Slashdot Mirror
Video Game Industry to Sue Michigan's Governor
hapwned writes "A news release at Warcry writes that the ESA (Entertainment Software Association) plans on filing suit in Michigan to overturn the recent Violent Games Act. From the article: 'The ESA argues that this bill is an effort to substitute the government's judgment for parental supervision and turn retailers into surrogate parents. Lowenstein said that the industry's products were being unreasonably and unfairly singled out. He contends that while there is no question that a few games have content that some audiences will find offensive, the same can be said for some content in TV, films, music, and books. Since the government does not regulate the sales of those entertainment industries, it should follow suit for the sale of video games. Ultimately, he concluded, parents, not government or industry, must be the gatekeepers of what comes in the home.'"
It's not the Government's place to tell it's population what they can, and can't play.
Really, it's gone way the fuck too far.
~The TwoTailedFox posts again....
anybody got fined 12,000 dollars for renting or selling a "violent" movie to a youngster?
or better yet, a cartoon.
or an orson scott card novel.
One word to the child:
No.
Repeat as necessary.
Yes, it fucking is. Granted, it is 100% the responsibility of the gaming industry to provide information (e.g. ratings) about the content of their games. But it is the parents' responsibility to make decisions for their own children based on that information. Parents are not being deceived here; each game has a recommended age printed on it, along with a laundry list of potentially offensive topics or images that appear in the game.
Any parent who buys Grand Theft Auto for their child (you don't even need ratings - read the title!!!) is a either a goddamn psychopath, or woefully ignorant. Either way, it's their fault for accepting or ignoring the consequences.
Yo mama so fake, she failed the Turing Test.
And if you try to discipline someone else's child, you run the risk of getting yourself into a physical fight with the parents, or even sued. I don't think so.
People try to make wholsome products... problem is nobody buys them. Or at least not enough people to make them profitable.
Video games are not chemicals ingested in the body. Yes, you can argue that the playing of video games does alter neurochemistry somewhat, but that is totally a different thing. Regulating video game sales WITHOUT regulating the sales of books, movies, cds, magazines on the same basis is uneven and therefore unethical. There is far more violence in the bible than in any video game that I have seen... would you accept banning sales of bibles to children? The number of people killed by religion is far greater than the number of people killed because of video games.
I'll never make that mistake again, reading the experts' opinions. - Feynman
It's not the government's job to "protect" anyone from themselves, no matter how many times they've orbited the sun. Help given to someone who doesn't want it is not help at all.
The fact that they've passed laws before to protect people from themselves doesn't mean it was the right thing to do, nor is it justification for passing even more of them.
Visual IRC: Fast. Powerful. Free.
It seems to me that the movie industry, haveing been made an offer it couldn't refuse (from the US gov't back in the '20s) set up self regulation: Films get rated, distributors won't screen X, unrated or (often) NC-17 films.
Uhm. So has the games industry... what the heck do you think the ESRB *does* exactly?
The problem is that video games are being harassed by lawmakers *despite* having set up a mature self-regulation system, and movies (for instance) are not. Novels, which can be extremely disturbing and violent (see: American Psycho) have never had a self-regulation system, and they're entirely ignored by politicians and the press. Why? THAT is the issue.
Comment of the year
Um... feel free to correct me (and I'm sure everyone will leap at the opportunity), but I thought the whole idea of the bill was to ensure that the parents DO get involved. Ie, a child cant go to the video store and buy a NC-17 game (or whatever the classification system is), but instead has to get their PARENTS to buy the game for them.
Otherwise, the kid could just buy the game and hide it until the parents aren't around.
Yes, this is an inconveinece for the store clerks, that have to vet customers ages, and yes it'll reduce sales because there'll be fewer games being sold. But saying that this bill does NOT support a parent's interjection in a child's activities is just stupid.
Posts like this just make my head spin...
Parents ought to keep a close eye on the things their kids do, but it is also the community's responsibility to raise kids rightly.
But? But?!? Parents ought to keep a close eye on the things their kids do. PERIOD. There is no 'but.' You're just making excuses for bad parenting, and then blaming it on society. Right. It's everyone ELSE'S fault you're a shitty parent and your kids is going nuts in a public place. That kind of attitude is part of the problem.
So too is it important that industries concentrate on producing high-quality, wholesome products. Whether this be something as nutritious as breakfast cereal or as empty as your typical R-rated movie, it is important that the community standards to which a majority of a community profess are supported by the corporation's product.
