Illinois Game Law Passes

The Illinois law banning the sale of violent games to minors has passed another milestone. The Illinois House has given the law an okay, meaning both the House and the Senate have passed the law. It now moves on to be signed by the Governor. From the article: "... supporters insisted the government has a duty to help parents shield children from violence and sexuality. 'Don't let them become the monsters that we see in these violent games,' Democratic Rep. Monique Davis said."

Comments

Emotional Overcharge

[Travelsonic]

Don't let them become the monsters that you see in games? Simple, talk to your kid about the game before/after (preferably before) he/she plays the game, is it just me or is this bill being passed with an unusual emotional ovecharge?

Re:Emotional Overcharge

[chman]

The cynic in this uninformed non-American reckons that it's because the video game industry isn't giving kickbacks to the legislators in the way the MPAA and RIAA have been. Maybe when they start paying their protection money, these guys will ease up the pressure and add software pirates to the axis of evil, along with the P2P users that are already being rounded up in their outposts of tyranny.

But as I said, that's me being cynical. If I were rational, I'd say that while it is unfortunate that this legislation was even thought up, it probably is necessary these days. There's already a rating system in place for video games, but it's for nothing if the retailers won't enforce it. We're going to have to accept that video games could possibly have the same effect on a child as other forms of media when the violence isn't given the right context - if the child is too young to understand the difference between reality and fiction, they shouldn't be playing these games. The important thing to remember though, is that these games do not teach people how to kill. It's an argument that's often thrown around, and it's just bullshit. We're born with instinct, a hard-wiring in our evolved brains that gives us the ability to kill our prey, and to say that a video game trains us to kill is absurd. People then make the point that the Army uses games to teach soldiers how to kill, but to the best of my knowledge these tools are used for tactics and strategy, rather than actual simulation of the act of killing. Let's not forget that guns also operate on a simple point-and-click interface that makes it ridiculously easy to take a life. But that's the fault of video games, obviously.

Is this legislation a substitute for parental responsibility? Of course it is. Is it being forced through by those that lack understanding and evidence? You betcha. But somehow those two wrongs have made a right. Don't moan at me, you guys voted for it. We voted for that lying fuck that sweats a lot.

Re:Emotional Overcharge

[Walkiry]

> Simple, talk to your kid about the game before/after

Or even talk to your kid about why he won't be playing that game. It's perfectly fine not to let your 8 year old brat play an 18+ rated game, just as it's perfectly fine not to let him watch an 18+ rated film. But the emotional overcharge, as you so aptly put it, is totally off the scale, and completely unnecessary.

Re:Emotional Overcharge

[Monkeman]

THIS IS WHAT HAPPENS
Kid: Daddy, can I play Ultra Beheading of Strippers 3000?
Dad: No. It is too violent.
Kid: Why not? All my friends play it?
Dad: I don't care what your friends play...
Kid: This isn't fair! Why can't I play it?
Dad: Here, I bought you four copies.

WHAT SHOULD HAPPEN
Kid: Daddy, can I play Ultra Beheading of Strippers 3000?
Dad: No. I don't feel you are mature enough to handle the violent and sexual content within the game.
Kid: Okay.
Dad: Now get me more beer.

Re:Emotional Overcharge

[jtpalinmajere]

The Emotional Overcharge has little to do with the arguments for or against the bill, and moreso with our politicians' need to fill their days with something other than droll legal literature. I mean... would YOU like to go through hundreds of pages of legalese mumbo jumbo and not have some way of venting all that otherwise pent up emotion? Why do you think they even ALLOW them to get up and speak? In today's day and age most of the work can be handled through electronic (or physical... *shudder*) paperwork without the need to talk to people about it. The only thing that talking to people provides is an outlet of emotional context.

I for one propose that we move to a legal system that is completely computerized so that you can simply go to a website like slashdot which displays issues, register your vote, and after a month all the votes are tallied and something is passed into law. It's not perfect, but it gets rid of the emotion... and more importantly it gets rid of politicians.

Re:Emotional Overcharge

[Anonymous Coward]

The cynic in this uninformed non-American reckons that it's because the video game industry isn't giving kickbacks to the legislators...

You can stop right there, buck-o!

We citizens pay our taxes to fund a government which we love to bitch about, but that doesn't mean we gotta take any crap about it from anybody else.

Just as I may fight with my kid brother, but will feel the need to kick the living crap out of anybody who hurts him, we regularilly say horrible things about our government, but will not hesitate to take the can of whoop-ass down from the shelf and open it all over on an outsider like you who does the same.

I don't understand

[the_unknown_soldier]

In Australia, the rating system for movies and games ensures that if a game is MA 15+ you have to be over 15 to buy it. Doesn't this follow logic? What on earth is the point of your esrb rating system if it is not used. It is not as if it stopped me playing GTA:1,2,3 when i was under the recommended age, but the idea was that my parents knew that i was. Incidentally I pirated them so my parents didn't have to pay, but they **knew** what games I was playing. Isn't that the role of every good parent? p.s. this new authentication image has the worst clarity of any I have seen. Took 3 times to get it right!

Re:I don't understand

[Adelbert]

There are similar systems in America, and across Europe. However, these systems hit problems when confronted by "conservative parenting". Conservative (not necessarily politically conservative) parents don't want to be put through the difficulty of actually supervising their kids or anything. They never had these games when they were kids, and hence don't see the need for them.

What's more, they see that some games contain nasty things such as guns and violence. We can't have kids experiencing these things. The only possibility available is to ban these games. Forget all the adults who actually enjoy playing games.

All that is really happening here is people are frightened of things they don't understand.

Re:I don't understand

[alexandreracine]

Yep,

Now the only things that need to be done for the kids in Illinois is to stop posting violent content on the tv news, papers, books, puzzle games, toys, and coke bottles.

Re:I don't understand

[kingsmedley]

What on earth is the point of your esrb rating system if it is not used

The difference here is HOW it is used. The ESRB is a voluntary system at every level - the publishers voluntarily put the ratings on the boxes, the retailer voluntarily chooses to restrict sales based on the ratings, and parents voluntarily choose to observe the ratings when they purchase games for their kids. In my experience, the majority of retailers DO restrict sales to minors, and most parents DO understand the ratings system. In fact, it seems the only people to witness wanton disregard for the ESRB ratings are the people who want them to be codified into law.

What makes this law significant is that movies and music, which also have been subjected to voluntary ratings systems, are NOT restricted by law! This legislation gives creedence to the idea that a form of media can be just as dangerous and unhealthy as alcohol and cigarettes in the hands of a minor.

Historically, there has always been conflict between generations as new forms of expression are invented and embraced. Look at historical reactions to movies, comic books, jazz, swing, rock, punk, and so on. But aside from the occasional town ordinance, a form of expression has not been placed under such legal restriction - until now. This is a dangerous precedent. What happens when they decide that not only are certain forms of media harmful, but that certain IDEAS are dangerous? Who gets to choose these ideas?

