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 ...'"
In my town, teens pay upwards of $10/pack for cigarettes. 21 year olds get up to $50 to make liquor runs for high school parties. The teen black market is very lucrative.
My firm belief is that this is the responsibility of the parents, not the State. Parents now have even less involvement in parenting due to these laws. Kids will still get the games.
The margin on video games is thin (5-10%). Adding the cost of policing adds another burden to the retailers, making them less competitive with the e-commerce sites. retail is a huge portion of a local economy, it is a shame to see more regulations on business owners.
Of course, in the long run the State wins: More tax money for enforcement positions and the red tape jobs they add. Added income from fines and penalties.
In the end, the consumers suffer, parents distance themselves more from their responsibility, and the State profits. Not a worthy solution in my opinion.
I first heard of California's AB1179 late Friday night
Is that a tiger patch? I want it! I want it!
Actually, the proposed bill on violent games would prevent such depraved acts as "dissection" of itself by anyone under the age of 21 without the presence of a parent or guardian. Any minors found dissecting such bills would be fined $5000 and sentenced to 15 hours of community service, scratching X's into original, non-censored copies of GTA: San Andreas.
Er, why is it always about politics with some people? It's not like stupid ideas only come from one political party.... And don't anyone say that it's "always" or "mostly" one party, because it's not.
Stupid ideas are pretty universal.
Anyone that's been out in the real world (particularly the business world we all love to complain about), should know that.
Wanna bet that this bill will increase software piracy? Kind of ironic that by preventing imaginary crime (killing people in games), they'll end up encouraging kids to commit real crimes...
Man is a slave because freedom is difficult, whereas slavery is easy.
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
Good thing everyone has the same opinion of what's "realistic" in a video game, or this bill would be absurdly vauge.
Violence is a degenerate form of competition. Imagine that degrees of competition are rated from 0 to 10. 10 indicates degenerate, extreme competition: violence via rape, murder, etc. 10 means "I want 'it' now. Society be damned." Then, we plot the number of Americans exhibiting each of the 11 degrees of violence: 0 to 10. We have a Gaussian curve.
Do the same graph for Japan and Europe.
In American society, the sublimal message in the culture is "Compete to win. Free enterprise. Yeah!". This message shifts the Gaussian curve to the right.
In Japan and Europe, the societies are more paternalistic. Europe is effectively a socialist economy with cradle-to-grave entitlements. Japan is also socialist, but its socialism is not mandated by the state. Rather, Japanese culture is socialist. Firing and laying off employees is very difficult in Japan, and Japanese banks are notorious for funding bankrupt companies just to provide a wage or salary to their employees.
Which society is better? You make the call.
Do any of these bills propose equal penalties for people who show violent movies or tv shows to kids? How about violent comic books or novels?
No? Didn't think so. Harsh penalties are reserved for computer games because anything with the word "computer" in it scares and confuses the authorities.
"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'
So if a rational person judges that NPC "people" in the game are not realistic human beings? I mean, nobody actually thinks a real person is being injured when I run over a San Andreas pedestrian right? So that isn't realistic to me. But if they are alien zombies or Combine soldiers, will it still be okay? I guess all of next years games will feature aliens, 'cuz aliens don't vote.
Don't moderate flamebait as Troll. Know the difference or you will be Meta-moderated.
Seriously-
If you realistically portray damaging another human in a movie or television show - you get a $5,000 fine per minor that sees it.
Oh--- what , you mean we've been doing this already for the last 70 years? And before that we did it in plays?
What IS the world coming to?
She was like chocolate when she drank... semi-sweet at first and then increasingly bitter.
I firmly believe that there are some people whose morality and upbringing inoculates them against committing violent acts, some who would do it regardless, and some who are borderline cases, for whom the constant diet of violence on TV and in video games (and, who knows, in their real life surroundings) is just the push they need.
Do people who are against video game regulation consider the level of violence in the US acceptable? If not, what do they see as the causes of America's very high (relative to other "first world" or developed nations) rates of violence, and what do they propose to do about it?
Everybody's a libertarian 'till their neighbour's becomes a crack house.
There goes any chance for a ``Passion of the Christ" videogame . . . .
"Every decent man is ashamed of the government he lives under." - H.L. Mencken
Also, apples are red and shiny and oranges are orange and bumpy. So consider that.
