When Tobias was released from the hole and Shillinger from the hospital another confrontation took place in which Beecher deficated on Verne's face. Beecher's "Take No Sh*t" attitude continued through the remainder of the season.

Re:"for the children"

[robw810]

Wonderful point there...

Any time I hear "it's for the children," "the elderly," "less fortunate," "disabled," or some other emotional plea for support of some legislation, I always think:
This legislation must be pretty bad if it can't support itself without blind emotional pleas...

RW

Nudity?

[Leveler of Nations]

There's vivid pictures of nudity.

Where's thier evidence? I've been looking for something to pirate recently.

Re:Nudity?

[ZephyrXero]

yeah...there's maybe like 4 games with nudity in them, and time they all clearly state "Rated M - Age 17+"

Re:Nudity?

[xgamer04]

Pretty much, um, nothing you can buy at Best Buy. There are some places online that sell Japanese hentai games, but they are all filled with disclaimers YOU MUST BE OF AGE and stuff...

GoatWagon sounds good.

[DeanMeister]

This is just getting ridiculous. If the government spent half as much time getting guns off the street and making weapons unavailable to kids then half our problems would be solved right there. And I'd really like somone to point out this "defecation" game for me. If no one in this community has heard of it it's probably a terrible game anyway. Maybe game's like Grand Theft Auto wouldn't exist if they didn't have real world models to go off of. Maybe you should focus on that instead of blaming games for bringing violence to your attention.

Re:GoatWagon sounds good.

[robw810]

You contradict yourself... On one hand, you don't want government punishing YOU for someone else's bad decisions, yet you DO want government to punish ME for someone else's bad decisions.

Instead of making sure that all potential crime victims are unarmed and thus unable to resist, perhaps we should punish those who commit ACTUAL crimes (you know, things which violate the rights of another human being).

A law abiding citizen carrying a concealed (or not) firearm violates nobody's rights.

RW

Re:GoatWagon sounds good.

[patternjuggler]

If the government spent half as much time getting guns off the street and making weapons unavailable to kids then half our problems would be solved right there.

Interestingly, if you google 'Rod Blagojevich' the first site is ilinois.gov and the top story at that site is about the creation of anti-gun-smuggling police units, which occurred several days before this videogame law. They've got their priorities straight, but the threshold at which lower priority items get made into legislation or not needs to be raised.

This reminds me...

[illuminatedwax]

When does "Defecator 3" come out?

Re:This reminds me...

[Celestial Avenger]

Around the same time as "Responsibility Dodgers II: The Parents' Trump Card"

I don't understand...

[Anonymous Coward]

I don't understand why people who's kids buy games they don't approve of don't just stop giving their kids $50 and letting them go to the video game store unsupervised.

No!

[SoulMaster]

The industry does not need to be "policed". Parents need to be policed. Can't parents in Illinois control their kids?

Damn whiny dems.

I have 10 bucks that says this crap actually passes and wastes our precious $ on its way to the Supreme Court, which of course, will over turn it.

Ladies and Gentlemen of the Illinois Congress, meet Foresight.

Re:No!

[HeadCrash]

Actually, the parents need smacked upside the head and told that they're supposed to be a parent, not their kid's "best friend". They need to be told that they're supposed to keep an eye on their kids, not just plop them in front of the TV/video game/internet and let that be their babysitter. And most important of all, they need to be told that they WILL be held responsible for not only their own actions but also their kids' actions - the kid must have gotten the money to rent/buy the game from somewhere, after all...

And yeah, I'd give even odds that this will end up in the supreme court, where it will hopefully get shot down...

...damn whiny-ass politicians...

Re:No!

[SoulMaster]

Right there with you, friend.

Re:No!

[emidln]

I agree with almost all of your argument, but some kids do work for their money. When I had money, it was because I worked for it. I know a lot of people in the same boat. Holding parents responsible is one thing, but what you propose could potentially hold parents responsible for raising hardworking kids.

Re:No!

[Anonymous Coward]

Can't parents in Illinois control their kids? Of course not! They're liberals who think spanking their kids and censoring content is some how a human rights violation.

Re:No!