Some may regard legal restrictions on game sales to be a logical step, but they are starting down a slippery slope with this law. Right now it is violent and sexual content. Next it could be foul language or depictions of smoking & drinking. And after that? Outlaw the expression of certain political ideas? It may seem extreme, but it is a logical progression. This is tyranny of the majority, outlawing socially unpopular notions. Right now, it is the sex and violence that is unpopular and alarming to the majority. Once they are gone, what will replace them?

I know I sound alarmist, but as I said - this is a dangerous precedent. This is a legal restriction against the expression of certain ideas. We must all be vigilant to make sure things don't get out of hand.

Re:I don't understand

[rigau]

While I understand and am simpathetic to your slipery slope argument First Amendment law makes a very big distinction between the medium of delivery and the content of ideas. While the First Amendment allows regulation on the mode of distribution (eg. one cannot go to a neighborhood at 3am and blast ones ideas with a loudspeaker), Content (of ideas) falls squarely under the protection of the First Amendment (esp. if it is political content). So if a state legislature tried to have guidelines over what constitutes acceptable content the Supreme Court (and probably the District and Circuit courts way before) will hold the law to be unconstitutional.

Re:I don't understand

[rincebrain]

Where are my mod points when I need them? :P

I agree wholeheartedly. It becomes increasingly aggravating when I hear parents complaining about how violent and nasty their young teenage kids have become, especially when they just went out and bought their kids GTA:Vice City.

I'm too tired, insert your own "Fear-Based Culture Of America" rant here.

Re:I don't understand

[kingsmedley]

Content (of ideas) falls squarely under the protection of the First Amendment (esp. if it is political content). So if a state legislature tried to have guidelines over what constitutes acceptable content the Supreme Court (and probably the District and Circuit courts way before) will hold the law to be unconstitutional.

Yes, one would hope. Funny thing is, nobody thought Hitler would dismantle the German government either. Like I said, I know I sound alarmist. But people MUST think about the broader implications that come with these political moves. Logically, I realize how unlikely it is that the Thought Police will haul me away and lock me up. But I sure as hell am not going to let them get their foot in the door.

Re:I don't understand

[Temporal]

Incidentally:

(1) Slippery slope is a fallacy.
(2) There is a reason for Godwin's Law. Please do not make Hitler comparisons.

In any case, the courts will blow this law away just like they did last time, so don't worry about it. Even the law's sponsors seem to believe that if video games are speech, the law is unconstitutional. They just don't think video games are speech, which is absolutely ridiculous, and will be found as such by any reasonable court.

Re:I don't understand

[Anonymous Coward]

(1) Slippery slope [wikipedia.org] is a fallacy [nizkor.org].

The use of the "Slippery Slope" is only fallacious if it is argued that a certain chain of events WILL happen. If it is used to show what CAN happen, than it is not inheirently fallacious reasoning.

Re:I don't understand

[Anonymous Custard]

In America, the ratings for movies and games are done by industry groups, not the government, and stores follow them at their own discretion. There is no law that says a movie theater can't sell tickets to a minor for an R-rated movie, it's just a general industry practice.

Now if there were rampant problems of movie theaters letting in 8 year olds to R-rated movies, I'm sure the government would step in.

This is a private family issue, though, not a governmental issue. Parents should be monitoring their own kids' media intake, not the government.

Re:I don't understand

[Shihar]

The bigger issue is the principle of the thing. Yes, this time it is to stop kids from buying things they probably shouldn't. That said, what part of the first amendment is confusing. Of all the fucking articles of the constitution, I thought the first one was the easiest one to understand and the easiest to follow. Yet some how it has gotten thoroughly mangled over the years. Sure, the US isn't going to be China any time in the near future, but the direction things are heading is unnerving. There is a pile of legal loop holes and exceptions to the first amendment that makes the civil libertarian in me bristle.

To me, I see two options.

1) Let relatively worthless law that is already voluntarily enforced get passed and really is a minimal barrier to a kid getting a hold of a game that is extremely unlikely to do any real damage.

2) Or strike this mother fucker down and make it crystal clear that the first amendment applies to all forms of speech and you can't ignore it when you don't feel like it.

This law is not going to save any lives. No one is going to die because some kid played the same sort of games I played when I was a kid. Further, it isn't going to stop parents from buying this games for their kids, or kids pirating them. What it WILL do is set a precedent that it is okay to flout the first amendment so long as it is for the good of fill in some group here.

No offense, but the first amendment is much more important then paying the fucking cops waste their time acting as baby sitters. Personally, I would rather have the cops chasing down rapist and murders, rather then pissing away my tax dollars doing a parents job and stepping on the first amendment while they are at it. I personally hope that this gets struck down in every single court all the way up to the supreme court, where it can be struck down as an example for all.

Fine.

[huber]

Minors Shouldn't be getting violent games. I know i wont let my kids buy them. I dont see a problem with this at all.

Re:Fine.

[Travelsonic]

I know i wont let my kids buy them. I dont see a problem with this at all.

I see a problem, and that is YOU are not the one that would make that choice. Not only are "Violent" and "sexual" broad terms that can be mis-interpreted, but the choice really should be the parent's choice. I feel that many people, but not everybody mind you, who supports this are too lazy to do the job of being a parent and say no to video games they don't approve of, and allowing laws to ruin it for kids whos parents allow them to play said gams for certain reasons, such as proven maturity.

Re:Fine.

[Weh]

"and allowing laws to ruin it for kids whos parents allow them to play said gams for certain reasons, such as proven maturity."

You really think that not playing violent or sexually oriented games is going to ruin someone's childhood?

Re:Fine.

[Eivind]

Besides, it's a straw-man anyway, if the parents really want to allow their 9--year old to play some 18+ game, there's nothing stopping them from buying it for him/her. All such laws do is stopping kids from buying it themselves.

Re:Fine.

[Travelsonic]

Yes, it ruins the childhood not in that they don't get to play the game though, but in that a parent gave them trust that was restricted by the government.

Re:Fine.

[Anonymous Coward]

if the parents really want to allow their 9--year old to play some 18+ game, there's nothing stopping them from buying it for him/her.

And even if the parents don't want to allow their 9-year-old to play some 18+ game, there's nothing stopping him playing it at his friend's house where the adults take a more liberal line, or getting his grown-up cousin to buy it for him.

Or maybe we should send his friend's parents and his grown-up cousin to jail as well?

Hell, let's just build a jail wall round the state. We're all guilty of something these days. Within ten years we'll all be terrorists, I'm sure. And there still won't be enough people thinking about the children!

Re:Fine.

