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....
Its like some of those 'soviet russia' jokes are coming to life.
"In soviet russia, games sue you!"
were doomed!
A morning without coffee is like something without something else.
Ha! Damn politicians thought they could just roll over the games industry eh? To be honest, I didn't think that the entertainment companies had it in them to challenge the government. Good for them!
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.
Doug Lowenstein.
Come on guys, you know that name.
The IDSA. The same guys that were tearing down emulation sites by the dozens between 1998 and 2000. I still have some screwed up pictures of the guy someplace on my hard drive from back in the days of utter hatemail over the issue.
So I'm torn to even begin to support anything the guy or the new name of the computer entertainment mafia. But they are right.
Karma: Chameleon (mostly due to the fact that you come and go).
But why does this have to turn into yet another round of Sue Somebody(TM), much less the governor? Even if I were to sue somebody, I'd sue the state legislature first, or better yet, the special interest groups that started the bill in the first place.
Skype is too convoluted... Now I'm reverse-engineering the Kyoto Protocol.
But industry shouldn't have a role? That's crazy talk. 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. If a kid is running around Wal-mart yelling and screaming, most of the time people just look the other way and mutter under their breath. But that is doing a huge disservice to the child who will not learn proper behavior.
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 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.
It is not always 100% the job of the parent. The community must be held responsible to the extent that they have offered moral corruption from beyond the purview of the child's parents.
Jesus saved me from my past. He can save you as well.
I don't see why this compromise can't be reached. At that point we will be conducting due diligence, and can reach that wonderful state of plausible deniability.
No, I did not RTFA.
I think they should just do a Counterstrike tourney to settle this lawsuit.
Who cares, this all comes way too late to save the Lemmings.
&sniff;
org.slashdot.post.SignatureNotFoundException: ewg
Ultimately, he concluded, parents, not government or industry, must be the gatekeepers of what comes in the home.
Why should parents raise their kids when the government is happy to do it?
Why is it that in America we allow such things to happen? What happened to parents taking responsibility for their children? As a child I remembered hearing my parents telling me "No". And if I continued bothering them the spanking would commence. These days parents are afraid to be parents because of how government regulates children. If a parent disciplines their kids by spanking, it's bad. But if this is not done, than they will grow up and be miscreants. As a conservative right-winged nut, I refuse to blame the game industry. It is the parent's responsibility to take handle of the situation. If you are reading this and want to understand what happens to a generation of children who never got spanked, by all means read Starship Troopers by Heinlein. Parents take back your children or else the state will impose its foot into your house.
"C++ is to C as Lung Cancer is to Lung"
12. When you cut and paste your troll from an email use Preview to make sure it's formated correctly.
KFG
A bit self serving (ie: it's hurting our sales... urrr... children!)... but still, a good sentiment.
UTF-8: There and Back Again
Um, the V-Chip, Janet Jackson's nipple...
films,
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.
music,
Content labels, and the world's largest retailer won't carry potty-mouth stuff.
and books.
Well, they've certainly been banned in the US before. Ulysses, Lolita....
Since the government does not regulate the sales of those entertainment industries...
Bzzzzzt.
Everybody's a libertarian 'till their neighbour's becomes a crack house.
you know what ethics, and all that crap aside, and yes I said crap. In todays capitalist society the gaming industry needs to pony up and lobby the hell out of this. Thats the real driving force behind law making in this country isn't it. I'm tired of people pretending that this is a moral issue. All it is about is about Hillery Clinton preping her self for the 07 presidential race, and paying off enough senators to make this go away.
She had this comming. She wanted this anti violent game campaign much like Hilary is chasing GTA to further herself.
Granholm is on thin ice in this state... and signing the violent games bill, i assume, makes her feel she may win some votes with the conservative/christian/majority of the west side of the state.
The trademarks relating to the video game are: Doom, Doom 2, and Doom 3. Not just the word doom. Though I did manage to find a description of a biological product for a doom trademark.:(
Ooo man the floppy drive is broken. No wait. The computer is just upside down.
...but not necessarily one any more or less than any other companies. Certainly the arguement about movies and music being less pressed-upon is quite valid...
There's a big difference between this and selling drugs or booze to minors. First of all, street drugs are illegal to all... and both are something that despite any mental maturity, young people initially have little physical resiliance to.
Give them ratings, enforce, and inform... but don't hold the game companies accountable when parents buy their kids SlaughterGoreBloodbath 4.0
...that they didn't get a bigger cameo in Grand Theft Auto: Detroit?
"Made up/misattributed quote that makes me look smart. I am on
Ooo man the floppy drive is broken. No wait. The computer is just upside down.
Are the Big Government idiots, though, going to do to the videogame industry what they did to the tobacco company? Every time a tobacco company tries to defend itself, its extremist critics go "see? They're defending themselves because they have a guilty conscience!". And then when the extremists get the government to extort the tobacco companies and force them to fund anti-smoking commercials, again -- "see? The tobacco companies are funding anti-smoking commercials -- they have a guilty conscience!"
The anti-tobacco lobby has effectively perfected the same tactics Jack Thompson has been using in his tiresome and painfully obvious plan to extort money from the videogame industry. I think a good strategy for the videogame industry would be -- find out where the tobacco industry went wrong when it defended itself from litigious extortionists, and what dirty tactics those litigious extortionists used that made them so effective, and develop a more robust defense accordingly.
Because this is what anything having to do with any kind of blame that ignores the issue of personal responsibility is about -- legal extortion. The motives behind anti-videogame-industry types, as much as they wish they were ulterior, are easy to point out.
Slashdot requires you to wait longer between hitting 'reply' and submitting a comment.
"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"
Why'd you have to bring other media into it?! Now we'll all have to show ID at the Barnes & Noble checkout!
with an Entertainment Industry suit.
Wow thats weird.
And if they do win, I hope that they force the governor to pay in quarters.
You see? You see? Your stupid minds! Stupid! Stupid!
Why would the people who are in charge of taking care of thier children be resposibile for not doing their job? It's NEVER their fault. :)
[ brakken ]
I have a theory I'm testing out, could you help me by answering one simple question?
Have you successfully raised two or more children?
My theory is that people who have don't dispense parenting advice in glib little phrases and hold forth that parenting is simple.
Don't moderate flamebait as Troll. Know the difference or you will be Meta-moderated.
The new law, SB 416, would restrict the dissemination of video games containing certain violent content.
What exactly are the restrictions? Does it mean that, under the new law, video game stores cannot sell violent video games to kids, or that video game stores cannot sell violent games to anyone? And does it cover internet sales as well? Is it illegal for an eBay seller in North Dakota to sell a violent video game to an eBay buyer in Michigan? Has anyone actually read the bill?
... This seems to be the biggest problem with this whole issue. It is a game, not real and just a few minors, (Yes, I'm a minor as well,) end up having a nice little rock for politicians to grab onto in that giant Climbing-Wall-O-Politics. This is not a problem, this is not an epidemic.
As for the argument that it partly is the community's responsiblity to teach a child what is right and wrong, I agree to an extent. If I were to see a child running around screaming his/her head off and approach that child, the mother or (worse yet) the father might respond in a negative fasion. A question with this responsibility is, 'Should I get involved when I could just as easily be pointed out as the bad guy.' There are those parents out there that just don't want to be told how to run thier lives, (much like a minor), and abhore the thought of someone telling them how to raise thier child.
Another issue here is the fact that a lot of people claim 'Ignorance'. Ignorance does not work here. How many years has the ESRB been in effect, working for the education for the parents?
Over TEN years. This is no longer ignorance, this is 'Stupidity'. We can no longer claim ignorance as an attack on the Gaming Industry as there has been more than enough warnings, and attempts at teaching adults how to choose a game that is right for thier children.