[snuf23]

Do you have kids? More importantly were you ever a kid?
My parents couldn't keep me from sneaking out of my bedroom when everyone was asleep to catch some boobies on Cinemax. My parents couldn't prevent me from listening to explicit songs on my walkman. My parents couldn't prevent any manner of material I was exposed to through my friends as well.
There is a limit to the amount of policing a parent can do. Especially in the case of young adults and teenagers who have a need for privacy. Instilling good values in your kids and developing a sense of trust an openness is paramount.
I don't advocate over legislation but retailers SHOULD be refusing to sell M rated games to minors just as much as a movie theater should refuse to sell tickets to an R rated movie to a minor. Is that such a big deal?
I'm an adult and I want to be able to play entertainment targetted at me. Complete with bad words and hell defecation if it is plot appropriate (see "OZ" on HBO). I'm not going to load up GTA and teach my kid to get health from a prostitute and then kill her to recoup the cash however.

Re:No!

[Anonymous Coward]

Dems?

How about dumbass Bush-supporting evangelical redneckers who think the Govt. needs to push their form of morality on everyone else?

The Republicans are the worst at that sort of thing - don't try to make this out to be a Democrat only thing. They weren't the lying, hypocritical sons-of-bitches campaigning on "family values" while selling out the environment and everything else.

Patheitc

[HeavyK]

This law is so vague it would essenially ban minors from buying football games, World War 2 themed shooters or even RPGs because they contain realistic depictions of human on human violence.
If this law was extended to cover movies, music and books also it would essenically (sp?) outlaw the sale of the Bible or Star Wars films to minors. Pretty pathetic.

Re:Patheitc

[Suddenly_Dead]

Do you have a link to the proposed law? I'm curious to read the text, but I can't locate it.

Re:Patheitc

[HeavyK]

Go to this website: http://www.ilga.gov/legislation/default.asp Then on the left hand corner of the screen is a thing called "Search by Number". In the blank space right below it type "HB4023" without the quotes. Then in the top left hand corner click "Full Text". Sorry i couldn't find a direct link that could work.

Re:Patheitc

[Suddenly_Dead]

No problem with a bit of typing. Thanks.

Re:Patheitc

[obeythefist]

I wouldn't recommend the bible to any child. Just look at what's been done in the world in the name of it.

Likewise, there are some who believe that Star Wars is becoming less appropriate for not only children, but for people in genereal.

Re:Patheitc

[Anonymous Coward]

I wouldn't recommend the bible to any child. Just look at what's been done in the world in the name of it.

Just look at what's been done in the world in the name of democracy. Look at the lovely People's Democratic Republic of Korea, for example. Based on their example, I say we should abolish democracy, it's a horrible and oppressive system!

Or is that somehow different? Pray, do explain why bastardising the bible means religion is evil, but bastardising democracy does not affect the status of democracy at all. I'm panting to hear you justify your irrational prejudices...

Re:Patheitc

[RsG]

>Or is that somehow different? Pray, do explain why bastardising the bible means religion is evil, but bastardising democracy does not affect the status of democracy at all. I'm panting to hear you justify your irrational prejudices...

Becasue we have these wonderful examples of democracys that work, and work well. How many of the most prosperous and least oppresive countries are democratic? Name one first world dictatorship today. Bastardizing democracy is outweighted by _real_ democracy, and you'd have to be a huge cynic to believe that the evils perpetrated by "democratic" governments outweight the good.

Can the same be said of christianity? The guy you responded to wasn't talking about religion in general, he was talking about _a_ religion. I can think of countless evils perpetrated by people who follow the bible, but I'm drawing a blank on the good. Sorry but, for me at least, Falwel, Chick et all outweight the nice lady down at the soup kitchen. And that's only living christians, dont even look at the historic examples of theocracy and holy war. For everyone who's wise enough to turn the other cheek, there are too many jerks who use their religion as an excuse to display the worst of human nature.

There are good christians and bad christians, there are good democracys and bad ones, but you will have to show me how the good christians measure up to the good democracys. I can already see for myself how the bad christians compare to the bad democacys.

Re:Patheitc

[Alsee]

outlaw the sale of the Bible

Damn, I was all fired up to fight this horrible stupid evil law, and then someone has to come along and point out such a tempting side effect. Yes, it's still a horrible evil stupid law, but man.... that would almost make it worth it.

Oh, and no one go ranting about Christian bashing either. I'm sure the Koran and Torah and the rest contain comparable sexual and/or violent content. They'd all be available on the same rack, right next to Playboy and Hustler and all the other Mature Content literature.

-

Parents can't distribute either?

[Suddenly_Dead]

From the previous Slashdot article: ...He seeks to impose legislation that will prohibit the distribution, sale, rental and availability of mature video games to children younger than 18...