[0x461FAB0BD7D2]

Just because it doesn't matter in the grand scheme of things doesn't mean it should be oppressed by legislation.

E.g. Will stopping you from freely expressing your ideas online ruin your life? It may make it unpleasant, but it won't ruin it. Perhaps someone should issue a legislation to ban you from posting online then.

Re:Fine.

[Math, The Ancient]

...and the slippery slope continues...arrest the parent for "child neglect" because they allow the 9-yr old to play 18+ games defined by "such laws".

Re:Fine.

[PipOC]

If I weren't allowed to play violent video games at all, I'm certain I would be one of the most violent people I know.

Re:Fine.

[rbullo]

All such laws do is stopping kids from buying it themselves.

And not even that, because they can just get the games the same way they get booze and cigarretes, or get into R-rated movies - pay someone else to do it. Or even buy pirated games, just like kids buy bootlegged movies from the guy on the street corner.

Re:Fine.

[DrTheopolis]

Would you then object to a makeup and skanky womens clothes to be rated, and restrict who can buy them by age? Would you object to not being allowed to buy lipstick unless your over 16? After all, makeup and skanky clothes are used primarily for sexual purposes. And jealousy from sex leads to violence. As a matter of fact, I'm willing to bet more people are hurt from violent crimes motivated from makeup and skanky clothes than from video games. Hmmm... since we can't take the responsibility to protect our kids ourselves, perhaps we should give the federal government extended authority, beyond protecting liberty, to protect our kids for us. I'm glad you brought this up, because I'm sure you'll now support a law to put ratings on womens clothing and makeup. Thanks for the great idea!

Re:Fine.

[iSeal]

I feel the same. Just like we don't let minors see R rated movies (in Canada at least), we shouldn't allow minors to play M rated games. I really fail to understand why someone believes that a game like GTA is okay to be sold to a 6 year old. Realistically, if the kid is old enough, he/she will find away around this restriction anyways; just like most find ways around getting alcohol whilst underage.

Re:Fine.

[iSeal]

I see a problem, and that is YOU are not the one that would make that choice. Not only are "Violent" and "sexual" broad terms that can be mis-interpreted, but the choice really should be the parent's choice. I feel that many people, but not everybody mind you, who supports this are too lazy to do the job of being a parent and say no to video games they don't approve of, and allowing laws to ruin it for kids whos parents allow them to play said gams for certain reasons, such as proven maturity.

With such logic we should thus: remove the enforcivility with the movie "R" rated system, allow alcohol to be sold to minors, allow drivers liscences to be passed to children of any age... That should all be the parent's choice!

Help the parents?

[mwvdlee]

the government has a duty to help parents shield children from violence and sexuality

Does the government have a duty to help the perents only if the parents want help or does it include forcing the parents to use a prescribed set of "morals"?

Not saying children should be exposed to violence and sexuality but as we are all well aware, both terms (especially sexuality) can be widely interpreted. Some parents would as say a mere romantic kiss is sexual content, some would even go as far as saying two same-gender people holding hands is sexual.

Governments should be allowed to assist parents to be parents, they should not do the parenting themselves.

Re:Help the parents?

[GQuon]

And that's what this is. The government is forcing the game industry to help parents shield children from violence and sexuality.
As you say, parents might have different standards. If I had a 13 year old, for example, I might let it play a 15+ game, but would not allow it to play an 18+ game.

Re:Help the parents?

[Bastian]

I'll skirt around all of that and just respond that the government has a duty to help its society remain at least remotely sane.

And maybe with this law, idiot parents will finally be forced to realize that they are responsible for what video games are brought into their house.

Which means maybe, just maybe they will finaly sit down and shut up with respect to this whole bitching-about-violent-games-making-people-violent thing.

Which is good, because I am seriously going to lose all vestiges of sanity if I hear one more idiot parent make one more idiot claim that flies in the face of the vast majority of scientific research and his/her own morals as firmly established through their own actions. (Don't you f***ing pretend to dislike violence or act like you think it's a bad way to solve your problems after voting George W. Bush in for a second term as President. Anyone who can swallow and regurgitate that set of memes without gagging is in serious need of a brain transplant or some time in a detox center or something.)

So I welcome this law, because I value my sanity. Maybe it'll move north and we'll see folks voting on it here in Wisconsin, and I will be Happy.

Maybe we can follow it up with a law that forces us to keep our children locked in closets with no lights and only a tasteless, vitamin-enhanced gruel and water for sustenance, and which bans anyone from talking to children about world history (especially American history), politics, or current social issues, because if kids are exposed to anything, ever, it just might destroy their fragile little minds because nobody is capable of evaluating any information, ever, until the age of 18 (and NO SOONER).

And I will welcome it, because (A) I don't have any kids myself, (B) I don't think I will because lately I have been getting the impression that parenthood will make you stupid faster than a really wicked sack of chronic, and (C) they're pissing me off, and somebody needs to shut them up.

Re:Help the parents?

[servognome]

If I had a 13 year old, for example, I might let it play a 15+ game, but would not allow it to play an 18+ game.

The law doesn't stop you from doing that. What it does is prevent the clerk behind the counter from making that decision for you.

Re:Help the parents?

[Anonymous Coward]

I don't have any kids myself, I don't think I will because lately I have been getting the impression that parenthood will make you stupid faster than a really wicked sack of chronic

Also because you're a fag.

Re:Help the parents?

[GQuon]

"If I had a 13 year old, for example, I might let it play a 15+ game, but would not allow it to play an 18+ game."

The law doesn't stop you from doing that. What it does is prevent the clerk behind the counter from making that decision for you.

I know. I should have made my position clear in that post too: I support banning the clerks from selling to underage customers. Too often the clerk will act "cool" and get more business by breaking the age limits, so a ban should be legally enforced. Like liquor licenses, almost.

Re:Help the parents?

[Anonymous Coward]

Ok, so I'm guessing you're one of those people that claims that the government has no right to tell someone how to raise their kids. I'm also assuming that you're one of those people that blames incidents like Columbine on the lack of parents raising their kids properly.

Do you see the problem here?

Re:Help the parents?

[mwvdlee]

There's a big difference between being able to buy a violent video-game (again; the term "violence" is highly subjective) and being able to buy guns and bullets in a supermarket.

And while we're being short-sighted, do you think it'd be smart to have governments decide how to raise our children? Given that elections usually end up 50/50 (or less), you could deduce that government does NOT represent the values of most people. Thank god, otherwise my children would be learning creationism instead of evolution theory.

Re:Help the parents?

[Anonymous Coward]

And proud of it, you insensitive clod!

Where's the sense?

[Anonymous Coward]

help parents shield children from violence and sexuality

Newsflash: Everybody has sexuality. Everybody has a penis, or breasts and a vagina. Sexuality isn't something you *shield* people from. Sexuality is something you encourage kids to become familiarised with. It's something you educate them about. It's something you nurture to maturity. This maturity, and confidence in sexuality, is part of being civilized.

