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 ...'"

18 of 419 comments (clear)

  1. Free Market versus Black Market: Nanny State by dada21 · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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.

    1. Re:Free Market versus Black Market: Nanny State by TheAxeMaster · · Score: 5, Insightful

      That's not what this is about.
       
      This is about taking the parents' ability to blame the video game manufacturers and putting the blame squarly on themselves for NOT BEING PARENTS! The sooner video game companies stop getting sued because stupid parents won't actually be parents and police what their children do, the sooner video game companies can spend less money defending shit like that and start making more games for less money.
       
      It doesn't cost the retailers more, all they have to do is look at the back of the freakin box! And if some 12 year old is trying to buy GTA, well, don't let them! If mom buys it for them, then its mom's fault, not the retailer or the game maker. Mom can't try to cash in on the game company because her child shot someone.
       
      Reguardless of whether or not the kids end up with the games anyway, it will now be the responsibility of the parents, and they won't be able to get out of it anymore. It IS a good thing.

    2. Re:Free Market versus Black Market: Nanny State by MBCook · · Score: 4, Insightful
      Just what we (and especially financially strained CA) need: more bureaucracy. Let's ignore that fact that banning the sale of games with certain content is blatant government censorship (good or bad). Let's ignore that whole "freedom of speech thing" (even if that refers to only political speech).

      The article makes a great point. The RIAA gets to oversee music. The MPAA gets to oversee movies. The ESRB is impotent and the goverment must oversee games.

      But next it will be music.

      Then movies.

      Then TV.

      And the slope slickens (like that word? I think I invented it). This bugs me for many reasons, but two major one. First, the government shouldn't be in the business of censoring anything some little group doesn't like (once it's law, how long do you think it will be before any violence of any kind against any minority is instant grounds for a banning?). And second, of all the things we see (cursing and sex on network TV, violence, sexualizing of children, anti-religious sentiments, etc.) why is it VIDEO GAMES that we are working on? If the average kid plays 1 hour of video games a day (probably too high), and watches 3 hours of TV (probably too low, much of it "sexy" primetime), and sees 2 big movies a year (violent, "sexy"), and more houses have TVs than video games (for obvious reasons), which medium will have the most effect on kids psyches?

      Right. The video games.

      PS: Let's just ignore the fact that at the rate we're going video games are about the only place kids can see real conflict (especially in sports) since we wouldn't want to keep score in games or every let anything harm poor Billy or it might hurt his self esteem (until he is 18-21 unless he is a minority, at which point he is in the "real world" and his self-esteem be damned even though he was never taught any coping skills).

      Sorry that got a little rant-y.

      --
      Comment forecast: Bits of genius surrounded by a sea of mediocrity.
    3. Re:Free Market versus Black Market: Nanny State by Grishnakh · · Score: 4, Insightful

      And second, of all the things we see (cursing and sex on network TV, violence, sexualizing of children, anti-religious sentiments, etc.) why is it VIDEO GAMES that we are working on?

      What's wrong with anti-religious sentiments? Religion is a pretty silly thing--really, who still believes in stuff like a guy named Atlas holding up the world? Although many religious people know laugh at this notion, all modern religions are filled with similarly stupid and ridiculous stuff, so I see no reason not to make fun of them. Besides that, religion is to blame for a lot of the misery and suffering in the world, so again, I ask, what's wrong with anti-religious sentiments?

      And what's wrong with sex on TV? Sex is something that people do, just like eating, crapping, and farting. Are you going to complain next that TV shows people eating, and this is gross? How about if we only have TV shows about happy robots, so we don't ever have to think about any of those nasty biological things that people have to put up with?

  2. Modern Parasites by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Interesting
    I plucked this quote out of someone's sig, but it seems appropriate:
     
    "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."
    -Graham Strachan
  3. Piracy by daniil · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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.
  4. One man's realistic... by one_get_one_free · · Score: 4, Insightful

    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.

  5. Violence: Europe vs. USA vs. Japan by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Interesting
    Violence in America is much greater than violence in Japan and Europe simply because the degree of competition in America is much greater than the degree of competition in the other 2 places.

    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.

  6. A Double Standard? by SirChive · · Score: 4, Interesting

    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.

    1. Re:A Double Standard? by cowscows · · Score: 4, Insightful

      There aren't those harsh penalties for movie theaters, because movie theaters, for the most part, enforce the ratings on films. They do so to keep the government from getting involved.

      If they video game industry had paid better attention to what was going on around them, they could've policed themselves, and the government wouldn't have gotten involved.

      Sure there are some bad parents out there who need to pay more attention to their children. But there are also plenty of good parents who do take an interest in what their children are exposed to, but who realize that they can't lord over their children 24/7. Watching a young teenager like a hawk all the time isn't good for the parents or the teen. But neither is throwing all caution to the wind and letting a child do whatever the hell he wants.

      The saying goes, it takes a village to raise a child. Most of us don't live in a village anymore, it's impossible to know even a sizable percentage of the people/situations that your children are going to be exposed to. So society creates some laws to make that a little easier to deal with. Most parents don't want the Playstation, the TV, or the internet to raise their kids. They don't want the government to do it either. But they certainly wouldn't mind a little help now and then, and restricting the sale of content deemed mature seems like a pretty reasonable way to help.

      Restricting the sale of video games to kids is not the huge travesty of basic human rights that some people want to make it out to be.

      --

      One time I threw a brick at a duck.

  7. Some questions by fuzzy12345 · · Score: 4, Interesting
    No matter what the measure -- gun control, banning/regulating violent videogames/movies/TV/comic books, punitive sentencing laws etcetera -- there's always someone arguing passionately against it.

    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.
  8. Oh Well. by hahiss · · Score: 5, Funny

    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
  9. Violence in Media by visionsofmcskill · · Score: 4, Insightful
    This is a recurring issue that returns everytime a new media comes to bear.

    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?
    1. Re:Violence in Media by Eightyford · · Score: 4, Funny

      The average white collar family has TWO working parents who spend 50-60+ hours a week at work and commute another 10+ hours.

      So how does your ass feel after pulling these numbers out of it?

  10. Independent game devs? by xiaomonkey · · Score: 4, Insightful

    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.

  11. Re:Violence: Europe vs. USA vs. Japan by Gaccm · · Score: 5, Interesting

    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...
  12. Re:Nanny State by SQLz · · Score: 4, Insightful

    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.

  13. Re:Hold up there, Captain America by tmortn · · Score: 4, Interesting

    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.

    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 /. 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.

    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.