Slashdot Mirror
Dissecting U.S. Violent Game Bills
Many reactions to last week's violent games bill. Primotech writes "I first heard of California's AB1179 late Friday night. Like most others, who simply shrugged the bill off as inconsequential, my first thought was strikingly indifferent. Beyond the perfunctory glance, however, it becomes evident that this bill brings into focus and, more importantly, actually probes some of the more serious issues facing the industry. Above all else, examining and dissecting the proposal reveals some truly frightening facts." Relatedly, Shodan writes "Hal Halpin, the President of IEMA, today issued a statement in response to California Assembly Bill 1179, which is on the floor to address the issue of violent videogames." Other states are taking their lead from Illinois and California. KymBuchanan writes "I'm sad to say my state is on the bandwagon, and the charge is being lead by Democrats. From the article: 'Michigan Governor Jennifer M. Granholm has announced that she will sign legislation later this week that will make the sale or rental of mature or adult-rated video games to children illegal ... The fine for anyone caught selling a "violent title" ( apparently defined by the bill as real or simulated graphic depictions of physical injuries or physical violence against parties who realistically appear to be human beings) to minors will initially be $5,000, and can go as high as $40,000 ...'"
You forgot some of the "irony-marks". The "passage" should "read": The "problem" with "post-modern" "society" is there are too many "people" with nothing "meaningful" to do, building "careers" around "controlling" the "lives" of others and generally making "social" "nuisances" of themselves. They "justify" their meddling by "discovering" "social" "problems" and "getting" the "media" to "magnify" them "out of all proportion".
Man is a slave because freedom is difficult, whereas slavery is easy.
"... shouldn't I be allowed to do so?"
Like play Spiderman by climbing up the outside of a downtown building where you might fall and kill someone else?
No, you shouldn't be allowed to do that.
I agree with you on a couple of points. First, I agree that it is a valid point to restrict the input materials for children until their brains are finished and they are mature (and folks are not really finished until they are 25ish but they get too hard to manage at 18ish so we just punt on that issue). And I agree we should not show children:
1) how to have sex, (sorry but putting a blanket over two people in the missionary position is not hiding the basic mechanics of what is going on- a fact I was pretty ignorant of until I was 16ish and something I have seen in prime time multiple times in the past couple years on popular shows- how times have changed)
2) how to kill people in any form of entertainment. (I was not aware that you could kill someone by shoving their nose upwards hard until I was fairly old- something I've seen in 2 popular pg-13 movies in the past decade).
3) brainwash them with religion relentlessly (on the one hand it is good to put morals in before they are rational- on the other hand the way it's done lately it is hurting us on the science front in really stupid ways) Teach them right and wrong and expose them to religion at an older age- it's just too cultlike the way they brainwash the kids in sunday school.
I do believe these things affect their behavior. I think they are less innocent and more violent.
So I guess basically I agree with you- bad for children- I went on an adult tangent that doesn't really apply to the article at hand!
She was like chocolate when she drank... semi-sweet at first and then increasingly bitter.