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

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.

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: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: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.

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: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

[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.

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!