It sounds as though this does not apply only to retailers, but to parents as well. I'm not going to say the obvious about how parents should be parenting their children and not the government, but this is still interesting.

And what constitutes "Mature"? I've played M rated games in my youth (pre-teen and near there), such as Goldeneye and Perfect Dark on the N64. I'm certainly not any the worse for it, I quite detest violence myself. Now if it was Postal 2 on the other hand...

Re:Parents can't distribute either?

[servognome]

Doesn't affect parents. From the Bill:
Sec. 12A-20. Affirmative defenses. In any prosecution
21 arising under this Article, it is an affirmative defense:
22 (1) that the defendant was a family member of the minor for
23 whom the game was purchased. "Family member" for the purpose of
24 this Section, includes a parent, sibling, grandparent, aunt,
25 uncle, or first cousin;
Of course the definition of "Violence" is way too vague... I guess Madden or any boxing game is "Mature" game because it allows serious physical harm to another human being
30 (e) "Violent" video games include depictions of or
31 simulations of human-on-human violence in which the player
32 kills, seriously injures, or otherwise causes serious physical
33 harm to another human, including but not limited to depictions
1 of death, dismemberment, amputation, decapitation, maiming,
2 disfigurement, mutilation of body parts, or rape.

Re:Parents can't distribute either?

[shadowzero313]

Goldeneye was rated Teen, PD was Mature. Hell, Starcraft was originally rated Mature, but was bumped down to Teen, I'm not sure when though.

Re:Parents can't distribute either?

[nb caffeine]

Im pretty sure goldeneye was rated Teen, im like half sure pd was as well, though i remember more blood in PD

Re:Parents can't distribute either?

[Suddenly_Dead]

Perfect Dark was rated M. For whatever reason, I can distinctly remember a Rogers Video employee pointing that out to my mother, as well as the fact that we needed one of those memory expansions. (A quick Google for Perfect Dark ESRB has confirmed this.)

You're right about Goldeneye. However, this proposed law would still apparently cover it as well. Goldeneye has human against human violence causing severe injury or death, which is covered by the law.

My evil plan...

[BortQ]

Three cheers for internet distribution. Hip hip hooray!!

Thank You, O Wise Legislators

[MemeSpitter]

I've seen em! Game-tapes awarding bonus scores for defecation! Soon children everywhere will be hurling clumps of fecal matter at each other with simian-like abandon! And this mindless violence modeled for our children... I see kids in my neighborhood jumping on their pet turtles in the street every day.

These kids need to learn that if you want to commit acts of violence for no good reason whatsoever, you coerce Congress to declare war on a random middle-eastern country. That's just the way it's done, damnit!

So I'm glad some legislature finally realizes the importance of applying state-sanctioned blanket age restrictions on videogames. Because it's well-known that everyone is magically at the exact same level of maturity when they reach some arbitrary age, and I sure as hell know that my state's laws kept me from getting any R-rated movies - or beer - before my time.

Re:Thank You, O Wise Legislators

[Zareste]

Exactly! This problem dates back to the Looney Tunes days when reckless children would stand on rooftops and drop anvils on innocent by-passers' heads, chop down trees to land on houses and roll boulders down cliffs to squash anyone in sight.
Hospitals were all occupied by people who looked like accordions! It was a real mess.

Fortunately, Illinois legislators passed the Scwewy Wabbit bill and all kids seen watching cartoons are shot on sight. They haven't had a problem since.

Re:Thank You, O Wise Legislators

[Shadow99_1]

Ya know I couldn't help but think of the crusades when I read this... See one of the many crusades was done by kids who had watched their fathers go off in the crusade before that (I forget what the name fo this one was though or the name fo teh one before it) and so off the kids went to help their fathers in the middle east...

It just seemed so appropriate I decided to point it out...

Re:Thank You, O Wise Legislators

[Anonymous Coward]

it was the Children's Crusade

The long-standing view of the Children's Crusade is some version of events with similair themes. A boy began preaching in either France or Germany claiming that he had been visited by Jesus and told to lead the next Crusade. Through a series of supposed portents and miracles he gained a considerable following with possibly as many as 20,000 children joined him. He led his followers southwards towards the Mediterranean, where it is said he believed that the sea would part when he arrived, so that he and his followers could march to Jerusalem, but this did not happen. Two merchants gave passage on seven boats to as many of the children as would fit. The children were either taken to Tunisia and sold into slavery or died in a shipwreck. Scholarship has shown this version to be more legend than fact.