You're both fucking idiots. There is not one iota of difference between Democrats and Republicans. They're both looking to steal all of your money that they can grab for the corporations that put them in power. All the rest of it (abortion issues, storm relief, etc.) is just a three-ring circus act to keep you distracted from the guy who has his hands in your pockets.
Boycott everything - they're all trying to fuck you one way or another
The issue of violence in video games is fairly devisive as the main portion of law makers are not amongst the demo-graphic of game players. Thus it's far easier to run an anti-video game campaign when your voter base and politcal makeup is on average over 25 years old.
Comicly, somehow everyone has missed the boat in regards to the fact the crime and violence in the US has been on a steady decline since the 70's. How can you argue these games and other mediums (gangster rap, death metal, movies, etc...) are causing increases in violence when the stats clearly show we are becoming less violent as a culture?
Maybe these mediums are serving as an outlet for violent behavior which would otherwise be exerted in the very real world with very real consequences.
Another point it seems many people willfully miss under the guise of free speech and/or desire for games with illicit content, is that there may well be a serious moral, ethical, and social problem associated with content that glorifies and/or encourages anti-social behavior.
This is quite a paradox, crime is on the wane, so its hard to say if these games are causing a problem or helping it. However as an adult who does play GTA and every FPS i could get my hands on, i can definitly say this isnt the type of stuff ill want my children playing. And while many would argue(and i do agree somewhat) that this falls into the realm of parental control and proper parenting, i say that our society has made such parenting increasingly difficult to do.
The average white collar family has TWO working parents who spend 50-60+ hours a week at work and commute another 10+ hours. Blue collar families face similar if not worse conditions leaving less and less time for adequate parental supervision. Maybe the solution is a reduced work week, but i dont think ANY of us believe that will happen in the near future (not to mention the effect on our economy), so in the interim i cant help but support better controls for parents.
Those controls are inadequete and nearly laughably easy to circumvent right now, as such the only moderation available without industry support is through strenuous law. Which puts us directly in the path of free speech.
How do i, as an adult gamer maintain my right to view whatever content i want, and leave the industry free to PRODUCE that content, without endangering the wellfare of my child in todays society? A society where even as a top-tier earner it is difficult for me to keep my child in a safe environment of my choosing.
This is a very serious problem which everyone seems to be avoiding by pointing at each other.
sadly enough it may be DRM is the only dependable solution. Now THATS a scray thought.
--Idiots, Every single one of YOU, A flaming mass of conglomerated morons, hey wait a second, isnt that how RAID works?
Could this make it harder for smaller independent game developers to enter the market? For example, imagine the following scenario:
Your a small independent game shop that decides to forego using a major publishing house to distribute your titles, but rather decide to distribute/sell your video games from your own website. In many ways this could be a smart move since it avoids that whole you putting the majority of effort into making the video game and somebody else pocketing almost all of the profits thing. In any case, after setting up the website and posting a few games online, lets say that one or more 15 year olds gets a hold of his/her parents credit card and buys a couple of games the could be considered 'violent' under this law (e.g. almost any FPS). The kids buy the game even though there is a clear warning on the web site that it should not be purchases by anybody under 18, which of course is a pretty useless deterrent to a 15 year old. Then later, lets say the kids parents find out and decide to go after your company using this law.
Now, for a few sales that brought in $20 to $30, your company has to pay out $5,000 $40,000?!? That's probably going to be a significant chunk of the development budget for your next game. Heck, if you're a one man shop, that might be all of your development budget.
So, it seems like this will pretty much force independent developers to distribute with major publishing houses who can afford to shoulder the liability. Or, even better for the publishing housing, shift that liability over towards the brick and mortar shops that most people buy their video games at.
>> Dissecting U.S. Violent Game Bills
Dissecting them? No.
Actually it's more like beating them repeatedly with a crowbar, then stabbing them a few times with a kbar, a double-tap in the head with a Glock, a few rounds of buckshot from the ol' assault shotgun, a clip from a 9mm sub-machine gun, several three round bursts from the assault rifle, one bazooka round, a blast from that thing that makes you turn to ice and shatter, and a direct hit from a plasma rifle.
Then you can see what's really on the inside of these things.
You don't get fined for porn. Alcohol and cigarette fines are set by the community, not federal.