According to Princeton University's Dictionary stupidity is as follows: Noun
* S: (n) stupidity (a poor ability to understand or to profit from experience)
This seems like a poor ability to understand to me.
Empathetic-- 94% You tend to walk in someone else's shoes a hundred miles before pointing a finger.
And you were there, inside of it, crying.
There's a big problem with the games industry (or any media entity) having to police their own product. Instead of ensuring that risky materials are segregated from the fluff, they simply refuse to produce them. If the cost associated with pushing the envelope is too high, risk taking is discouraged.
When the MPAA for movies, the FCC for television or the Comic Book Code really started flexing their power it was always followed by a long period of bland (but unobjectionable) product.
This practice will be particularly pronounced in the games industry, where originality and innovation are already on the decline.
With more and more of the industry falling under larger conglomerates (E.A. anyone) the chances of maverick developers pushing the boundries of this self imposed censorship becomes smaller as well.
VGCats: Coco Beans in Warm Water"
I am scientifically inaccurate.
It's whether or not to protect the sensibilities of children. It's not a book ban, or a movie ban, or even a game ban. It's keeping kids from getting uber violent and very adult-oriented materials.
---- Teach Peace. It's Cheaper Than War.
And, when all else fails, pick on people's spelling.
ACCEPT != EXCEPT
Dunno. How long has Wal mart been running US foreign policy viz China?
Everybody's a libertarian 'till their neighbour's becomes a crack house.
I am reminded of this old proverb: It takes a village to raise a child. Whoever said that must not have believed a child was fully the parents' responsibility. The law is a regulation on content deemed inappropriate for certain age groups by the ESRB. As was commented before, I don't see why this shouldn't be enforced in the same manner as tobacco/alcohol sales, or in a more applicable sense, movie ticket sales. Honestly, the way kids are and always will be, parents need all the help they can get.
We're talking about the game industry here. Can you honestly see a design team meeting going like this:
"OK, what do we want from our next game, Bob?"
"We want a high quality, wholesome game."
"Right, what else do we want in this game, Joan?"
"Teaches something, like math or proper grammar."
"Excellent point! Yes, Jeff?"
"It should underscore moral values and show the value of good teamwork."
"By golly, Jeff, I knew there was a reason we signed you on! Toni?"
"It will have to feature players defeating computer players, because we wouldn't want to cause any injury to self esteem."
"Toni, I see what you mean. OK, break off into groups and brainstorm, we need to think of a theme for this game, what's in it, what the goals are and so on. Lou!"
"Yes, Pete?"
"You start drawing up the Chapter 11 papers."
It's not really that much of a stretch, look at how the entertainment industry ran away from kid-theme movies before Toy Story, Aladdin and Lion King, now they're right cranking out some decent family pictures (though Disney's seem to be just repackaging the same tired stereotyped characters they've been beating to death for the past 40 years.) Try developing something decent and competitive. It can be done, but the trend is more and more violence because it shows it sells.
A feeling of having made the same mistake before: Deja Foobar
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.
Also I think we should ban high school football. God knows how much violence that has caused outside of playing it.
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.
In the US you can be a todler and go into a games store and buy something like... Vampire Bloodlines (with plotlines involving snuff films, butchering babies, killing police officers...) or some other pleasant game like GTA SA.
But you can't at age 18 walk into a pub and order a pint of beer...
I don't really understand it, computer games are like videos, just so far worse graphics and more interactive, but I'd imagine soon it'll reach video quality. Which begs the question... isn't letting a minor buy a sex-rape-killathon style video game over the counter the same as letting a minor walk into a dirty sex video shop and buy the equliviant video off the shelf?
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"
How thoughtful of the game industry to support the individual's right to raise their own children. Except that it is blatantly obvious that their only reason for doing this is so that they can take advantage of people who don't take an interest in what their kids are doing. The fact that the game industry is against it is fairly strong evidence that the problem exists to be taken advantage of. I'm as against this kind of government regulation as the next guy, but that doesn't make the game industry in any way right.
So are you saying there is no correlation between parenting experience and parenting skill?
Because I would think that a person with more parenting experience than myself is more likely than not going to know more about it and have a more valuable opinion. I think your reply that x+y
I think the notion that we were all kids once so we all equally knowledgeable about parenting is not logical.
Don't moderate flamebait as Troll. Know the difference or you will be Meta-moderated.
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.
I don't know what pisses me off more, the government sticking its dick in everyones proverbial ass, or the parents that expect laws to do their jobs for them.
Shit like this is proof positive that democracies and republics are goddamn shams, because damn near everyone is goddamn stupid and their combined ineptitude ends up fucking the whole thing up.
Slashdot is proof that Sturgeon's Law applies to mankind.
Michigan gets alot of press. Timothy McVeigh Bowling for Columbine Michigan Militia UofM Football Quami Killpatrick (No I have no clue how to spell his name)
Sometimes when I'm working on projects things disappear, I suspect gremlins.
"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
We completely disagree.
Governments and civil societies construct legal systems to server the populace. The populace, under 18, needs to be prevented from pr0n, booze, weapons, and in this particular case, violent video games or those video games with adult images in them.
No, it's not fair to arbitrarily have 18 as the age, but there is no other accepted metric for separating youthful impessionistic people from adults within our society.
---- Teach Peace. It's Cheaper Than War.
Help given to someone who doesn't want it is not help at all.
You mean like an intervention for Alcohol abuse or drug addiction? I would say the government, and by government I mean it's citizens, in some cases has a strong argument for protecting its citizens in certain cases. Clearly it is not their job to meddle in every part of life protecting citizens from every harm that might arise, but it has an interest in protecting many. O many stupid things people chose to do because "Hay man that's my right" comes back to kick us ALL in the ass. Who pays for smokers who can't work because of emphysema, or the man who ends up in trauma care because he chose not to wear his seat belt?
I think people ahve the right to do as they wish without government involvement, unless that activity is going to affect the rest of us somehow. But this debate is about the government regulating the gaming industry, which is ludicrous, since no other forms of entertainment as equally violent are regulated by them. Besides, despite faulty studies saying otherwise, video game use has no detriment to others aside from yourself. (Partners of WoW players may say otherwise however)
Here's the Bill's webpage and the final version signed by Governor Granholm at 11:58am EDT today.
GLaDOS for President 2016! "Well here we are again. It's always such a pleasure." -- GLaDOS, 2011
Uhm, cigarettes aren't sold to minors. Minors aren't allowed in certain places... like where they sell alcohol and have naked women dancing. They can't buy alcohol. The dirty magazines, which they can't buy, are also blocked from view at stores that sell them and where minors are potentially present.
I don't see this as a huge deviation. I see this as recognition that games are a form of media entertainment. What's more, is that it tends to be quite involving and draws the player into that reality making it, is some ways, potentially more problematic to the formation of young minds.
That said, I'd probably let my boys play just about any game, and I'm not against them looking at porn either. Then again, I'm generally in touch with what they do, what they say and who they associate with and I'm comfortable that their personalities aren't particularly warped. I get the feeling, however that many parents aren't particularly close to their children... that's a shame and undeniably the root of the problem.
That said, we can't legislate good parenting... only parenting that "isn't harmful." And we have a society of children growing up with antisocial problems as a result of their detachment from parental care. So the BEST we can hope for is that the community find a LEGAL way to raise the kids.
Kids are not property, they are little people. And when they grow up, they are either society's problem, or society's benefit. If we can't get parents to take responsibility, who should?
So many people are saying "this is just like movie ratings, so what's the big deal?", which is total garbage.