Re:Thank You, O Wise Legislators

[Alsee]

Soon children everywhere will be hurling clumps of fecal matter at each other with simian-like abandon!

Have you been watching any national politics lately?

-

yet another example...

[lucky130]

As someone who lives in Illinois and has had to deal with such things before, this is yet another example of people wanting the government to parent their children for them. People do crazy things, that's a given. And having played my fair share of violent games, I can say I'm pretty well desensitized to CARTOON-esque violence (actual blood still makes me squirm a bit). That isn't to say that is a bad thing and I'm sure my parents don't think so. Hell, my dad got me a copy of Wolfenstein way back in the day (and I only hope I can do the same, or at least similar, for my kids someday).
But I seem to have digressed slightly. If parents have a problem with something, then they should police their own kids; they don't need to force their beliefs on the general public.

Nice knee-jerk, I give it a 9.5.

[Pluvius]

Grandparent said that we should get guns off of the streets and away from children, not take them from law-abiding citizens.

Rob

Re:Nice knee-jerk, I give it a 9.5.

[robw810]

IF you can explain how to "get guns off the streets" without taking them from law-abiding citizens, THEN you might have a point.

Since you can't, then you don't...

RW

Re:Nice knee-jerk, I give it a 9.5.

[Anonymous Coward]

"off the street" is code for "away from the nigras"

Re:Nice knee-jerk, I give it a 9.5.

[Anonymous Coward]

You could take them away from criminals and let the law abiding citizens keep theirs. This is just a theory anyway.

If only logic agreed with them...

[cwestpha]

Lets see, Video Games are less violent then the evening news (where once in a while you can see mutilated bodies). 10th grade world history class (where they often have a unit showing the results of the Natzi concentration camps in detail... yah know the liberation video tapes). They are as graphic, though not as realistic, as many movies. Oh and they have the best content classification system in the world, as admited by groups against video games. So why are Video Games being singled out? I call it the Comic Book effect. And god forbid the parents take five secconds to look at the big lable that classifies the sugested age and content.

shock

[FidelCatsro]

Ive said it before and I'm sure i will be saying it again
Witch hunt
This is nothing more than a simple ploy by some politicians to push ahead on the morals front .
If you don't want your children to play these games then please do so parenting and don't let everyone else suffer from increasingly restrictive laws due to your moral sence of misplaced duty.
Most of us here played games as violent as these when we were kids , The graphics may not have been as good , though kids have great imaginations. I turned out OK,
Most of the other people here turned out OK.

Violent games don't make violent people
go to a maximum security prison and asked some of the inmates about their childhood ,I am willing to place a hefty wager that it was not computer games that made them angry and violent

Re:shock

[Anonymous Coward]

Spot on!
Next stop american inquisition.

Re:shock

[Anonymous Coward]

I just signed up today but I do not have email access. My nick is TONYCE. I completey agree with what you are saying. Parents should face the responsibilities of raising their children and not expect TV or any other media do it for them.

I teach Taekwondo and I see it all the time. Parents bring their children to my school for discipline. I can guarantee the child will listen to me, but it doesnt matter what I teach him if it is not enforced at home.

Parents ... RAISE YOUR OWN CHILDREN.

If you dont agree with the games he/she plays then take them away instead of complaining. Your kid will turn out fine as long as you monitor his behavior.

Trust me, I have played many many violent videogames and I am currently a Computer Science Major making a decent living as a Computer Operator and have no criminal record (with excellent hand-eye coordination by the way).

Re:shock

[patternjuggler]

go to a maximum security prison and asked some of the inmates about their childhood ,I am willing to place a hefty wager that it was not computer games that made them angry and violent

But you imply that rather than regulate sales of video games we should regulate the entire process of raising children: the government should take children away from bad parents, subsidize education and police forces that create an environment in which children can grow up and focus on developing job skills rather than on escaping violence or coping with malnourishment or what-have-you- that's unfair competition with free market private schools and security firms! The Founding Fathers would be shocked should the government get involved in promoting the security and general welfare of the people, especially when it costs so much and is pretty hard work when you get right down to it.

I say, let parents raise their kids, and when they don't do their job right and their offspring are just leaches on society, just tell the next generation of parents to try a little harder- that works really good.

Admiral Ackbar

[Anonymous Coward]

It's a trap!

A question for Illinois legislators....

[Frodo Crockett]

What is this defecation game you speak of called? Where did you buy your copy?

Re:A question for Illinois legislators....