This is taking away control from parents. In come communities, it is illegal to pubicly punish your kid (read: whip, just a little smack, not beat)
In some communities, if the (public) school recommends your kid is to be put on Ritalin, you have to abide for the best interest of the child. Who the f*k made the school the doctor? The same people pushing this law.
if you steal from one source, that is plagiarism, if you steal from many, well, that's just research.
California governor's office 1 (916) 445-2841. While the bill might be ruled unconstitutional, it's better it not get signed into law in the first place.
Furthermore, the average person has little to no idea about what the video game industry is actually like, and will get all their information from the politicians and the mass media.
Laws WILL be passed to further restrict what can and will be consumed by everyone because there is no large groundswell of slashdot visitors to offset the current loud groups of politicians/mothers/etc.
If we don't want these types of laws to be passed, the only viable answer is to make our voices heard by writing to newspapers, calling into radio stations, writing to the politicians, and so on.
Protesting in online forums, voting in online polls, and so on will do nothing significant because the vast majority of people are not connected, or are so ill-equipped to know about places such as slashdot, or whatever your favourite site is.
Don't just sit at home posting, and agreeing with everyone else online. Get out and make a difference by getting into the media channels which the average person consumes.
Fight the fight on their own territory, because they certainly aren't coming into ours.
How does this affect me selling my old "Rated M for Mature" games on Ebay? Would I or could I be held responsible for this? Contributing to the delinquency of a minor?
I sure wouldn't want to be hit with a $5,000 fine for pawning my old game off online for $4.99 plus shipping!
it seems to me, all of this is about giving parents the right to choose for their minor children ... which seems consistent with most other laws. for some reason, i don't find this particularly troubling. if i want my child to have access to a violent game, then i purchase it for them. i am okay with allowing other parents to choose as they see fit.
i understand the argument that it's the parent's job to police such things, that is unfairly punishes non-internet retailers, etc. that makes sense. but i don't see this as some first step on a slipperly slope to complete governement control of the media.
i suppose the closest analogy is movies. movies have ratings and are restricted to minors on the basis of the level of "adult" content. it's hard to argue that the same rules should be applied to video games, when the precedent exists for movies.
Religious shamans have been with us since time immemorial. Do this, don't do that, eat this, don't eat that, wear this, don't wear that, have sex now, don't have sex now. What is modern or post modern about Inquisitions?
"I don't like meddlers and the worst meddler of all, is a meddling man of god." - Shane.
Oh well, what the hell...
I agree with your view of Europe, but Japan could be viewed as being more competitive than U.S. In Japan, there are far more suicides than any other first world nation (more than double U.S.). And about 1/4 of these suicides are from "joblesses and bankruptcies." You're right in that they don't have much of a "i want it now, society be damned" view, but their view of suicide being acceptable* in the face of economic failure is troubling.
*I'm not saying the society is pro-suicide, but the people in that society are more likely to think (and act on) the idea than in U.S.
Only dead fish swim with the stream...
Nothing's wrong withabsurd levels of violence. Mild sexuality, on the other hand, is completely over the edge. Take GTA:SA. Killing hookers? Who cares. They're immoral wastes of oxygen anyway.
Exposing little Billy to sexual situations, assuming he has expensive modding hardware and really great technical skills? That's a little out there, don't you think?
Anyway, I think making Best Buy employees responsible for our nation's youth is a great plan. Parents already dump their kids on the demo machines all afternoon, leaving their supervision up the the clerks and shelf stockers, so this isn't that big of a leap.
I wouldn't worry about it - the Nazis tried to get me in Return to Castle Wolfenstein, but I kicked ass. Just make sure you have the chain gun, and lots of grenades and ammo and you'll do ok.
echo -e 'global _start\n _start:\n mov eax, 2\n int 80h\n jmp _start' > a.asm; nasm a.asm -f elf; ld a.o -o a;
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 ...'"
So...basically, your for selling adult rated material to children or I am missing something? Let me guess, your under 18 and your pissed you won't be able to buy the next version of topless titi BMX racing without your mommy's consent.Why does it matter if people under 18 are pissed off. They can't vote anyway. Technically, you have no rights until you come of age so. Be patient. One day you too will be 18 and you can buy all the hot coffee you want.
neither the manufacturers nor the fans do a very good job of describing why large amounts of violence are somehow integral to the games being designed.
Who says they have any obligation to do so?
If someone puts out a video game where you score points by poisoning adorable little kittens, it's nobody's business but the sellers and the buyers of the product. If you don't like it, don't buy it.