It is important for industries to concentrate on goods and services that people want to pay for. Thats it. No, no, stop, really. That is ALL. If it isn't in the industry's interests to produce what you call "wholesome" products, then it has no responsibility to do so. The industry doesn't owe you anything. Why should anyone be able to hold them to their own personal standards of decency through enforced legislation? Thats just crazy. If you don't like what they're selling, don't buy it.
There always seems to be a handful of outspoken activists railing against one thing or another that they consider offensive. There is always talk about common decency, community standards, etc. But you get right down to it, most of the stuff they find offensive (popular Movies, TV shows, GTA) is hugely popular. Many many many times more people are actually buying and enjoying the very things these "defenders of decency" are opposed to. This leads me to ask "Just what mythical puritan community ARE these people representing?" Because when you look at the numbers, THEY are the ones in the minority.
It is good business to provide people with things they need. But there is also a lot of money involved in selling people their vices. We do not accept people who wish to sell drugs to minors, nor do we absolve of guilt those who would ply them with alcohol.
You're comparing video games drugs and alcohol? You've got to be kidding me....
It is not always 100% the job of the parent.
Um, yes. Yes it is.
The community must be held responsible to the extent that they have offered moral corruption from beyond the purview of the child's parents.
As I said before, the community is not responsible for your child. You are.
But say you're right. What if this mythical magical "community" is responsible? What are you going to do about it? Who are you going to punish? All community is, is a group of individuals. Are you going to just start selecting subsets of individuals and punishing them for their 'irresponsibility'? In the case of GTA, who do you pick? Do you punish the head of Rockstar games? The development team? The marketing guy? Suddenly one of these people is responsible for your kid? Or what? It just doesn't make any sense. These people don't even know you, or you them. There is no way they can be blamed for your poorly raised child.
Your kid, Your problem
"To lead the people, you must walk behind them"
"Of all tyrannies, a tyranny exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive. It may be better to live under robber barons than under omnipotent moral busybodies. The robber baron's cruelty may sometimes sleep, his cupidity may at some point be satiated; but those who torment us for our own good will torment us without end, for they do so with the approval of their consciences."
C.S. Lewis
Uh huh. Because precisely what we need are more laws, because we can't trust parents to be responsible enough to apply their moral values (which may not be the same as yours, by the way) to their little bastards.
Hey I'm a parent, and I'm extremely vigilant in this regard. I certainly don't need laws to do my job for me! On the other hand, I'm surrounded by people who don't seem to give a rat's arse about what their kids are exposed to. I used to love free speech before it was taken away, but letting your 4 year old watch the Texas Chainsaw Massacre? C'mon!
My problem is this: I can raise my boys to be ethical and as they get older, to understand entertainment violence in context, but my family is not an island. My kids (and my self for that matter) will have to live in a world filled with the demon spawn that other parents have negilently released into the community. So while I don't need laws to tell me to do my job, I do need laws to tell those other parents to do theirs.
That being said, the Law is a very blunt instrument when it comes to getting parents to take their responsibilities seriously. You can't censor out all the violent cultural material, at lest not without creating an intolerably saccharine culture. (Conversely, of course, some material is so objectionable that no civilised society should tolerate it, eg. children's programming which extols the virtues becomming a suicide bomber.) I'm just no sure how we can get parents to take an interest and to realise the responsibility they owe to their fellow citizens.
Better to be despised for too anxious apprehensions, than ruined by too confident a security. --Edmund Burke
Someone FINALLY clues into what I have said to my peer group (and been sound berated for) It's about bloody time parents started taking responsibility for their offspring.
I have always maintained that kids blaming their anti-social behavior on video games, music, movies, etc was a cop-out, a way of deflecting blame and reducing their possible heavy sentence.
I grew up watching the Big Bunny & Roadrunner Show. The most violent cartoons of their time (not to mention Tom & Jerry) and I don't go around smacking people with a 2X4. I was also seriously seriously teased throughout my grade school life. I also thought about grabbing a gun and blowing away more than a few of my fellow students. I didn't because.......
MY PARENTS TOOK AN INTEREST IN RAISING ME!!!!!!!
Parenting is not just having offspring but also raising that offspring to be a productive member of society wether they be ditch-digger, philosopher, politician or scientist. It doesn't matter what they become as long as they contribute to society rather than interfering with it.
I know this is kind of a rant/lecture but I care about human-kind. (Plus I've have a couple of Canadian-strength beers)
The GEEK shall inherit the earth...