[Anonymous Coward]

If you find it please email it to dude4711@aol.com

maybe this is good

[delirium of disorder]

Kids aren't going to stop playing video games because they legaly need mommy to buy the game for them. Its like pornography; its illegal for minors to buy porn, so they aren't able to purchase much...but the age range with the most pron downloads is probably 13-17 year old boys. I think these kinds of restrictions are a good thing because they teach kids how to subvert fascist authority. If we are to live in a free society, we need creative people who can get around the confinements imposed by parents, churches, governments, and corporations. If you give kids too much freedom yearly on, they won't know what to do when that freedom is taken away.

So...lets ban all violent video games, music with naughty words, and any images of the human body that show more skin then an Afghani wearing a burqua! For every prohibition, you create an underground. The more underground our economy is, they less the corporate glutons profit from it and the more average citizens learn to be rebels and freedom fighters.

Re:maybe this is good

[happymedium]

1. There's a deficit of incentive here. Why would POLITICIANS (let that word sink in a bit) make any effort to limit corporations' profits?

2. A society like the one you speak of would produce people as ill-informed, immature, and reactionary as you are, judging from your comment. Keep believing that all authority is "fascist." See where that gets you. Parents, churches, and governments are imperfect, sometimes painfully so, but don't tell me that "Love thy neighbor," "All men are created equal," and the like are not genuinely good ideas.

Re:maybe this is good

[DerWulf]

They do it *all* the time because power is the real fix for a politician and that he'll get through votes. That is the agenda of any socia-democratic party: We are the little guy, lets take the 'big guys' (coperations) down a notch or two. Vote for us, we'll do it.

Um... no.

[Guppy06]

"It's an industry that needs help being policed..."

Enron needed to be policed. Spam needs to be policed. Telemarketers need to be policed. Any industry that relies on fraud, embezzlement or harassment to turn a profit needs to be policed. And, as the video game industry does not (yet) fall into any of these categories...

Oh, and one more industry should be policed: politics. If the state legislators in Springfield have this much free time on their hands, perhaps its time to shorten the length of the legislative session in Illinois.

Re:"for the children"

[obeythefist]

There are two ways to look at it.

I won't support censorship "for the children".

I will support classification "for the children".

Censorship removes your right to choice.
Classification doesn't, although you might have to wait a little while if you're underage.

This topic is mostly about classification, not censorship. So what's the problem? RW - you're under 18, aren't ya?

me too

[Anonymous Coward]

somelamedude@aol.com

Next best thing

[Moo Moo Cow of Death]

Next thing you know, kids will be outlawed from being able to speak because some parent heard that *gasp* they sometimes say swear words!

Yes, you heard it right folks, sometimes kids SWEAR. Use evil and bad words such as "for the people" and "majority rules" and "lobying pushes the economy forward".

The point is that...

[Anonymous Coward]

The point is that the government can't tell who is emotionally mature enough for a product. Given just their age, no one can. Some 12 year olds have no problem with a violent or sexually explicit game, but some 80 year old people will have a problem. Some people of different cultures and religious backgrounds find different things offensive, and for the government to decide which games are BAD and which games are NOT allows them to enforce arbitrary values and biases.

Sure, any adult can buy anything, but to promote some products (often wartime violence) and discourage others (non-sexual nudity) seems to express a value that may not be in tune with most people.

ummm... no

[Ender Ryan]

You couldn't be more wrong. What this would create is not a society that fights for freedom and an economy controlled by the people, but an economy controlled by gangs. Think prohibition, it wasn't even that long ago.

Re:ummm... no

[delirium of disorder]

This is ordered bits of information, not mood altering drugs (be it alchohol, marjuana, or methamphetamine). Violent gangs will not be produced. The near industry ban on indipendent artests and resulting RIAA oilgopoly has produced an amazing free p2p culture that is quite illegal, but also a productive non-capitalist economy. A ban on violent video games for children would be the same. Go back to my pornography example....adults are allowed to watch all the porn they want, and they DO watch and pay for a lot of it. Teenagers watch as much or more, but they are smart enough to get it for free. If we didnt' let kids buy some video games they would just download them via conventional ways (ftp, emule, kazaa, bittorrent, http, scp), or even devist their own methods of circumvention. There are probably hundreds of 15/16/17 year old with the intelligence and technical knowledge to crack software and code new, more innovative p2p software to distribute it. I would love nothing more then to have an idealistic libertarian society where all behaviors that don't involve personal harm or property damage would be legal rights, but there is no easy way to get to such a society. Reform generally just helps keep the existing order in power, this is why I support the fascists (I think that is the right word for anyone who restricts free speech) who will make unconstitutional laws. People will only wake up if they see things changing in some way that really effects their lives.