-jcr
The only title of honor that a tyrant can grant is "Enemy of the State."
Um, I'm over 30, Dude...
My point had nothing to do with underage rights. It isn't the government's job to make decisions about how you raise your kids. They should be devoting their efforts to important things, draining New Orleans, or getting properly organized so they can actually do some good the next time there is a major disaster, not waste time and taxmoney deciding if the latest 'quake' clone qualifies for a mature or adult sticker in walmart.
HA! I just wasted some of your bandwidth with a frivolous sig!
Lets fight against age restrictions of all kinds.
R rated movies will be a thing of the past. Porn movies won't have to be hidden in video stores anymore. Alchohol should be sold to 14 year olds for their "my parents are gone" house parties. And one could argue that driving is a form of expression, so driver licenses should be awarded to everyone! Oh, and, age restrictions on bars should be removed as well. Yes, let darwinism take its effect on humanity. So what if a few kids get raped, killed, beaten, or damaged in some sort of way? After all, if they had good parents, none of it would've happened right?
You are never, ever going to have a society full of perfect parents. It just will not happen, and this is why the government has to step in. This is not going to affect game companies in the least, and no one should worry about Rockstar making a bland and boring GTA as a result.
It hasn't harmed the movie industry has it? Give it up...
I'm god, but it's a bit of a drag really...
You kind of hit on one of the main points I have with this. "Hellraiser (Unbelievably graphic horror movie, for the uninitated. More than you can probably imagine.)" 14 year old Billy can, right now, legally buy this title all he wants. There are no laws saying that the kids can not buy and watch this movie. Retailers have always kelp the standard that if you are under the age of 18 they will not sell you r of higher rated movies, and that was fine
Why is it not fine with video games? Retailers have been instructed to adhear to ESRB rules for a long time. Most retailers I have been to do have policies set in place enforce this. Games don't reach the unbelievably graphic horror that hellraiser does. The interactivity in video games does not give the user the ability to torture and mame people that way that is depicted in many movies. If anything the video game in many cases is much cleaner and less violent then the movie industry. But video games are getting attacked, for enforcing moral responsibility the exact same way movies have.
For those people who think this law only makes sense and people should stop complaining about it. Honestly this law does not restrict too much. It only makes a suggestion into a law.(with some legal loopholes) What is scary is the fact that it is taking a step toward what we fear. We don't want the government taking steps to enforce morals on the citizens because it doesn't turn out well. It "could" lead to another prohibition all over again, if people don't get there thoughts heard. You shouldn't have to wait for the government to go too far before you can say that they are heading in the wrong direction.
"If the bill were to pass, games put on sale in California would need to be rated and labeled by the state government, not the Entertainment Software Rating Board (ESRB)."
Not only do I doubt the ability of the government to judge what is good and bad for our kids, but this is unfair. Movies and music are not rated by the government; why do they think games need to be? And, when Idaho and Alaska pass their own bills, do I have to submit for a rating from them too?
Spell cheek you've failed me four the last thyme!
Ummmm how do you know the parent DIDN'T pay attention to the content and decided there was nothing wrong with their kids playing a game? Just because you do not agree with their judgement does not make theirs wrong.
/. I don't know many geeks that get into bar brawls or beat their wives (hell they wish they had one to worship)... but I run into thousands of them online fraggin my ass off gleefully as I do my best to frag em back.
Cowboys and Indians... theres a game. Kids pretending to kill each other. Not pixels on the screen. Yet most would just poo poo it as quaint and old fashioned. Violent games for kids are nothing new. Tell me would you really rather have your kids out playing a pick up game of tackle football than sitting in the den firing game rocket launchers at game police helicopters? I can assure you which one is more likely to end up with someone getting hurt. And before you say they won't be doing that... take your pick of whatever boys are going to get up to when you shoo them out from in front of the TV. Perhaps Mario will return to the fore but I doubt it.