Plain and simple: It is not ILLEGAL to let a kid into an R-rated movie. You will not be fined. Yet these laws make that occur for video games. That is the big difference.
Until Sony/Lowes can get fined for letting kids into R-rated movies, these laws are just blatantly unfair, and deserve to be overturned.
"Who pays for smokers who can't work because of emphysema, or the man who ends up in trauma care
because he chose not to wear his seat belt?"
The same people that pay for crack babies, welfare moms and homeless people. The same people that indirectly sponsor cancer research through government grants. Taxpayers.
No matter what the system is, there will be those that contribute and those who unfairly benefit from it. All you can do is try to intelligently manage it and keep the damage low. However this is all unrelated to the topic at hand, which is a small, lazy, vocal group grabbing the reins of the government and steering it into an Orwellian domain where what you see and what you play is strictly monitored by the government.
The less responsibility you take for yourself, the more responsibility society, and by extension, the government, must take for you. Stop expecting the government and laws to solve your problems, and stop trying to pass laws that circumvent the freedom we all take for granted in this country.
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
what will happen is that tv, books, and films will be censored and subdued because video game developers are crybabies
So I guess you've never tried to get into a rated 'R' movie at 13 years of age, or pick up a Playboy at the local MegaMart at 15, and never heard of people right off the stage during a broadcast TV show taping called a Censor, making sure that the actors don't do something offensive, such as use an explitive???-- Ed Bugg --You have freedom of choice, but not of consequences.--
and turn retailers into surrogate parents.
Okay! Let's allow cigarrettes and alcohol to be sold to minors! The kids are responsible, who are we to tell them they can't buy something! It's very probable they were sent by their parents to buy them... besides, we don't want to turn the clerks are surrogate parents, do we? (/sarcasm)
Pardon me from being redundant and captain of the obvious, but the real motivation is because the game industry will lose LOTS OF MONEY with this law.
The crowed was not surprised by this.
"In soviet russia.." someone shouted ".. football bans YOU!"
Funny, and here I thought protecting children was the parents responsiblity.
Oh, right, sorry, I forgot. Nobody is responsible for anything wrong anymore. It's all "societies" fault.
Next step is prison for parents who let their kids watch a "bad" movie or game.
Good to know you're so up-to-date on the videogame industry which produces games like Nintendogs, Pokemon and The Sims, among many other best-sellers which have little or nothing to do with blood or nudity...
As for your [paranoid] point, it's not much to worry about. Even conservative Supreme Court justices have a track record of standing behind the First Amendment (though I admit they sometimes have trouble with others like the 4th and the 9th), so the chances of these anti-gaming laws passing constitutional muster are slim to none. Thus, your concerns about the incredibly inventive, creative media such as TV (yay, a sixth Law & Order sereies!), books (John Grisham's contributions to literature can't be overstated) and films (thank God for the freedom to see Pearl Harbor) are pretty unfounded.
It would be one thing to ban the sale of games based on a certain rating, like prohibiting those 12 and under to purchase rated T games, or prohibiting minors from buying rated Adult and/or Mature games. Once you start definiging OUTSIDE of the ratings, like any games with sex, violence, cop killing, etc, then that is going into censorship.
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...
If parenting is such a burden to the common whiny parent, then I move to totally eliminate the entire parental concept and let the government control all infants born in our fine nation. Such a radical thing could not exist in our current form of government, so it is necessary to remake our government to satisfy these claims. Anyone who has read 'Platos Republic' would have a good idea of what I am suggesting, but I will enlighten you all on my interpretation and opinion on how our current culture would design this fabulous creation.
Ahemm...
We need to destroy our constitution, human rights, marriage, religion, and of course, the common family unit consisting of a father, mother, and children. With our clean slate, we are now free to craft this new republic.
First off, a child is born and immediately sent into government processing. (I will explain how the child was produced later)
1 - Government is responsible for raising the child, this includes housing, feeding, and education.
-> Child lives in a type of nursery where trained (Beta) females, headed by an (Alpha) female, would raise all infants until the point of basic language comprehension (Typically 3 years of age). Other responsibilities would include recognizing birth defects, mental and physical retardations. Such children would be removed from the nursery and experimented on so as to identify the causes of these defects, they are later terminated.
-> Children passed the age of 3 are then formed into logical clusters based on specified breeding arrangements from their parents. They are then dormed together so that each cluster will receive a unique program of education designed to bring out the expected results concluding from their eugenic pattern.
-> Education typically involves physical training, lingual understandings and comprehensions, mathematics, sciences, technology, and creativity. (History, Philosophy, and Art doesn't exist anymore. We want our children to be intelligent, but we don't need them to 'Think')
-> Graduation from this education system will determine what classifications each child will have within our republic.
I will break these classifications down into 3 categories and then reduce each category by gender.
[Alpha Male & Female]
-> Forms the collective governemt to rule its people. All nation affecting decisions are decided solely on individuals who qualified necessary characteristics from their education. These people are not elected, but instead chosen products of perfect excellence who understand fully the needs and growths of our fine nation.
-> Designs all the mating patterns of the populace, combining both physical prowess and acedemic brilliance in hopes of producing a new generation of more superior (Alphas).
-> Forms all departments of theoretical sciences and invention.
-> Elders become professors in order to educate newer generations.
[Alpha Females]
-> Heads all nurseries so as to maximize the efficiency of infant growth.
[Beta Males & Females]
-> Organizes the developments of the common national needs, such as, food & water, medicine, transportation, government controls, and military.
-> Provides foundations to encourage creativity, entertainment, and growth. (Video games, movies, music and what not would occur here.)
-> Organizes breeding programs with the intention to produce a new generation to maintain these (Beta) programs.
[Beta Females]
-> Responsible for raising all infants produced for the government.
[Delta Males]
-> Those lacking in education are put into greater physical training programs and then placed in the military, programmed to be a meat shield for our nation, protecting and enforcing its interests upon the world.
-> Mental and physical experimentations for a wide array of reasons. Mainly to determine why eugenic expectations failed. Also to create cybernetic and geneti
If i wanted to hear bullshit, i'd go to church.
i'm a michigan resident in my late 20's...when i buy booze its i usually get carded 50% of the time. i remember when i purchased doom 3 last year, the chick who rang me up asked me for my id, and not a year before that, some kid carded me when i wanted to buy tickets to a rated r movie.
is it just me, or is the fact that its easier to buy booze than it is for me to watch a show or play a game really illustrate just how fucked and buracratic we've become.
dude.
The fact is, YOUR standards are not MY standards. Kids are growing retarded. It isn't some genetic problem, or lead in the water. It is that most of the population is either ignoring their kids, or like you, trying to "protect" them to the point of retarding them.
If the only parent that would buy Grand Theft Auto for thier child is either a psychopath, or woefully ignorant, then the government SHOULD step in. In fact, there are parents that are good parents, and have tought their kids what is real and what is not. Heck some parents even teach their kids that the things in GTA DO happen, but that you don't want any part of it in real life, just as you might teach your kid that whale hunting isn't a good idea, even though you let them read Moby Dick.
I will absolutly let my child play games like GTA, although GTA likely won't be around by the time he wants to play games that complicated. I won't do it because I'm not paying attention. I will let him play because I am. And I'll play WITH him.
PWN3D!
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.
IMHO, the first step would be to stop pushing parenthood and stop providing incentives for it.
If the only people who had kids were those who really give enough of a shit to take the responsibility seriously (like it sounds like you are) rather than just every dipshit who wants to be a part of something or wants something to love them then that problem would dissipate
Part of this is governmental which we (supposedly) have some power over (subsidies).
The other part is societal e.g. TV, commercials, and movies (the pushing thing).
That's way tougher to address given that whole freedom of speech thing.