Violence, on the other hand, is in a totally different ballpark. You aren't born weilding a weapon, with blood on your hands and murderous intent. The absence of violence is part of being civilized.

Why is it, then, that American culture is accepting of displays of violence in movies and on TV, but the hint of a nipple in a game or TV show is so scandalous? Fucking insane.

Common sense and reason allow one to distinguish between theatrical or game violence, and real life violence and death. I see nothing wrong with playing violent games as long as one has developed those rudimentary mental faculties, hence age restrictions are somewhat sensible.

The same applies to sexuality versus perversion. Young minds should be taught about the human body and sexuality, and nudity as not beingn perverse in itself. The perversion of sexuality is something young minds would benefit by being shielded (age restrictions, again, seeming somewhat sensible) from until they are able to distinguish between the two.

My point is although there *can* be seen to be valid motive behind restrictions on both violence and nudity, but the generally accepted reasons are completely turned on their heads and turned into pure emotionalism and sensationalism. Why, oh why, are people so fucking stupid?

Re:Where's the sense?

[kingsmedley]

Why is it, then, that American culture is accepting of displays of violence in movies and on TV, but the hint of a nipple in a game or TV show is so scandalous?

This sort of blanket generalization is just as ignorant as those being made by the people passing the law.

Anything that excites or arouses in ANY manner is bound to be considered dangerous by somebody.

Why, oh why, are people so fucking stupid?

Because they can!

Re:Where's the sense?

[Datamonstar]

Actually, what I hate even more is the fact that such behavior is actually accepted as the norm, and acknowledged as common behavior in the media. The Media is allowed to push the limits of sexuality to the very edge, talking about all types of sexual positions, showing people having affairs with their coworkers, showing every thing BUT a nipple (Seriously, what's so evil about a nipple?), teenage sex (But let a teenager have sex in real life and it's a tragedy), and just about every other taboo thing you can think of about sex has been done before on TV. Not cable. TV.

So why can the media go so far, but anyone else who isn't in cohoots with government and throwing them their dollors as tribute attacked as evil detroyers of all that is good? Have these politicians ever stopped and LOOKED at what goes on on TV when Janets not showing her boobies?

But games... yeah those things are evil. Gimme a break

Re:Where's the sense?

[Anonymous Coward]

This sort of blanket generalization is just as ignorant as those being made by the people passing the law.

Rubbish. Blanket generalisations are fair and not ignorant when they apply in general and in the majority of cases, especially when the discussion takes place in the context of the general!

Anything that excites or arouses in ANY manner is bound to be considered dangerous by somebody.

Or rather, to simplify: anything can be considered dangerous from a certain point of view.

I'm not talking about danger; I'm talking about education, understanding and maturity regarding that danger.

Re:Where's the sense?

[Anonymous Coward]

Well said

The action of a few stupid kids...

[agraupe]

...ruins it for all of us again. Everyone I know, for the most part, has played M-rated games (I'm 15). I started playing them at 13 (with the odd exposure much younger, but I didn't know they were M at the time). Many of my friends started playing earlier than this. Interestingly, not one of us has ever killed somebody, or, as far as I know, been charged with a violent crime. The one kid I know that was sheltered from violent games and movies, by overprotective parents, scares me far more than anyone who has played GTA:3, because he is now rather obsessed with guns and whatnot. My point being, there will be violence no matter what anyone says or does, and now minors can't buy games that they want to play.

Too Broad; Ineffective

[Anonymous Coward]

Sure, sure, maybe they'll ban any game with violence or sexuality from sale in their state.

But does this stop kids from playing violent games they already own, and passing it on to other kids?
Can they control kids from accessing all of those violent games freely available on the Internet?
What about parents buying violent kids FOR their kids?
Does it outlaw kids from playing violent games?

Plus, what major (non-kiddie game) on the shelves have you seen that doesn't include violence? Even things like Pokemon or Mario are inherently violent.

There are many ways for kids to access violent games even if stores could not sell them to minors. Anyways, I have not seen many children walk themselves to a major game shop and pay for $50 games with their own pocket money. Parents usually buy the games for their children, and the law apparently only prevents the sale of the games to the children directly.

Re:Too Broad; Ineffective

[Anonymous Coward]

What about parents buying violent kids FOR their kids?

Oh, yeah, I'm sure it's great to be rich. All my parents ever bought for me were a few crappy action figures.

Movies / Games

[torninfinity]

Movies as a form of entertainment are rated for the protection of minors why is this any different simply because of the way it's sold. They are both forms of entertainment which have a dramatic influence on whoever watches / plays.

Re:Movies / Games

[realityfighter]

Maybe you don't already know this, but it is entirely legal for minors to watch R-rated movies in the theater. Or X-rated movies, for that matter. The rating system for the movies is enforced by the movie theaters themselves, not by the government. Games already have an equivalent rating system that is enforced by the game retailers, but apparently that's not enough in Illinois.

This bill's dead as soon as it becomes law

[Anonymous Coward]

This bill has been treated as nothing more than a joke since:
a) The Illinois State Police has basically said that they have better things to do than waste their time busting video game retailers when they should be busting drug dealers and murderers.
b) At least two politicians that voted for it said they had no choice but to vote for it for fear of their vote against the bill being used against them come re-election time.
c) One politician called it for what it actually is: A publicity stunt by the governor of Illinois to boost his Presidential bid in 2008(like that's really going to work out for him, look at how Lieberman fared in his Presidential campiagn last year).
d) As soon as the governor signs it into law, it's going to challenged in Federal court and ruled unconstitutional, just like all the others before this one.

== BearDogg-X ==

Re:This bill's dead as soon as it becomes law

[George Tirebuyer]

You are correct sir. Reminds me of when they tried to ban Rock and Roll. A bunch of publicity seeking politicos shouting FUD at the top of their lungs to scared parents. In my time we played WWII with plastic Thompson machine guns and bazookas and grenades that used caps. I don't think these exist anymore.

Re:This bill's dead as soon as it becomes law

[servognome]

The Illinois State Police has basically said that they have better things to do than waste their time busting video game retailers when they should be busting drug dealers and murderers.

They also have better things to do than bust convenience stores for selling cigarettes or alcohol to minors. What they will do is every so often is bust a few stores to keep the rest honest.
Even though the rhetoric of the supporters is over the top, I have no issues with the bill. Why shouldn't the default for a minor trying to purchase a mature title be "no"?

Re:This bill's dead as soon as it becomes law

[Anonymous Coward]

"They also have better things to do than bust convenience stores for selling cigarettes or alcohol to minors. What they will do is every so often is bust a few stores to keep the rest honest."