Ya know, just about every Child in this world is the result of a man fucking a woman and they ALL came out of some woman's Pussy in a gory bloody violent event with screaming cussing and most likely drugs... hell she may even have been sliced open (Ever seen a fresh cesarian scar?) to bring them free. Sure I could pick differnt language to describe that which was less offensive or harsh... but it would mean the same thing. What is this fear of sex and violence? And what is this fear of kids that play video games are so driven to violence? Hell my theory would be that the more they play the LESS likely they are to be violent and more likely they are to be socially maladjusted geeks that grow up to post a lot on
A lot of the kids I knew that were violent growing up were the ones that DIND'T have video games. And to risk sounding like an elitest snob most of them were of the lower socioeconomic strata, but certainly not all. I knew violent little snots all across the social order with families from all walks of life. But it was more common for poor kids, I suspect because being outwardly violent is something valuable for them to have. Kids were violent little snots before video games ever came around. What a shocker they are violent little snots after video games have come about. And its not the games that make them that way. The violence in games is kinda like sex. IT IS WHAT SELLS. Take em away completely and they will still be violent cruel little snots.
And if you don't belive me you to are in denial about your child hood. Now take off those rose tinted glasses and recall how kids treat each other behind closed doors. And no I am not talking about you and your buddies that banded together on your own. I am talking about ALL kids you grew up with in general. How your group treated others and how others treated you. How the social peer pressure in schools created monstrous environemnts that most people can't recall in detail if they try.. and most don't care to. There just are not many people that would care to go back through child hood.... WHY ? Cause kids and being a kid sucks. They are ignorant, mean, cruel little bastards and only through years of patient training do they become good socialble little liars that keep a pleasant face on everything like society preffers.
And yes I agree not ALL kids are such. But most of them are and it has fuck all to do with video games and an awful lot to do with a few million years of evolution to survive in a harsh violent environment. Violence in and of itself is not a bad thing. Many Many good things in this world were accomplished through violence. The cliche example of the over throw of Hitler obviously comes to mind. Does that condone all violence? Certainly not. But I don't see much allowance here for the fact that Violence is a part of our society. I see a mentality of sweep it under the rug... Hide it. At least for the kids... let them keep their illus
I don't ask you to be me. I only ask you not expect me to be you.
Of course, there's the off chance that after turning 18, the kid who couldn't buy GTA will remember the dickhead politicians who stopped him.
Infact, less then 30% of all games released a year (I believe it is 24% but not certain) are M rated, compared to more than 50% of all movies (belive that is 54%) are R, the equivlent to the M rated games in the movies.
Actually, I personally know of more complaints with the MPAA ratings then the ESRB ratings, I work at a Local Video store, and I discourage parents from renting out games to minors that are out of their age range, but I can't enforce it, I can't tell you how many parents allow their kids to rent M Rated games only to go and not let them watch PG-13. I had a friggin' seven year old talking to a friend about how cool Manhunt was, I told his mother that he was trying to rent a very mature game, only to be shrugged off. I then proceded to tell the mother that I personally was discusted with the game and that it is like watching a Faces of Death video, only then did she seem to get my point. Thinking it was over, I walked away, only to be confronted by my boss 10 minutes later on why that customer was upset with me, she thought I had called her parenting into question. My boss then said that she would have given me a warning had she not heard about 2/3 of the five minute conversation.
So if you belive that a store is just likely to stop selling Mature games you are insane, but to say that Mature games are the biggest profit margin, let me ask you what sold more Grand Theft Auto: San Andreas, or Madden 2006. Burnout 3 or Punisher. I will tell you that Madden wins hands down, as does Burnout 3. My store manager even told me once "If it has EA as the Publisher I get at least 2 copies if not more, we usually end up making 10 times what we pay on all of their titles." (That was after I reccomended he get some more copies of games that I knew that dorks like me would be into, like Rez, Kotor 2, or even some games that I knew would rent well in my area Juiced, Flat out, MX vs ATV Unleashed.)
Being as I am a philosopher, I think I'm actually in a position to give a little critique of your response.
The vast majority of philosophers uphold theism. -- Proof by reference to obscure authority is not a sound argumentive technique. If you are going to make such a claim, the burden is upon you to support it. Further, word choices such as 'vast majority' simultaneously attempt to represent claims as being strong while leaving them vague. Philosophical arguments are not well founded or defended using superlatives nor vagueness. You're making a large claim. How, exactly, do you actually plan to support it?
'theism,' incidentally, refers to the belief that there is/are a god or gods, and that they are some way involved with existence. It is not, as a theologial position, restricted to, or inherently supporting of, Christianity or any other specific religion.