Another alternative is punishments for parents when their kids screw up.
That's a real tough one as well due to nature/nurture/societal influences etc.
So, it is a really serious issue but it's a really tough one as well.
Good luck with yours.
No, that's not at all like an intervention. The final outcome of an intervention is decided by the person with the problem. Bad analogy. The goverment does not intervene and ask, "So, what do you want to do?"... the government asks if you want to obey or disobey the law and face the punishment for disobeying the law, in addition to the supposed inherent punishment from taking part in the act, which draws a major gap between alcohol/drug abuse and violent/sexually oriented video games (according to my official survey "Study Differentiating Between the Damage Done by Drug/Alcohol Abuse and Violent/Sexually Oriented Video Games", which is on display in a locked filing cabinet in a disused lavatory with a sign saying, "Beware of the Leopard", at the Town Hall).
Not as such. In fact, out of the three examples the only one I don't have appreciation for is Pearl Harbor - I haven't seen it because I'm picky about movies. I used it as an example because it received so much critical scorn.
As for Law & Order, I actually quite like the various versions. The only two I disliked were Crime & Punishment (I get enough justice reality from the History Channel) and Trial By Jury (written badly, wasting some pretty good actors). With John Grisham, I stopped reading with "The Brethren" but liked the books that came before, recognizing, though, that there was nothing in them that "pushed the envelope" in terms of creativity. They were just well-written legal thrillers.
All in all, I like a LOT of mainstream stuff. My point was simply that videogames are no more guilty of a lack of creativity, or a lack of artistic value (implied by your "blood and tits" comment), than any of the other entertainment media you mentioned. While there are game developers who push out derivative crap intended to appeal to the LCD, there are also game developers who try to do something new and different.
Short version? Your post was shit.
That should be, instead, "Ultimately, he concluded, judges, not parents or government or industry, must be the gatekeepers of what comes in the home.'"
Just because you don't like a law doesn't mean you can get a judge to throw it out. They aren't the 'mommy and daddy' of the nation. If you don't like the law, get it overturn in the legislative system. This is a democracy, not a parliament with a dominant king who can dispose of parlaiment at will.
Consider that when the government creates laws to force parents to do their jobs in this particular manner, it only creates a social precident which has the exact opposite effect.
It's been a long time.
A poor attempt.
I wasn't aware that books were considered entertainment anymore. Learn something new everyday I guess.
We completely disagree.
"We"?
The populace, under 18, needs to be prevented from pr0n, booze, weapons, and in this particular case, violent video games or those video games with adult images in them.
No, they don't. European children manage to handle nudity and alcohol at younger ages, and they're turning out all right. Hell, they have lower rates of teen pregnancy than the US.
There's nothing wrong with watching porn or violent imagery, as long as you know the difference between fantasy and reality. That comes along in the single digit age range, not at 18.
Visual IRC: Fast. Powerful. Free.
i believe you mean Id software. DOOM is a product and as such can't own anything.
I understood references to DOOM in such contexts as references to a hypothetical "Doom division" of Id Software, analogous to the Windows Core OS Division of Microsoft. This would be the division of Id responsible for developing the Doom(tm) engine and marketing it to other game developers, using tech-de^W games such as Doom 3.
You must be 14...
Cute, but wrong. I'm old enough that most age restrictions don't affect me, but unlike many people, I didn't become apathetic about them the day I turned 18 or 21.
Visual IRC: Fast. Powerful. Free.
Where are kids getting the $40-70 to buy a Grand Theft game in the first place?
Cash or checks or gift cards enclosed in birthday greeting cards, for one. Paper routes, for another.
When the MPAA for movies, the FCC for television or the Comic Book Code really started flexing their power it was always followed by a long period of bland (but unobjectionable) product. This practice will be particularly pronounced in the games industry, where originality and innovation are already on the decline.
Companies such as Nintendo and Namco make all sorts of innovative E- and T-rated games. What was Super Smash Bros. rated? What about Custom Robo or WarioWare or Katamari Damacy or Donkey Konga or Pac-Pix? Are they objectionable? No. But are they bland? No. As long as the EVERYONE division of each of these leaders in EVERYONE games continues to follow in its own footsteps, you'll still have plenty of non-bland games to choose from.
So... the ticket-seller is allowed to sell a ticket to a NC-17 movie to a minor?
Two errors in your analogy:
Minors aren't allowed in certain places... like where they sell alcohol and have
Other responsibilities would include recognizing birth defects, mental and physical retardations. Such children would be removed from the nursery and experimented on so as to identify the causes of these defects, they are later terminated.
Almost every human being is born defective in some way, and most of us are mentally retarded compared to people in the upper echelons of Mensa.
where is the soma?
Check your spam folder. I'm sure a lot of scambags that want to sell you Vi@G`R4 and ><3N1CA|_ would like to sell you some S0|V|A too.
Learn more about Soma® (carisoprodol)
People will reinvent/preserve "History, Philosophy, and Art" forever, no matter what happens, as it is a naturally emergent trait of a thinking mind.
Even in the presence of broad and de facto perpetual copyright law that, once enough works are created and published, creates a chilling effect on creation of new works?
Can't someone give me a damn link for this bill? I live in MI, and though it won't stop me from buying games, IE i'm not a minor, it'd be nice to read what they're trying to pass. But yet, I cannot find it in that link. So help me out please! Thank you. This is what I think. 17+ games shouldnt be sold to anyone under 17. It's the same for renting rated R movies, you have to be 17(or maybe it was 18, my minds fried right now). Now should the game company be sued? No. Should the retailer be sued? Yes. If the retailer is selling games to minors when the rating is clearly on there, they should be sued. It's standard practice not to sell 17+ material to minors. I don't get the big problem over this. Retailers shouldn't be second parents, but they should be following the ratings. Parents who buy those 17+ for their 10 year olds are just dumb parents, or they have really mature 10 year olds...riiiiiight.
Flat Screen TV for F
The only problem with those laws (well not the only, but still...) is they allow the irresponsible parents to file suit against the gaming industry because they were too lazy to look at the box and see what kind of content the game had before forking over the money for the kid to buy the game. So, if the law is to be there, it should at least have the stipulation that the industry can't be taken to court for money or anything other than to have them fix the content that is in violation of the rating it was given. After that the state should take the kid(s) away from the parents for the parents being negligent in taking care of the kids. Of course, taxpayers would be paying for this.
Never underestimate the power of stupid people in large groups.
Seems a lot of people here are over-reacting, including the ESA.
/ billenrolled/senate/htm/2005-SNB-0416.htm
All this bill does, as best as I can understand it, is prevent a retailer from selling a "naughty" game to someone under 18.
It's nothing different than the age requirements for an R-Rated movie at the movie theatre. It simply says that little Johnny can't plunk down $50 and buy GTA.
If Johnny tries, and suceeds, then the retailer who sold it to him can be fined. If a game is given a Mature/Adult rating, then shouldn't we enforce it at the retail level like we do movies?
I'm all for parental supervision, but mom can't watch Johnny 24/7. If I were a parent, I would want to know that my kid couldn't go buy GTA without an adult's assistance.
BTW, the entire bill can be read here:
http://www.legislature.mi.gov/documents/2005-2006
-David
I just thought I would take a moment to put in a word for the good ol' Promise Keepers, who believe that fatherhood is analogous to priesthood, and priesthood is analogous to godhood. In other words, sire up some followers and become a God-King!
They also teach that it is a sin for people to have sex without the express intention of starting a family. This, to my mind, is one of the reasons for exactly what you're talking about. In order to prevent disease we tell kids not to fornicate, so in order to fornicate they get married. And we told them not to use birth control. We told them that marriage is a magical state of being in which you can't get sick or pregnant unless you want to - why else would married people be so very, VERY happy? So they end up with parenthood foisted on them as well as marriage. Then what do they do? They're stuck in the American dream and there's no way out.