Yay! because we all know cigerettes and alcohol are even remotely comparable to playing/watching/listening to violent video games/movies/music, ect. Come on man, your comparison is rediculous as hell. It's like comparing drinking apple juice to smoking crack cocaine.

Re:This bill's dead as soon as it becomes law

[Anonymous Coward]

Why shouldn't the default for a minor trying to purchase a mature title be "no"?

That's not the issue. The primary issue about this bill is that the governor of Illinois and the Illinois state legislature, with this bill, are trying to circumvent and circumnavigate the already established ESRB rating system and basically create its own rating system, in which they, the government, decide how the game is sold to minors based on its content regardless of how the ESRB rated the game.
Which would mean that not only would the GTA games, Manhunt, and all the other M-rated games not be sold to minors, but also the possibility of the Madden NFL series, the Pokemon series, and the Final Fantasy series, for example, can't be sold to minors exists.

To show the ridiculous this bill really is, let's substitute video games with movies, substituting the ESRB with the MPAA rating system. Theorically, not only would Scarface, the Terminator series, The Passion of the Christ, and all the other R-rated movies not sold to minors, but the possibility also exists where the Spider-Man series, the Karate Kid series, the X-Men series, the Star Wars series, and even kiddie fare like the Home Alone series, Baby's Day Out, and The Mighty Ducks trilogy, for example, couldn't be sold to minors.

Like I said, this bill won't survive the constitutional challenges and become law.

== BearDogg-X ==

Re:This bill's dead as soon as it becomes law

[Anonymous Coward]

As to Blagojawhatever's having presidential aspirations - I would not expect that to work out so well, considering that he is very unpopular in IL right now. He has an ongoing public fight with his father-in-law, several investigations underway into alleged non-standard practices (some from the father-in-law), and a couple of other brewing issues.

Re:This bill's dead as soon as it becomes law

[Jacius]

I don't follow why a government-controlled rating board would rate games much differently than the ESRB does. Are you suggesting that they would be ultra-sensitive in their ratings to avoid complaints from parents (i.e. constituents)? I think it's a waste to ignore the perfectly-good rating system already available, but why would a new one be so different?

From a logical standpoint, I don't see anything truly objectionable with the idea of stopping sales of M-rated games to children (not to imply that you do). After some introspection, I think the reason I don't like it is because it's an attempt to regulate my favorite pastime.

And perhaps because I fear that they may be right, and that I may, because I was raised without the "protection" of such a law, be a homocidal maniac and not know it.

I guess I'll start worrying about that if I wake up one day and I can't remember what I did last night but there are a dozen dead bodies stuffed in my closet.

Re:This bill's dead as soon as it becomes law

[Anonymous Coward]

I don't follow why a government-controlled rating board would rate games much differently than the ESRB does.

I was thinking more along the lines of the government trying to control content, which violates the First Amendment. I base this on the past rulings by Federal courts, striking similiar laws in Indianapolis, St. Louis, and Washington state. An interesting thing to point out here is that it actually wouldn't matter which way the Federal judge that gets this case rules since the appeal would go to the 7th Circuit Court of Appeals, which already threw out Indianapolis' appeal.

Are you suggesting that they would be ultra-sensitive in their ratings to avoid complaints from parents (i.e. constituents)?

Well, yes, I am. We all know that politicians either are worried about getting re-elected or seeking higher office than they are about real issues.

I think it's a waste to ignore the perfectly-good rating system already available, but why would a new one be so different?

I should have said "the governor's trying to create the state's own rating system in a way". It still violates the First Amendment, though.

From a logical standpoint, I don't see anything truly objectionable with the idea of stopping sales of M-rated games to children (not to imply that you do). After some introspection, I think the reason I don't like it is because it's an attempt to regulate my favorite pastime.

I don't, either. It's just that some people that think that they know better than everyone else think that they can tell people what they can and can't play, watch, and read, which isn't right, and also, I feel that these idiots haven't been giving the video game industry a fair chance. I mean, the retailers' voluntary ID check policies have just really started to take shape. It's got to be given a chance to succeed.

== BearDogg-X ==

Re:This bill's dead as soon as it becomes law

[Kyouryuu]

And to point d, undoubtedly waste hundreds of thousands of taxpayer dollars repealing it.

Double Standards

[dq5 studios]

And yet it's perfectly legal for a minor to buy an R rated movie. How come there is no VGAA for bribing lawmakers?

Re:Double Standards

[Frodo Crockett]

How come there is no VGAA for bribing lawmakers?

Because video game companies can't afford to bribe politicians?

Re:Double Standards

[stanmann]

Because video rental stores and retailers police themselves.

Stupid people make stupid laws

[Anonymous Coward]

Stupid people make stupid laws
Because of a few stupid people
who will always do stupid things

Monsters

[GQuon]

"Don't let them become the monsters that we see in these violent games"

Wouldn't it be, like, wicked cool if some of the kids who played these games became real zombies, goblins and orcs and stuff? Would make for an interesting drive through the suburb.

Me: "Orc, 11'clock"
Friend 1: Click! "Dang, shotgun jam!"
Me: *sverve* BANG! "Eat car door!"
Friend 1: "Wow! Cool!"
Me: "Crowd of zombies!"
Friend 1: "Man the M2!"
Friend 2: "Ok!" rattattattatta

Re:Monsters

[01000011011101000111]

Its true tho... without this banning of violent games, kids will end up becoming monsters like Government soldiers (Half-Life), Ordinary civilians (Hitman/gta - remember, the monsters in games are the things you kill...), etc... ;)

Re:Monsters

[KDR_11k]

I wonder if you just inspired some game designer...

You control your kids, I'll control mine

[Anonymous Coward]

By supporting that law, you want the government to enforce your personal preferences on *MY* kids as well as on your own. Piss off.

It would make as much sense if I supported a law to *FORCE* your kids to play violent and sexual games. You wouldn't like it either.

Stick to your own turf, and look after your own kids.

Re:You control your kids, I'll control mine

[Math, The Ancient]

WORD.

When I was a kid...

[J_Meller]

I know it is very cliché to say that, "When I was a kid and I played all of these violent videogames and watched violent movies and I turned out alright", but I honestly believe it's true and this is why: By prohibiting certain high rated videogames to minors you are essentially recreating a problem that exists in our society with drugs, alcohol, rated r movies and other kinds of prohibited vice, you strengthen children's curiosity and willingness to obtain it. Let's take a child like me who had heavy exposure to Sly Stallone, Arnold Schwarzenegger, Mortal Kombat, pizza, and soda at age 4. My parents did a great thing by allowing me to play and watch these games but educating me that everything was fictionalized and should not being repeated. By using pre-emptive education on children, not only do we set them up to make better decisions later but we expose them to the media of the real world in a safe environment (the home). We also don't have to devote energy to constantly shielding them from everything out their once this moral education is in place.Ten years later down the road when I was asked to try a lot of stuff, I became impervious to peer pressure because I knew what these substances were and the fog and mystery surrounding them were all gone, I had no desire to experiment. While this method may be bogus, it is my firm believe that parents need to take a greater role in raising their children the way they want. The bottom line is that the government can never be on top of everything, which makes the parent's role irreplaceable in the moral development of a child.