Defecation games?

[ThePolkapunk]

Defecation games?!?! Where can I buy them?

Finally games that cater to my love of flinging fecal matter!

Regulation, but not like this

[mausmalone]

Just adding to my previous comment about how the industry regulates itself, and that we usually are against these bills not because of the concept but because they're poorly written legislation. From the article:

Republican Chapin Rose voted against the proposal, arguing it was too broad and unconstitutional. "The problem with the bill as drafted was that it made no distinction between violent acts of extreme brutality and, say, a football game, hence the latest version of John Madden Football, would not be allowed under her bill," Rose said.

Now do you see why we rail against this particular one? This particular piece of legislation is poorly written and overly broad, to the point where most of the games published would be unavailable to minors. (to add to Rose's statement, every fighting game, from Smash Bros. to Mortal Kombat would be off limits to children because it involves the type of violence stated in the bill)

Re:Regulation, but not like this

[Bios_Hakr]

I agree completely. Kids should be shielded from violence as much as possible. Especially violence like professional football. It's basicly two hours of 22 guys getting paid extreme ammounts of money to kick the shit out of each other.

Then these kids go play football and try the same tackles and say the same trash talk.

Fighting games speak for themselves.

Racing games generally do not emphasize violence to win. There may be some "rubbing" in racing, but most of the races you see on TV are clean. As long as the game does not try to make racing seem kine 200mph bumpercars, it should be fine.

Look, it's simple. Most games avalible SHOULD be unavalible to minors.

Re:Regulation, but not like this

[mausmalone]

Look, it's simple. Most games avalible SHOULD be unavalible to minors.

With all due respect, that's not your decision to make. It is the responsibility (and the right) of each child's parent to decide what he or she should or should not be exposed to. This is not only my stance, but the stance the United States and most states take under the law.

And if you believe that your children should not be exposed to violence and sexuality in games, then please use the very descriptive ESRB box on the back of each game's packaging to make decisions about which games your children will play.

Seriously, though... you're a little off your rocker if you think it's right that a football game is too violent for a 17 year old. If you can grant me that a 17 year old at a normal state of development would not be adversely affected by the "violence" of football, then you'd have to grant me that the law as proposed is unnecessarily broad.

That rules!

[Jakeypants]

"...things like decapitation, defecation on people. There's vivid pictures of nudity."

Man, the games they get in Illinois sound awesome!

"for the children" != evil

[mausmalone]

It's sad that hearing these statements used in such contrived was has really killed the impact. The fact is that the groups you mentioned do need support, and legislation can help (though usually only when the budget is being drafted).

"for the children" - It's assumed that children do not have enough experience or psychological development to be able to make well reasoned decisions. Therefore, the government sets up some safeguards so that children aren't allowed to make certain decisions legally (i.e. entering into contracts, etc...)

"for the elderly" - most protections for the elderly are more appropriately titled for the retired. Older people must retire to free up jobs for the next generation, but they shouldn't face the risk of bankruptcy just because they retire. This is what social security is all about ... a new-deal program meant to free up jobs by allowing people to retire.

"for the less fortunate" - think what you will about social welfare programs, but if you don't have any money, you really have next to no chance of making any money. Programs like this are meant to prevent real 3rd world poverty, and the myriad of problems that come with it (crime, lawlessness, epidemics, etc...)

"for the disabled" - Imagine that you have a child who is a parapalegeic, and then remember that elevators and ramps are required in public schools by law. It's easy to see the value in this.

I admit that when I hear these phrases, I immediately roll my eyes because I've seen them used for such selfish means in the past few years. But the truth is there are many people who are actually trying to do benevolent things with these rallying cries. It's a shame that we dismiss them so easily thanks to the real jerks out there.

Re:"for the children" != evil

[RsG]

I agree with you that there are valid times to justify a law as being "for the children" or any other group on that list. But lets see the justification and the proof backing it. The fact is, those emotional pleas are GROSSLY overused, usually by those who cannot justify their position logically.