Seriously, movements like this are like bad parenting for the parents. Personal responsibility my ass.
... after reading the article. I am a taxpaying Michigan citizen, and I am wondering, WTF is going to pay for that Canuck's mistake (Granholm- no I am not fond of her. Does anyone know that Michigan's governor was a citizen of Canada?!? Sounds fishy to me...No offense to our northerly neighbors either.) This lawsuit ultimately falls on the pockets of Michigan taxpayers... HOW does this happen!?!? The funny thing is, we had no involvment regarding the passing of this bill (ergo, the representatives in the Michigan legislature that we "voted" for) Is it just me, or is this whole government thing getting a little out of hand? Since when does the US government have morals? I thought those were abolished... Oh, BTW, (O.T.) you non-michigan viewers will get a kick out of this. Apparently this same state has a law against cursing in public in front of children (which I could understand) and women. I had a friend that went to court for that one. Can I just buy a ticket to the moon, and live there? This is ludicris!
This useless space for sale, inquire at front desk.
No, it's not fair to arbitrarily have 18 as the age, but there is no other accepted metric for separating youthful impessionistic people from adults within our society.
Who accepts this metric? How many people that accept it have ever evaluated its worth? Most of them accept it because it's the way it's always been, or because $GOVERNMENT_MOUTHPIECE says you have to accept it.
The only people in a position to make an evaluation of a person's maturity are the ones that know them well.
"The newly born animals are then whisked off for a quick run through a giant baking oven." --heard on Food Network
You mean like an intervention for Alcohol abuse or drug addiction?
;)
This is nothing like an intervention. An intervention is initiated by people who know the subject of the intervention. You don't see police tracking down people who frequent bars and organizing interventions for them, do you? It's not something that you have a right to do on behalf of a person you've never even met, firstly because it's none of your business, and secondly because you can't evaluate whether or not they need it if you don't know them.
Who pays for smokers who can't work because of emphysema, or the man who ends up in trauma care because he chose not to wear his seat belt?
We do, because the fucktards in charge think that socialism is a good idea. That's another thing you don't have the right to do: spend someone else's money.
I think people ahve the right to do as they wish without government involvement, unless that activity is going to affect the rest of us somehow.
See my previous statement.
Besides, despite faulty studies saying otherwise, video game use has no detriment to others aside from yourself. (Partners of WoW players may say otherwise however)
Hey, they can get all the attention they want by playing WoW with their S/O.
"The newly born animals are then whisked off for a quick run through a giant baking oven." --heard on Food Network
Shit like this is proof positive that democracies and republics are goddamn shams, because damn near everyone is goddamn stupid and their combined ineptitude ends up fucking the whole thing up.
None of us is as dumb as all of us.
"The newly born animals are then whisked off for a quick run through a giant baking oven." --heard on Food Network
No matter what the system is, there will be those that contribute and those who unfairly benefit from it. All you can do is try to intelligently manage it and keep the damage low.
False dilemma. Abolishing the system is always an option, even if it's difficult for many people to contemplate.
"The newly born animals are then whisked off for a quick run through a giant baking oven." --heard on Food Network
If the only people who had kids were those who really give enough of a shit to take the responsibility seriously (like it sounds like you are) rather than just every dipshit who wants to be a part of something or wants something to love them then that problem would dissipate
Let me know when you figure out how to quash the ol' biological imperative. (No, forced sterilization is not an acceptable answer.)
"The newly born animals are then whisked off for a quick run through a giant baking oven." --heard on Food Network
just reading the article, i totally agree. instead of making numerous posts criticizing others beliefs i will just stick with this. and god god damn any slashdot member thinks there is a problem with this article. (I gotz me a bigo' tree out bak 4 ya)
The only problem with those laws (well not the only, but still...) is they allow the irresponsible parents to file suit against the gaming industry because they were too lazy to look at the box and see what kind of content the game had before forking over the money for the kid to buy the game.
I think what is really happening is that people with a hardline pro-censorship agenda are buying these games, full-well knowing their content, with the express intention of suing the producer. It's a form of deliberate political activism.
As I said, I'm very much pro free speech, but I realise that it cannot be an absolute. A society has the right to censor to some degree. I fear that these people are tending far too much towards the saccharine culture I was fearful of.
I think schemes like the present one, ie. using age restriction, are probably one of the best compromises. If the adults who subsequently supply minors with these products were also made criminally liable (I don't know if they are in the present scheme), we would have a way to deal, not only with irresponsible parents, we could also lock up these campaigners. :)
Better to be despised for too anxious apprehensions, than ruined by too confident a security. --Edmund Burke
"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!"
;-)
Kudos to you - I only wish you were in the majority
"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."
Indeed not. However, they're your kids, not the government's - I'm (admittedly) not a parent myself, but isn't the job of the parent to insulate kids from things dangerous to them? It might not be easy, but I can't believe it's not possible - we've had violence, profanity and sex for the entire span of human existence, and we're still here. Indeed, many would say we're more civilised now than in the past.
I understand your position - if (for example) you ban your kids from watching TCM on DVD, they can just go round a friend's house and do it. If you never find out about it you can't stop it, but:
1) The mere fact they know they'd end up in trouble means they know what they're doing is wrong, which reduces its influence over them.
2) If your child's been raised to be honest, you stand a good chance of finding out about it anyway eventually.
3) If/when you find out about it, you should go straight round to the house and ask what the hell the other kid's parents are thinking, letting a young child watch horror films. If the parents are so irresponsible they can't (or won't) stop their own kid from doing it, you should:
3a) ban your child from visiting them. He can still see his friend at school, or playing in the park - he's just banned from going to their house.
3b) report them to the authorities for showing violent/sexual/profane material to a minor. The offence is a in a responsible adult showing the material to someone underage - it shouldn't be in selling (or buying) the material.
Again, I'm not a parent, but I was raised well - my parents didn't have 100% control over my every action, but if something was off-limits it was off-limits, and if I got caught doing it I was In Trouble.
Even if we allow that video games specifically can warp a child's perceptions, seeing or playing one once (or even rarely) isn't going to do anything. Even the most ardent pro-censorship crowd only seriously suggest that prolonged or regular exposure can harm a child, and unless your child's regularly disobeying you (like, daily), you can stop that.
If your child is disobeying you that regularly, that's just bad parenting - no two ways about it.
"That being said, the Law is a very blunt instrument when it comes to getting parents to take their responsibilities seriously... 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."
Exactly. Laws are a bad idea, and parents aren't taking responsibility anyway... so the solution is emphatically not "more laws", but "find a way of getting parents to take responsibility".
I'd shy away from making it legally an offence for parents to show their kids films/games that are over their age-rating, since responsible parents know best whether their kids are ready for that sort of thing (and laws in this area unreasonably restrict freedom to raise your child the way you see fit).
However, how about:
1) Making it an offence to show anyone else's children over-aged films/games, and
2) Requiring a specific complaint from that child's parents before prosecuting?
That way if you (or you and Billy's mum down the block) agree your 16 year-old(s) are mature enough to watch an NC-17 film no-one can stop you (and any harm is restricted to your own children). If your kid goes round to Fred's house and his dad lets them watch the Texas Chainsaw Massacre without your permission, the full weight of the law comes down on him like a ton of bricks.
As a second-best (but very american) solution, make it a civil matter, so you can sue Fred's dad for voluntarily putting your child at risk.
Either way, stronger (and involuntary) laws and penalties are not the way to do it.