Re:When I was a kid...

[DrTheopolis]

Good post. I made a similar one touting education as the weapon to use over censorship. And not only do I believe your assessment is true, but I would think it's important to tally up all the video games sold since... let's take 1985, PAC-MAN I guess COULD be considered violent because he ate ghosts, but technology really didn't start displaying people and blood until the first NES came out. Since about 200 million video games were sold in 2004 alone, it might be safe to assume at least that many in violent ones have been sold since 1985.

So, if we are to generously assume then over 200 million people have played violent video games, I think it would be important to discover how many violent crimes, since 1985, have been motivated by them. Lets assume 1,000. No, let's just say 10,000 just to be safe. That means your child has a .00005% chance of being a victim of a violent crime motivated from a video game. I'm sure putting your child in your car provides a far greater danger to his/her life.

Now I for one value every human life - even if 1 death is motivated by a violent video game, that's a serious problem. Now for all of you that support this bill, take into consideration the followin: Your tax dollars are going to be paid, probably in the hundreds of thousands, and effecting millions eventually, to censor video games from minors because the risk of them being fatally in danger from them are .00005%. But we are going to continue to support, and protect, industries and practices that put your childen in far greater risk of death or injury - like driving autos, flying in planes, buying your kids a skateboard or bicycle, allowing them to participate in sports...

Please understand, I don't support banning transporation at all. But nor do I believe violent video games should be banned. Because LIFE itself is a risk, and to grow and learn, risk of injury and death is everywhere - it CAN'T BE AVOIDED! The most proven way to avoid death or injury is to learn what causes it, and then let the individual decide how they should protect themselves best. I hope this post has made sense to most...

I play video game, so I'm a terrorist (True Story)

[Anonymous Coward]

I had a Federal Marshal and 2 FBI agents come to my house one day and ask if they could speak to me (this being Autumn 2001).

They asked a bunch of stuff about what I did for a living, where I went to school, knew I had thought about joining the Navy after high school, etc etc, before getting to the meat of it all. The Marshall then said that they had records dating back to 1996 of me requesting maps of municipal water and electric systems, city maps, county maps, lots of platt records, DOT road maps, and the like. I aasked them "Did you check to see where I've worked since 1996?", to which the answer was, to my surprise as he fliped thru his notebook, no.

I was then working as a runner for a law firm, which included a real estate lawyer, and often I'd end up in the county clerks office getting copies of maps for disputing property boundries, easements and the like.

I'd previously worked as a summer technology assistant for my school district, for 3 years, which had entailed laying uunderground conduit for ethernet, phone, and fiber between buildings on our central campus, thus needing maps of power and water systems so we didn't slice anything. Then I invited them to my room to see the other reason I needed many of those maps.

Posted on the walls were quite a few of them, with my own grid sheets on top. Powering up my G4, I showed them the SimCity2000 game in which I'd recreated my home town of ~20,000 people, and had started some of the surrounding towns too. The Marshall just looked in disbeleif and told me to have a good day, he didn't have any more questions.

~DW

Help parents parent

[FidelCatsro]

Help parents to parent their children , dont do it for them .
Its a parents duty to make sure their child has the best upbringing they can and to decided what is and is not suitable . A an Age advisory is fine , but enforcing it with legal powers does noone any good .
Parents should know their children well enough to know if they are ready to handel a violent game or violent movie and if the parent deems it aceptable then it should be for the child .
ofcourse this dosn't help bad parents any , but neither do laws like these

A reminder to all of you....

[FooAtWFU]

This only prevents the sale of such games to minors. I don't see them prohibiting minors from playing violent games, they just need someone else (presumably a parent) to buy it from them.

Is that so bad?

Re:A reminder to all of you....

[Anonymous Coward]

"I don't see them prohibiting minors from playing violent games, they just need someone else (presumably a parent) to buy it from them."

That's the next thing they'll do. Sone enough violent games will be akin to hardcore pornography. The government will never stop. The regulations will get continually worse and worse if they can get away with this.

None Parenting Parents....... Lazy Bastages!

[dozr]

sure let the government do the parenting it worked great in germany with the Hitler Youth.

Re:None Parenting Parents....... Lazy Bastages!

[KDR_11k]

That wasn't parenting, that was more akin to a boyscout group that taught them propaganda and was mandatory. Another one of Hitler's Gleichschaltungs ideas. A parent couldn't say "no, I'll parent my child instead" because... Well, you know the Nazis. With this law you don't get shipped off to a camp if you decide to buy the games for your children.

thanks!

[aminorex]

I hope that my case can serve as a warning to other families. I let my daughter buy Godzilla: Destroy All Monsters Melee, and she turned into a giant moth that destroys airliners!

Re:thanks!

[Anonymous Coward]

...

er...

Can I have her phone number?

*hides*

My email to Rep. Monique Davis

[Frodo Crockett]

"Don't let them become the monsters that we see in these violent games"

Miss Davis, I hate to tell you this, but a videogame is the last thing
that's going to make someone a monster. Ditto for movies, television,
and music. Want to know what *really* makes children into monsters?
Bad parenting, no parenting, or, worst of all, abusive parents. It's a
cinch that a kid who's living in a crack house or being abused is
gonna turn out pretty fucked up. It doesn't matter whether he plays
videogames. Another big one is growing up in a fatherless home. You've
seen the statistics about prison inmates, right?

Likewise, it's a cinch that a child with smart, involved parents (note
the plural noun) is going to turn out fine, whether or not he plays
videogames. It's not the state's place to act as a surrogate parent,
either. However, I must admit that I'm heartened to see such
wrong-headed legislation being passed by a state legislature.

You see, I think this means that the System is working well. You see,
I've come to the conclusion that legislative bodies (and perhaps even
executive offices) attract misguided and power-hungry people like
moths to a flame. In theory, this is good because it serves two
purposes. First, it allows such individuals to be easily identified.
Second, it allows us to keep tabs on them, and hopefully to keep them
from fucking things up too much. Sadly, we seem to be failing to
fulfill the second purpose, which is why I think the System needs to
change.

You would do well to repent of your legislative sins and embrace the
doctrine of Anarcho-capitalism, or at least Libertarianism. After all,
you've had more than fifteen years to learn that sitting around all
day passing legislation won't solve the world's problems, let alone
this country's problems.