If someone can talk me through a restriction on media "for the children" logically, and with clear proof and valid arguments backing them, then I will support their position. But the Il legislators aren't doing that, they're sprouting rhetoric with no basis. Games aren't sold to children by and large, they're sold to adults. Children do not have their own disposible income to spend on a hobby this expensive; the ones who do play do so with their parents cash and, presumably, consent. If parents are too negligent to pay attention to what they're buying their kids, then the law "protecting the children" should be directed against them, not the games.

If any of this came up in valid debate, the pro-censorship (there is no point in calling it less) types would lose. Common sense would prevail, if anyone chose to apply it. But instead they have overwhelming support, according to the article. It's not just that the child defence plea is being abused, its that in this case it doesn't really apply and a basic knowledge of the facts of the matter would reveal as much. I agree that, if children are in some way endangered we have a duty to protect them, but this is completely different.

Books, instead

[Anonymous Coward]

I don't let my kids play depraved video games, I encourage them to read books, which are good for them. I just bought my daughter "Sex" by Madonna.

That was a joke, right?

[Anonymous Coward]

For the first paragraph I was really digging the sarcasm but by paragraph two I began to think that maybe you weren't being funny.

The values and personalities of your children changed after short term exposure to some game? Geez... at what point do most people acquire any concrete values. I mean, I no videgame could have made me UNLEARN the idea that hurting other people was wrong at any age I can remember. I'd hate to think I was unique in that regard.

Re:"for the children"

[DerWulf]

Classification is a precursor to censorship. It gives more power to the most single powerful entity in the nation: the state. Advertisment bans will follow, after this comes no 'no public display' laws, in effect 'banning' a medium from stores. Think that can't be abused? You are wrong.

Industry needs?

[RyoShin]

What this industry needs are parents who are more responsible and don't give into every wail of their child, especially without thinking about the game content (or even reading the freaking warning label(s)).

This is how the tempermental brats are born; not killers or rapists, but annoying, obnoxious, I-want-it-my-way tempermental brats who were never spanked in their life.

Instead of making these stupid laws that will keep the status quo (parents buying the games for kids), let's have a new required night class to educate the stupid parents.

Unfortunatly, most states would go bankrupt from having to pay for these classes.

Just Illinois Politics

[blueZhift]

Nothing to see here folks! This is just Illinois politics. The governor has been a profound disappointment here and is now scrambling for easy targets to win reelection. They all know this law won't stand constitutional muster.

This is just a waste of taxpayer money.

Regulation

[Anonymous Coward]

Media organizations that fail to
self-regulate get regulated.

Movies get rated/regulated and so should
video games. Parents can bypass the
regulation for their kids same as movies.

Free games you make yourself and give
to your friends will get the same
regulation that home movies get -- none.

Re:Regulation

[egon]

Movies get rated/regulated and so should video games

Um, actually the ratings system of movies (at least in the US) are *not* government imposed. They are done by the MPAA - the idea was to do so in order to prevent the government from coming in and regulating things.

Seems to me that the ESRB ratings should be taken the same way...

My two cents

[Landshark17]

The argument over this law being constitutional (which it isn't) notwithstanding, here are my two cents:

It's stupid to try to legislate the games you can sell and who you can sell them two. I think movies are far worse offenders, often featuring far more violence and language than most computer games. I'm seventeen, and I've never once been carded when I've bought movies. Even when I bought a spectacularly profane, violent and drug-filled double feature: Reservoir Dogs and Fear and Loathing in Las Vegas. Where's the outrage of politicians when kids buy violent movies? IMHO: The government can not legislate things that parents need to do.

As if young kids didn't pirate enough

[CrazyJim1]

If I'm 17, and want to play the next FPS, I'll download it off the internet instead. Warez 4 Pirates.

what?

[Sv-Manowar]

Aren't there age ratings on games already, telling people what age they should be to play

how about letting the parents do their job instead of having offers suffer by doing it for them

Re:"for the children"

[Anonymous Coward]

Classification is a precursor to censorship. It gives more power to the most single powerful entity in the nation: the state. Advertisment bans will follow, after this comes no 'no public display' laws, in effect 'banning' a medium from stores. Think that can't be abused? You are wrong.

While your ignorance is cute, it does not further your argument. Corporations are the most powerful entity in the nation, and they censor themselves. Their own economic self interest drives them to censor their material. Some companies spurn that censorship and deliver an uncensored product, and thereby ruin their chance for the big bucks. These companies often attract a strong, but small, following that keeps them going. However they remain little-known and it is difficult to find their products.