Everything in moderation, including moderation itself
Promise Keepers would be great if it wasn't for the incessently bible-bashing nature of it. You can do all these things that matter, and there need not be any religious angle on it at all. Which isn't to say that you can't add a religious side to it if you wish, but why exclude non-religious, moral people from it? (Do you perhaps see us as inferior humans?)
As a moral atheist, it really annoys me at times that we are automatically seen as somehow inferior and less moral than those who follow any particular religion. If anything, we are more moral, because our only reason for doing good is because we want to do it - why should we care otherwise, when there is no retribution to be feared? I do good because it is good, end of story.
So, I'm going to suggest a re-write of their list of seven promises, as follows:
Promise Keepers - Seven Promises For All Men:
There you go - just as much, if not more bite, with stronger commitment to all humans, and minus the religious bias. There is no reason you couldn't promise the above and apply whatever faith you have (or none whatsoever) to the way you carry out your promises in daily life. If the promises are worth making, they shouldn't deliberately exclude anyone.
So I ask you: who needs any kind of god to make them moral? Does not having a religion automatically make you a bad father? Do those who commit to each other and raise families, yet remain unmarried, automatically make worse parents?
Because I know a whole bunch of people who prove otherwise, and hope to be as strong, if not a stronger symbol of good human values (with no need whatsoever for religion) to my own kids one day.
Organic free-range music... yum!
>>The populace, under 18, needs to be prevented from pr0n, booze, weapons, and in this particular case, violent video games or those video games with adult images in them.
>>>No, they don't. European children manage to handle nudity and alcohol at younger ages, and they're turning out all right. Hell, they have lower rates of teen pregnancy than the US.
Yes, they do.
Consider the Euros then: no doubt nice people. I've been many times across the pond in my lucky life. Have numerous friends both in the UK and on the continent. They'll disagree with you, too. They reel at GTAs use by children just as I do.
-Nudity is fine. Pr0n is not nudity-- it's adult sex.
-Alcohol in moderation is fine, but when a child can get mickeys of JD at school, it's not. Social consumption culture of alcohol is decidedly different between the EC and the US.
-Specious citations comparing teen pregnancy rates tries to tie unrelated issues together and isn't valid in this context.
We disagree of the age when these adult things can be considered consumed by an adult mind. 18 is arbitrary, but it's a good number until another test comes along that our nutso government can agree on. Until then, let the parent make the choice, it's their right and obligation and responsibility.
---- Teach Peace. It's Cheaper Than War.
And a good parent can evaulate their children. If they can't 18 is a good age. Some of my children were mature at 12 in very adult ways, while others didn't really get there until 19.
I accept the metric, the responsibility as a parent, and expect others to do the same.
Yes, it would be nice to have a test saying can you handle the next scene without frying your mind: hot onscreen sex, manuvering a character to slice open another human, and so on.
Or here, kid, wanna cigarette? How about a 500cl whang of wine? I don't think I want someone else making that decision for me, a parent. So I stand behind 18, odd an age as it is. There are rights of passage and general intuitiveness that make some kids more mature at younger ages. And many of them fool themselves into believing they can handle adult contexts when they clearly cannot. For those that cannot, the bar must be held high.
---- Teach Peace. It's Cheaper Than War.
I live in Michigan. SB 416 restricts sale or rental of violent or sexually explicit video games *to minors*. TFA conveniently fails to reveal that point.
According the to the bill folks 18 and over can buy or rent anything they want.
we see things not as as they are, but as we are.
-- anais nin
i'm really not sure what that has to do with anything.
The point I was trying to make, and that many other people's comments seems to have also said, is that this is not a new thing. There's already censorship over books, tv and movies.
The statement the article makes (the basis of the suit) Since the government does not regulate the sales of those entertainment industries... is false, the "government" does already have some regulation over these industries, sometimes it's the local, sometimes it's the state but sometimes it's the federal government, but these industries do have regulation over them.
-- Ed Bugg --You have freedom of choice, but not of consequences.--
I played Super Mario Brothers earlier. I then tried to break brick with my head. I'm bleeding quite profusely. Who do I sue? Seriously though, this law is just another example of the mass devolution our society is taking. As a teacher, I see the direct result of parents who do not take proper care and make the appropriate effort in raising their children. It is your responsibility to teach, raise, and yes discipline your children. No one elses. You can try and make any argument you like, but any person with even a shread of common sense and decency knows that it is their job to teach their children right from wrong. Our society has made everyone a victim. In the past, parents would be mortified to see inappropriate behavior from their children. They understood that their children are a reflection of them. Today, many parents believe that they are no longer to blame. Their children are a reflection of society, not themselves. When you start distancing yourself from your own child and their behavior, is it even your child anymore? Should the ESRB rating system be more strictly enforced? Yes. No question. Gamers and non-gamers alike know that it is far too easy for a child to purchase a game rated beyond their level. But that enforcement should fall squarely on the shoulders of the parent. The retailer should take steps to train employees in the rating system, but should not be ultimately responsible for censoring expression. It may take the village to raise a child, but it is the parent that must provide shelter.
Who pays for smokers who can't work because of emphysema?
The same people who pay their social security checks & medical bills if they live far longer because they didn't smoke.
The "government budget" argument against smoking (or for sin taxes)is fallacious . Smokers COST LESS because they die quicker and aren't on the public dole (Social Security, Medicaid etc.) for nearly as long.
Another one bites the dust
from people who get their philosophy on how to live life from science fiction novels.
Heres where you jump up and down and tell me "you don't know the history of spanking children! I do!"
Plays violent online games as: Nerfherder76
Porn and Nudity are not the same. Europe, in most cases, has strict laws regarding porn. However, it's commonly accepted to go to beaches nude, and show nude imagery on TV. Graphic images of people having sex seems drastically different than being comfortable with the human body.
I have mixed feelings on this case. While I agree that it's none of the governments business, the government already regulates a large number of things in the entertainment industry. For instance, you cannot see a movie that's rated R without parental guidance. Likewise, you cannot see an NC-17, regardless of parental presence. All this law would do is enforce the same standards. Certainly, an over 18 parent could purchase a M or AO video game for their child, but a 16 year old who has a part time job who stops into a video game store, purchases the game without his parents knowledge, and plays it during the few hours a day they're off school, and mom and dad aren't home yet - that's what this law is designed to stop. I'm not sure the governor is oversteping her bounds.
Ok, now read the post again, very carefully, especially the line form which you took your quote.
Got it now?
Good.
If not, here it is.
The grandparent said that he wants to decide when his kids are old enough to smoke or drink (to use the examples in this line: Or here, kid, wanna cigarette? How about a 500cl whang of wine? I don't think I want someone else making that decision for me, a parent. So I stand behind 18, odd an age as it is.).
He wants to decide when his kid is old enough to drink, not someone else making that decision for him.
However, at 18, his child is no longer 'a kid', and can make the decisions for himself.
At no point, however, does he say that he wants the goverment to have full control, quite the opposite in fact. However, he wants to be able to make those decisions, rather than the child, until (of course) the child becomes an adult.
Hence the age limit (18) which, in these cases, can be overruled by the parent.
as long as you know the difference between fantasy and reality. That comes along in the single digit age range, not at 18.
I'll have to disagree with you there. It seems many adults, and in particular most politicians, have quite a bit of trouble telling the difference between fantasy and reality most of the time.
-
- - You can't take something off the Internet! That's like trying to take pee out of a swimming pool.
And that is the contradiction of the year.
Another one bites the dust
I had completely lost my temper yesterday when I wrote to Assembly member Yee which wrote the crappy bill theyre trying to get passed in California that is ALMOST as bad as the one in MI. Unfortunately I was so mad that my grammar and writing suffered horribly, not even sure how much sense I ended up making to tell the truth, but at least I said something so I felt better getting it off my chest.