-A Concerned Citizen

It's not too over the top, is it? ;)

Re:My email to Rep. Monique Davis

[Garet121]

It's all well and good to voice your opinion to a congressman or -woman, but email is just too easily falsified for our representatives to pay attention to. The weightiest thing you could do if this really matters to you is to send a letter, via snail-mail, to Representative Davis.

Re:My email to Rep. Monique Davis

[Frodo Crockett]

Yes, but to do that I'd have to leave the basement. ;)

Besides, I don't live in Illinois. I doubt she cares about what someone who won't be voting for or against her thinks.

WAHOO!!!!!!!!!

[BigDogCH]

This is GREAT news! Finally it will be safe to walk through every area of Chicago.

I guess it boils down to this choice.......
either violent video games cause kids to be violent, or......
violent kids buy violent video games.

Hmmm, I wonder which is more logical? My opinion is that the fault lies in the parenting, though I think most parents don't want to accept this responsibility, so they find the nearest scapegoat (which they purchased for their child).

Easily Overlooked

[inkless1]

One aspect of this law which should be on everyone's mind ... but is easily overlooked, is the justification for the violence portion of law.

It is written not in the same wording as morally objectionable content like pr0n, but socially dangerous material like tobacco.

This law makes an assumption that there is a casual relationship between violent video games and crime. That lays the groundwork for lawyers to start suing retail stores if little Jimmy robs a bank.

So while everyone argues about responsibility and free speech - the Illinois Assembly isn't even talking about that. To them, this is justified in the same sense that a seatbelt law or helmet law is justified. Sure, it might be a bit big brother - but it will satisfy the public good by keeping the streets safer at night.

In other words, they not only embraced the "murder simulator" theory in spirit - they've now put it to text and made it law.

Re:Easily Overlooked

[Jaeph]

Zork made me the monster that I am today!

I love it. :-)

-Jeff

Re:Easily Overlooked

[KDR_11k]

Are you afraid when the lights go out?

Re:Easily Overlooked

[mink]

No, because he is the Grue.

Is censorship always the best answer?

[DrTheopolis]

I played "violent" video games all my life. What it taught me, along with public television, was violence doesn't hurt anyone when acted out in fantasy, but don't even think about it in real life. I don't believe censorship of this kind is really the most effective way to shield children from danger. Would most people agree censorship leads to ignorance? Wouldn't proper education also make for a more effective tool to curb violence, negating the need for censorship? And did this senator cite any evidence where violent video games led to more violent crimes being commited, vs. other motivations for violent crimes (such as drugs, sex, diagreements, disrespect, etc.)? And will this censorship be applied to the US militaries own efforts for developing violent video games? After all, our modern military effectivly teaches children that violence can be ok and fun, if it's for what you believe is self-defense. I believe more information would be needed to make an informed decision as to whether or not censorship of video games is going to be the most effective tool to protect children from violence. And I would like to challenge anyone reading this that's in favor of this law to explain why censorship is more effective and truthful than education, with examples and detail, and not from words you heard on FOX news. I personally believe censorship is not the most effective method, because it takes one to know one - and I'm sure congress never played any of them.

Vague use of the word "violent"

[Tachikoma]

There was a news story this morning on CNN about kids going to trial for the 'stomping death' of a homeless man.

It's blatently obvious that this devious behavior is none other than the result of years of playing violent video games such as SUPER MARIO Bros and SUPER MARIO BROS 3, where innocent children are misguided into playing the role of the malacious character 'MARIO' in STOMPING koopas to death!

Not only does it induce children to stomp out the life of other beings, but it also teaches children racism. 'MARIO' and 'LUIGI' (if that is indeed their REAL names) are obvious and unfair sterotypes of Italian people. Koopa's are obviously represent a minority or, in this case but not limited too, homeless people as they are portrayed as mindless and capable of doing nothing but making you small.

These graphic and violent video games need to be banned so that my children are never exposed to the ideas such as racism or bigotry or the stomping of turtles. I'm a firm believer that so long as my children are shielded from violence that they will never be tempted to enjoy it, and further by controling every thing they are exposed to they will grow to be a wonderful contribution to our violence and sexuality free world. So long as they are not exposed to it until they turn 18 and their body chemically realigns itself into a mature state overnight, I wont need to waste precious time out of my day and my life and divert any attention away from myself, because that is what's important, to educating my child. And remember what kyle's mom said: "violence and sex are ok, so long as they don't use any dirty words!"

Re:Vague use of the word "violent"

[KDR_11k]

Not to rain on your parade or anything but in the Super Mario games humans are more of a minority than koopas, goombas or even lakitus. Koopas (or Koopa Troopers) are soldiers, the game teaches you to kill the soldiers that are loyal to the government (King Koopa) and raise the red star flag whenever you conquer a territory.

Re:Vague use of the word "violent"

[Tachikoma]

True, however I dont recall saying that Mario/Luigi were not a minorty themselves. My comment was by no means very politically correct nor was it ever intended to be

Thank you Isam

[Anonymous Coward]

For actually giving federal authorities a reason to check things like this out.

You're assuming they want to be parents

[rsilvergun]

most don't, but it's taboo to even think that, let alone say it. The Gov't has an obligation to make sure you're raising useful members of society. You need to realize that your actions don't happen in a vacuum. Just about everything you do has some effect on society, and having a kid is a big one.

This whole "you're not gonna do my parenting" idea is one of the big problems with America. We've got millions of parents who are in no position finacially or emotionally to be parents, but by God they're not gonna let the gov'ment (sic) do it! This leaves their kids in a sick limbo where no one really wants to or can raise them. It's fucked up.

Now then, the easy solution to all this is forced sterialization for the poor/stupid. Not for Genetic engineering, but for social.

The word need....

[LWATCDR]

" They never had these games when they were kids, and hence don't see the need for them. "

There is no NEED for these games. You may want to play them but no one needs to play them.

What I do not understand is this. "The only possibility available is to ban these games. Forget all the adults who actually enjoy playing games. ".
The games are not banned. The law just requires that ratings to be enforced. An adult can buy any game they want. This is nothing but a tool to help parents. No different than the R rating on a movie or laws preventing people under 18 from buying tabbaco or guns.

Re:The word need....

[HeavyK]

Anybody who claims this law is a TOOL to help parents is a TOOL themselves.
There are alot of things parents out there don't want there children to have so according to your logic we'd have to ban the sale of of just about everything to minors as just about everything out there is likely to be offensive or unsuitable for their children in the eyes of some parents.
Why should the parents against violent games have a law but not the religious parents who are against there kids having Harry Potter books, heavy metal music and Dungeons & Dragons RPGs. Or the atheist parents who don't want there kids having the Bible or Koran. Or the health nut parents who don't want there kids to have chips, chocolate bars and pop.