If you think that the "State" is the reason you are receiving inferior products that do not tell the "truth", then you are right where big money wants you. Go ahead, rail against legislation of large companies, force the state to deregulate, make more sectors of national health and security private; it's exactly what the true powers want.

dangerous games

[manJerk]

I think there is a more imminent danger that is being marketed directly at our children than the intangible fantacy that is a video game. maybe we sould be spending our time stopping the tobacco companies from selling their very REAL death to our children. If you take away video games, our children are left with shitty TV, Cigarettes, internet porn and homework. governmental bodies need to stop waisting time chasing the boogey man and get after the serial killers.

OH FUCK YOU!

[Anonymous Coward]

People need to understand that parents cannot possible watch their kids 100% of the time. It just isn't feasable. The best we can do is to teach them well and hope they make the right choices when we aren't around.

Listen up, you little bitch. THEY ARE NOT MY FUCKING KIDS.

Kids are the responsability of their parents alone. They wanted to have them now they can kill them or live with the choice to procreate. If those parents can convince people to occasionally take responsability for them, fine. But stealing from the society at large because, parenting isn't everything Johnson&Jonsons made it out to be is the kind of thing that makes me want to legalize school shootings.

If you can't trust your kids to be responsible with their money (no matter how imperfect your idea of responsible is) DON'T GIVE THEM MONEY. If you don't want your kids to cuss like sailors, even when you're not around, homeschool them.

How about you teach your kids an important lesson. Take responsability for the choice to have them, and take responsability for them. It'll build their self-esteem knowing that their parents genuinly want them, as opposed to thinking that they're really a burden ruining all their parents fun and should be pawned off on a nanny state.

Fucking coward. Lead by example.

Love that game!

[Krater76]

I think it's called 'Final Fantasy XXX: Cleveland Steamers'.

Re:"for the children"

[robw810]

First, no, I'm not even close to under 18; if you were half as intelligent as you think you are, then you would have already figured that out...

The problem is this: government should not have any authority to make decisions for anyone unless those decisions infringe upon the rights of another individual. In this particular case, it is (and should be) the parents' responsibility to ensure that said children are not exposed to "harmful" or "indecent" or material.

RW

The big question is...

[jonwil]

How is the decision being made as to what is "for adults only" and what is "ok for everyone" and what is "violent" and what is "not violent" and etc.

If they are following the ESRB ratings, I have no problems with that.
But, when a government decides to regulate games in a way that is outside of and/or different (perhaps more strict than) the ESRB system, thats when I have a problem. If some politition who only knows about through what the idiot moral conservatives who are ruining the country have told him thinks they are in a better position to decide if the game is or isnt ok for kids to play than an industry self-regulatory body like the ESRB, said politition needs his head examined.

The ESRB exists to classify games and make decisions on what is and isnt ok for different age groups to play. If someone thinks the ESRB is not strict enough, they should go complain to the ESRB, not try to end-run around it with new laws.

The land of the free?

[Jagasian]

O say, does that star-spangled banner yet wave
O'er the land of the free and the home of the brave?

Re:"for the children"

[obeythefist]

And the primary purpose of classification is to categorise media based on a central review of the contents of the media with regards to the "suitability" of the content. This enables parents, at least, parents who are responsible for deciding what their children don't get to see until they're old enough, to make slightly more informed decisions about content.

Without content classification, parents would need to go through reviews and extensive research to make the same decisions.

Certainly, you could suggest that by taking this responsibility, parents are infringing upon the rights of their children, however. Perhaps the problem is not classification at all, but the unwillingness of any group to define the line of responsibility that parents must take.

I'd prefer a society of parental responsibility. I've seen plenty of cases where parent's haven't been responsible, and although some of those cases are in PITA-jail, many aren't. Classifying games won't stop many people from playing them, and even if they do they won't turn into criminals. Neither will reading violent books or watching violent movies. This is not the point. A society where any tools that enable parental responsibility are readily available will be better off than one without them. So what's the problem with classification as a guide to assist parents in making the right choices?

Re:"for the children"

[DerWulf]

You don't know what censorship is. Here a definition: if the law keeps you from expressing your viewpoint. It's not someone lying or not disclosing all information. It's uniformed men burning books, in its most extrem form. When was the last time a corperation declared war? Droped a bomb? Made illegal the consumption of certain substances? Levied a tax? Required military service? Fined an other corperation for showing boobies on the air? Go ahead, rail against Corps, they are just the provider of everything that keeps you alive and happy, its what the powers that *are* want you to do. An enemy always unites a people under a flag.