To: Assemblymember.Yee@assembly.ca.gov Subject: I dont want to live in your Utopia Mr. Yee, Since you are going to go ahead and decide what My kids can experience instead of me why don't you go Ahead and raise them yourself. That way you make sure They legally can't have a McDonalds Happy Meal more Than once a month, they have to eat at least one green Vegetable a day and the police can throw you in jail If you don't stand guard over them while they brush Their teeth three times a day? I think what you Should do is get a grip on your self righteous save The world attitude and worry about saving yourself From the "utopian" society you are eventually going to Create by pushing bills like this through. Oh yeah There are hundreds if not thousands of studies that Show conclusively that "utopian societies" are a Horrible idea and inhumane at the basest levels. We are doing just fine without you and all the Other control freak politicians that would like to have The government do everything for us including wiping Our asses. There is a major flaw in your bill Mr. Yee, I can still rent video games for my kids... or is that going to be illegal also? You going to throw me in jail for making the decision on what is ok for my kids to do and what's not? You better hurry up and edit that bill to include that if not, we wouldn't want you To leave a loophole for us Satan worshipping, video Game supporting, heavy metal listening parents to slip Through now would we? Spend your time on something Useful Mr. Yee, like fighting Porn, Now there is a real Threat to our society, never mind the terrorists. Sincerely, Jason D. Blevins Living in Indiana instead of Caly for a reason!
Jay Dale "If you're not living on the edge then you're taking up too much space!"
Prison for parents who let their kids watch to 'bad' games or movies? It'll never happen. Instead we'll throw the EBgames clerks, theatre employees, and rap singers in prison.
Yeah. I totally agree. Spending most of their time at either work or school, a lot of these little hooligans think they deserve off time playing their violent video games. POPPEYCOCK! They need more hard work! Discipline! Some kid thinks he can buy and play a violent video game a YEAR earlier than he's legally supposed to? THE DEATH PENALTY!! Also, I think it should be illegal to have sexual relations before marriage! And what's with this 'separation of church and state' thing? Sounds like them gay jews are trying to overstep their legal boundaries to me!
Remember, it's only a free-market economy until you do something the people in charge don't like or makes them look bad.
Let me know when you figure out how to quash the ol' biological imperative.
I don't think that's really possible or advisable.
I also don't think that that is the only factor involved though.
All I suggested was to stop promoting and subsidizing it, not to coerce people not to.
There is a huge difference there.
Actually, you're kids probably need more discipline. With globalization of the world's economy, education is more important than ever. It's astounding how much more focus nations like China, Japan, and India place on educating youth. If we don't keep up, we're bound to fall behind. You'll probably find this interesting:N ANCE.html?ex=1126929600&en=b0ebb9d149965ce2&ei=507 0
http://www.nytimes.com/2005/04/03/magazine/03DOMI
I also think you're being a bit silly - this has nothing to do with seperation of church and state. This isn't a religion thing (I'm atheist), though I suppose it does concern morality, which is always open to interpretation. I'm just saying this new law isn't overstepping bounds in any new ways that existing laws haven't already done. If you want to fight the system, go after earlier precidents dating back to the 60s and 70s, and try to get the government to undo restrictions at the FCC, rather than attempting to sue the governor for signing a bill.
We want to require parents to be responsible for their children. However, America also imposes restrictions on how parents can parent. We require parents to send children to public schools, which exposes children to outside, undermining influences. We restrict the amount of physical and emotional negative reinforcement that parents can mete out to their children. We don't enforce dual-parent, single incode households so that one parent can have time to raise the children. In short, we force parents to let society raise their children, so why should they have any responsibility?
That's why we have courts: to protect the minority from the predjudice of the majority. That's why I oppose John Roberts; he believes that the courts should stay out of social issues, which effectively reduces America to mob rule. The court system is the only thing keeping America as relatively free as it is -- and by "free" I mean protecting everybody's right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. I can't see how stopping somebody from marrying the person they want to isn't a restriction of their happiness.Incidentally, you'll probably appreciate this quote:
If the only people who had kids were those who really give enough of a shit to take the responsibility seriously (like it sounds like you are) rather than just every dipshit who wants to be a part of something or wants something to love them then that problem would dissipate
Nice idea, too bad the premise is wrong. I know many bad parents who have kids because they wanted to have sex without responsibilities (Including thinking about birth control). Then she gets pregnant, and they still don't want responsibility so they do the minimum required to keep the kid alive.
That isn't to say you are fully wrong. There are clear indications that after welfare became easier for single mothers to get, single mothers become much more common. However it isn't clear if there is a cause/effect relationship. (The sexual revolution was taking place at the same time, single mothers may have increased anyway). Yes single mothers are automatically bad - children need a father as much as a mother.
If I have to read one more post where someone seriously tries to compare video games to alcohol and tobacco I think I will scream...and possibly throw myself out of my office window.
Who cares if a group with voluntary membership has rules that involve fines? It's not a law.
...Likewise, you cannot see an NC-17, regardless of parental presence. All this law would do is enforce the same standards. ...
The difference is that the movie ratings are inforced by the industry, not the government. The game industry needs to get better at self-policing in order to help get rid of government interference.
"Giving money and power to government is like giving whiskey and car keys to teenage boys" P. J. O'Rourke
"That's what happens with a fucking chick in public office."
How truly pathetic to see such vicious sexism on slashdot. Is this 2005,or 1905?
There's already a precedent on the books for states controlling minor's access to content deemed "harmful": access to viewing of human bodies possibly engaged in legal sexual acts.
Now here is a case of a government wanting to restrict a minor's access to entertainment and training video's promoting violence and murder -- things that are not only illegal, but growing problems in our socieity.
Hello...does the word "bassackwards" mean anything? What screwy with this situation? The United States has its priorities way screwed up in this area.
It was well noted around the world some of the differences in "3rd" world areas swamped by the Tsunami last summer and area's of a "1st" world swamped by Katrina. There were numerous reports of rape, looting, even of looters shooting down rescue helicopters in New Orleans. Amerika really showed it's colors in how the opportunists responded and how slow the rescue efforts were in helping a less affluent portion of the US (but considerably more so than the Tsunami victim area).
How can we sit around having laws that rate PG rate artful movies like "Sirens" as "R" for nudity, or "Ma vien la Rose" "R" for harmful thought matter (story of a boy who thinks he's a girl) -- things that are thought provoking but by no means illegal, when at the same time, we can allow thousands of TV-Shows and movies to run with multiple murders and varying levels of graphic details of violence to run with a PG or PG-13 rating?
It's just plain insane. The same ratings should be _able_ to be applied to video games -- just as there are laws on the books applying to restricted access to "adult" book and magazine content (where adult means things you can legally do as an adult). But for things you "can't" legally do as an adult, somehow we think that it's fine for those to be unrestricted?
Step aside from your feelings of your personal "rights" being trodden on for just one second and try to look at it from a societal view. Where is the logic in the US's current attitudes towards sex and violence?
Compare and contrast to contries with similar attitudes towards sex and violence (heavily reglious societies...Iran, Iraq, etc.) vs. much of Europe. Check out the violent crime, the gun-assisted crime rate, and the rate of sexual crimes against women and children -- especially in countries like the Netherlands.
GET A CLUE!!!
*shouting against the wind*...
-l
Hey I'm a parent, and I'm extremely vigilant in this regard.
Great!
I certainly don't need laws to do my job for me!
Good. That needs to go both ways.
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.
Perhaps they simply do not agree with your oppinion of how their kids should be raised?
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.
No, you need laws so that you can use the power of an armed police force to impose the way YOU think those kids should be raised.