P.S - There are no laws barring the sale or rental of R rated movies to minors. This is a common missconception. Like the video game ratings these are voluntary ratings only meant as a guide to parents and that's it.

Re:The word need....

[LWATCDR]

" Anybody who claims this law is a TOOL to help parents is a TOOL themselves."

Baloney.
There are many laws that are designed to help parents and or protect minors.
1. A minor may not drive without his parents permission,
2. A minor may not drink at all.
3. A minor may not smoke at all.
4. Some jobs may not be done by minors at all.
5. Minors my not enter into a contract.

What you and most of the little fan boys on Slashdot don't get is the ugly little truth that the people that do not want laws like this CARE NOTHING about any type of freedom. They are the big mega corps that want to sell any game they want to anyone that will buy it. These are the same companies "Sony" that are trying to outlaw modchips and bit torrent. This law will only require a parent to buy the game it does not forbid a single person from playing it.
And in no way prevents an Adult player from playing it.

Re:I play video game, so I'm a terrorist (True Sto

[Kozar_The_Malignant]

I have mod points, but since I couldn't find the drop-down for +4 Frightening, I'll write this. For those of us who live in the so-called free country of the USA, it is now unremarkable to have The Man come to your door for accessing public information. The "Patriot" Act wants your library records vetted by the Thought Police.

The Shrub says that the terrorists hate us for our freedom. It is apparent that his solution is to do away with our freedom.

Thank yet another Democrat

[Anonymous Coward]

for another intrusive, Nanny-State, "We Know Better Than You Do", bullshit feel-good law that does nothing but waste time and money and refuses to address the real concerns.

Just like banning the .50 rifles in CA. Nevermind that these have *never* been used in a crime. Ever. Anywhere in the US. But, it sure looks like the worthless legislature's doing something, right? Ignoring the true sources of crime because they don't want to appear "racist" or be "profiling". Or the worthless "assault rifle" ban. Does it make any fscking difference at all if a rifle feeds from a clip in front of the trigger or in the grip? Not one bit to those on the wrong end. But hey, people still think the government was actually doing something, even now.

Baaah, sheep.

Illinois governor presidential bid

[Anonymous Coward]

Blagojevich has no chance whatsoever of becoming a presidential candidate. Illinoisans don't much like him, and are a little embarrassed to have let him in there in the first place. Unless he's completely lost his mind, which seems unlikely (so far), he knows he would need to make a much better impression around here before attempting to sell himself to the rest of the country.

Whats the big deal?

[Anonymous Coward]

I don't think anyone who voted on this is so naive to believe to think it is an effective way to combat violence and sorts, but simply plain logic. If a government prevents children from buying alcohol, ciggarettes and pornography, why shouldn't the same apply to media that glorifies violence?

It's not controlling parenting, but merely making it easier for parents. If they're okay with their kids playing violent games, they can buy them for them.

The only thing I find strange about this bill is that a store owner can defend himself by saying that he didn't know the child was a minor, and even if he did, he gets a rediculous 1000$ fine.

Considering the actual chances that they would be accused and the money they can make on those sales, it probably makes more sense to sell them regardless of how young they are.

Here in Germany, stores get a fine thats something like 65000$ if they sell games that are rated for adults to kids, and they can't just say they didn't know. Everyone who's old enough hasn't had any problem with the law, and parents can let their kids play violent games, children just can't buy them by themselves.

Re:Whats the big deal?

[Anonymous Coward]

people are always trying to point the finger at someone else other them themselves (yes you the parents).

decades ago they blamed rock'n roll on teens doing bad things and try to get it banned (hence why you couldnt see elvis wiggle his hips on tv for a long time, it was too sexual).

years later I remeber people blaming heavy metal, if you spin the record backwards it tells you to kill your parents, they tried to ban them as well).

I suppose if those things told your kids to mow the lawn they would all be out there doing that as well?

Cant regulate things like this as the definition of what is sexual is way to subjective (your definition is not the same as my definition).

plus its unconstituitional, government is not suppose to censor such things (see that stuff about free speech). you cant regulate one thing and not regulate the rest.

you like free speech until someone says something you dont like.

you want government control, you want the government to raise your kids and tell you what you can and can not show them, teach them etc, then you should move to China, its called socialism, facism, communism, I hear its great so start packing.

Re:Whats the big deal?

[LordVader717]

plus its unconstituitional, government is not suppose to censor such things (see that stuff about free speech). you cant regulate one thing and not regulate the rest.

This isn't censorship. Censorship would be if someone went round through Game Studios and made them cut out all blood, as an example.

This is regulation of sales to minors. They're not banning it or preventing it from being there, but are unhappy with the fact that a 7-year old can just go into a store and buy it.

It's the same way the government protects kids from alcohol.

I don't understand why free speech is brought up here. It has nothing to do with free speech that children can or can't buy violent games. Any adult wanting to "speak freely" by buying them can do so.

Parents still have absolute control of what their children play. Nothing has changed. But for parents who would maybe just want to know when their kids play them, it has made things a little easier.

Re:Whats the big deal?

[Anonymous Coward]

its because this is how it gets started, seems innocent at first, just prevent minors from
getting access to the material, but is that where it stops?

its censorship but specifically for minors, its the government deciding for me what is sexual or not sexual, what is decent or not decent isnt that up to me to decide? how is that not a free speech issue?

arent they preventing access to printed written material? and deciding for me what my kids should or should not see?

this is just the tip of the iceberg, each year it gets pushed a little further and a little further continuing to ride that grey line between what I should decide for my kids and what the government should decide for me.

The underlying issue

[Illender]

Yeah, sure, putting an age limit on the purchase of violent games isn't so bad. I mean, look how effective that is with cigs and booze and such. But really anybody who says that video games and TV cause violent tendencies in children is retarded....really. Have you ever watched little children play, around the age of say, 3 and under? I pretty sure my 15 month old cousin learned to hit his sister over a toy from GTA Vice City, or my infant brother thinks my falling or getting hit with a ball is funny because he saw it in Mortal Combat. Right? And all those violent people back in the 1800's..and 1700's...and, well, pretty much back to the beginning of time, that was because they played video games, right? They really should have banned that Tower of Babel:Wrath of God, wow, what a violent game.

Re:I play video game, so I'm a terrorist (True Sto

[theslak]

hahaha a similar thing happened to me i got the whole story written here

just because.....

[frailboy84]

Hey just because you make a law saying minors cant buy games, doesnt mean they arent getting the games. I mean look at the Illinois gun laws. You can't carry a gun but SOMEHOW you'll still hear about people gettin shot up on the street or whatever. Now correct my if i'm wrong, but shouldn't the retail store selling the games to minors be held liable for their actions? It just like selling alchohol or cigarettes to minors. Plus if you're blaming video games on kids being violet, maybe you should take a look at the afternoon TV shows they watch when they get home.