The two most widely respected (even among their atheist colleagues) philosophers of religion are Alvin Plantinga and Richard Swinburne, who have spent most of their careers showing that many Christian doctrines can be supposed to be true. -- Again, you make a completely undefended claim, yet attempt to represent it as a widely accepted fact. This is also an unsound argumentive method. If you are going to try to make a claim about the opinion of a large number of people, you must clearly define the members of the group, and then present evidence to support your claim. Further (while not making a critism of either Plantinga or Swinburne), someone making a career out of a debate upon suppositions does not in any way in and of itself have any bearing upon the possible existence of god(s).
Take a look, for example, at Swinburne's The Resurrection of God Incarnate (Oxford University Press, 2003). -- Yet again, you make an attempt to invoke a reference to a seperate authority, rather than present an argument of your own. While you've provided a specific reference, there is still an expectation that one will present at least the outline of an argument, rather than expect someone to infer it from an entirely seperate work.
Therefore, one cannot say that religion in general is a "silly thing". -- You attempt to claim your unsound references in some way actually constitute and argument, and form the basis for a conclusion. They do not. Your conclusion in no way follows from them, and in no way actually addresses Grishnakh's statement of personal opinion.
If you held the necessary academic qualifications -- philosophers (formally credentialed or not) refer to this as the Genetic Fallacy, the source of an argument in no way actually affects the validity or soundness of the argument itself.
and were able to frame an argument correctly, -- perhaps this is an unfair aspertion, since you have not demonstrated you yourself would recognize a correctly formed argument if you saw one, not having presented one yourself. (People in glass houses...)
people might care. -- You cared enough to respond to begin with, so it's apparent that other people might care about the topic regardless of your own opinion of a position different than your own.
For a horror movie, you are right, Hellraiser is a very graphic movie. However, for a kid, I am not sure if it is the worst movie you could show them.
Hellraiser relies on fantasy, to show demons which rend the flesh from those who relish in violence, using chains and hooks - among other things. Some would find it a sensual movie (series) depicting ultimate pain as ultimate pleasure. These things tend to go beyond child-level understanding. That, coupled with the imagery on the box, and the knowledge of what it is about, might at least cause a bit of hesitation on the part of the retailer and/or parent, about whether to sell it or let the child watch it.
But is it really that horrible of a movie? Let's take another movie for instance: Silence of the Lambs. Here is a movie that is almost pure psychologically thrilling, with very little (compared to Hellraiser, at least) in the way of blood or gore. More about the naivete and development of the main character of Clarice Starling, as she battles "evil" in the form of "Buffalo Bill", who is killing young women in a seemingly random fashion, for unknown ends. A man who knocks out and kidnaps his victims, then puts them in a deep hole in the basement of a house, while he goes about his business of killing them in a slow, methodical fashion. In the background, helping both himself and Clarice, is the repulsive and enigmatic former-psychiatrist Hannibal Lector, contained in a special cage, given his crimes of utmost depravity - for which he can give very reasoned, logical explanations as to the whys of, which are, it seems, rather convincing...
Does it help that while Hellraiser is based on pure fantasy, Silence of the Lambs draws from the real life terror that the dude in the house three doors down may be a serial killer? That people just as depraved and indifferent to life as both Hannibal Lector and Buffalo Bill walk around among us, have killed among us, have tortured among us, have made couches and lamps with the skin of their victims - in both the past, and likely the present - and that this is real, and has gone on likely as long as mankind has existed?
Which is more frightening? Hellraiser and its fantasy world, or Silence of the Lambs and its based-on-reality world?
The unfortunate fact is that people will continue to hound on the former and ignore the latter - whether it comes to children or adults watching it. People, for some reason, seem oblivious, and likely frightened, of the fact that the ordinary can easily hide the extraordinary and depraved. That the clown hired to tend to a child's party is actually a serial killer hiding the bodies under his house (J. W. Gacy). That a woman can go on a "rampage" and kill her family and friends for seemingly no reason at all (Lizzy Borden). That a person could stalk and kill prostitutes without provacation (Jack the Ripper). That a respected "Doctor" could so easily lure and kill his victims in a "house" constructed to lull and confuse his victims before he killed them (Dr. H. H. Holmes).
They have numbed themselves to the fact that humans are, at base, animals, and that some of us lack both reason and empathy, and are able to commit these crimes without remorse - and day in, day out - these people exist among us, work among us (and in some cases, over us), live next door to us. That, in my opinion, should be way more frightening than any fantasy depiction of violence...
Reason is the Path to God - Anon