Slashdot Mirror
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."
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.
Slashdot social media options: AIM, ICQ, Yahoo, Jabber and Mobile Text. Why no MySpace?
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?
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.
This comment was formatted for readability, but I forgot the line break tags
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.
If you believe in privacy, and believe you have "nothing to hide" at the same time, you're a goddammed idiot
> 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.
---- Take the Space Quiz!
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.
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.
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!
" 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.
See my blog http://ilovecookes.blogspot.com/ for light hearted technical information.