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.
Oh, I agree with you there. However I seriously doubt that my definition of "demon spawn" would quite match up with your definition of "demon spawn". I don't know you and your family, but you should consider the possibility that your family might just fit my definition. I am a strong believer in values, but my values may just conflict with some of your values.
I used to love free speech before it was taken away, but letting your 4 year old watch the Texas Chainsaw Massacre? C'mon!
Texas Chainsaw Massacre certainly isn't the first thing that would come to mind to pull out and give to my 4 year old... but lets say my 4 year old comes to me and asks about it... and lets say that the way I've raised my 4 year old is nothing like the way you raised your 4 year old and therefore you have absolutely no idea how my 4 year old would deal with it. And lets say that I taught my 4 year old that things on TV Are Not Real, and that there are things on TV that Should Not Be Done. And lets say I consider it of utmost importance that my child to know that they can always come to me with questions. And lets say I sit there ready to turn off the TV if I think it is going badly, and maybe comment on it, and to deal with any questions or reactions. Lots and lots of assumptions, but lets go with it.
The question is, do you think you have some right to PULL OUT A GUN AND FORICBLY IMPRISON ME if I do that? And that is what we are really talking about with laws, the idea that you can "hire" a government police officer to pull out that gun for you, and to imprison me for you.
If you don't like the way I raise my kids, fine, don't send your kids over to my house.
material is so objectionable that no civilised society should tolerate it, eg. children's programming which extols the virtues becomming a suicide bomber
Actually forget the children's programming aspect of that example for a moment. It is a very delicate line, but it is already criminal to act with intent to cause a crime to be committed. It is criminal for me, with actual intent, to ask you to kill someone.
And when I say a very delicate line, I mean a very delicate line. A person who produced that video with intent to cause suicide bombings is a criminal, a person who aired that on TV with intent to cause suicide bombings is a criminal. However the literal content itself is not criminal. For example a teacher or even a TV program that included video as part of an educational peice, and analizing the conflict in the middle east, and analizing the techniques used in the tape to recruit suicide bombers, well that would be perfectly legal. In fact it could be quite effective in helping to prevent suicide bombings.
That is a subtle point that people often overlooked in understanding freedom of speach. It's not the words/content that is illegal. Saying "I'll give you a million dollars to kill my wife" is not illegal. Attempting to cause the death of your wife is illegal. Saying those words as part of a movie script, or otherwise without intent to actually cause a death, that is perfectly legal.
I'm ju
- - You can't take something off the Internet! That's like trying to take pee out of a swimming pool.
The ESRB is a government body, no? Or, at the very least, the government forced the industry to develop the body after games started being more graphic, and less like Nintendo's "kid's orientated" policy.
I suppose you are right... It's truly sad to see that, as you noted, the government already has at least 1/3 to 1/2 of parenting so intertwined in itself that it's difficult to argue why they shouldn't be liable in some of these cases, which means they are believed to need more power, which breeds more liability, ad nauseum.
Slashdot is proof that Sturgeon's Law applies to mankind.
No matter how many hours you watched those shows, it was glaringly obvious that the characters were fictional.
The closer the characters get to real people (and in games and of course movies this is astonishingly close) the faster imitation (an innate learning mechanism in children, but also in adults) takes place.
We have all heard many instances in which children get injured by donning a Superman cape and jumping from the window believing they are going to fly.
Other example, of which USian and other audiences may not be fully aware is wrestling. In Mexico wrestlers are quasi mytical people, I would say pretty much akin to superheroes (i.e. not taken seriously but by children). Children very often get injured trying to imitate these wrestlers. For 30 years the goverment took notice and banned wrestling on TV and the accidents came to an almost complete stop. Later in the late 80s wrestling was back on TV and the accidents began to happen again.
It is completely disingenous to mantain that children , that learn by imitation, will not be affected in any way if violence in some games is presented in a glamourized way reinforced by positive feedback (the more enemies you kill the more points you get).
IANAL but write like a drunk one.
Sorry, but you are completely out of place.
Children are not the regular populace. Their freedoms are coerced in many ways because most societies belive (rightly so in my opinion) that there are certain things a child can't handle because he lacks the experience.
The logic summersault that you take from controlling sales of adult material to children to banning books for everybody is frankly farsical.
IANAL but write like a drunk one.
Unfortunately society has not decided to control books in a similar way, perhaps given they iconic value as a cultural item.
IANAL but write like a drunk one.
.... gives that mandate to a goverment.
If special interest lobbies are getting the best deals out of goverment it is because the popualce is perfectly happy with the situation as it stands.
But some people have difficulty accepting that people delegating some interventionist powers to a goverment (by omission od disinterest in many cases) is perfectly valid in a democratic system.
IANAL but write like a drunk one.
.... denying the blindingly obvious (that violent and explicit material should be regulated when it comes to children) I will do nothing, because gamers have obivously lost touch with reality.
IANAL but write like a drunk one.
So, can the TV-companies be fined if I'm a lousy parent and let my kids see x-rated movies at night?
No?
Then why should a game-vendor be fined when "parents don't look at it"?
There's nothing stopping kids from just grabbing anything they want right now, you say. But there is: it's called parents. Whether they always do is irrelevant as the same could be said for numerous things parenting stands for.
--- "To pee or not to pee, that is the question." ---
I'm from europe myself, and I'm rather inclined to agree with the parent poster. You have some point, in demonstrating not all levels of pron/booze/etc. is allowed to any age-category, but all in all the attittude is much more relaxed - especially in the non anglo-saxon countries. (Because, according to me, the real difference in mentality lies there, and thus there is less difference between the UK and the USA on those points, then between the mainland and the UK).
;-)
Aside being legally more relaxed, it is often also not actively persued. So, even where they have laws that prohibits minors to go to some films, it is hardly ever enforced.
Ofcourse, selling hardcore porn to a 9 year old will not happen, true. But you *did* say: "The populace, under 18, needs to be prevented from pr0n, booze, weapons, and in this particular case, violent video games or those video games with adult images in them." which is clearly untrue.
The legal age in most countries for those things is 16, not 18. And, as I said, often it is not enforced untill it drops under the age of 12. In some cases, like drinking booze, the legal age is in most countries on the mainland 16, but that is for actually selling to minors. For drinking - for instance, from a parents' glass of beer - there really is no age, and, in fact, people here often let even toddlers sip of their beer.
Which has the advantage they usually don't want to try it out anymore for a long time.
It's a cultural diference, allright, but I do think our approach is healthier then the tight-assed mentality of the USa which wants to 'protect' the children at all costs. And that cost, often, turns at to be exactly at the expense of those kids they claim to protect.
So, no, you're wrong if you think one only can see sexfilms from the age of 18, or drink booze, or even weapons (to some degree, ofcourse) or ideo-games.
The thing *I* am afraid off, to be honest, is that the USA mentality will come here too (it often starts being 'adopted' in the netherlands, after the UK) , and instead of a relaxed attitude, we'll become control-the-kids-freaks as well, in a illusionary attempt to try to force things on kids by external means - which never actually helps, but makes things worse (see the difference in drinking patterns between Belgian and UK youth, for instance).
--- "To pee or not to pee, that is the question." ---
Why was this post modded Troll? I happen to completely disagree with the post, and agree with all the +5 responses saying parents should do the job of guarding their kids, not laws... but so what? The original poster is merely expressing an opinion, not blatantly posting flamebait for the hell of it.
In a real emergency, we would have all fled in terror, and you would not have been notified.
"You absolutely can't buy anything with nudity if you're under 17,[...]"
;-)
What the..? Where the f- do you live?
Can't be in the EU, in any case.
"[...]and you're going to have hard time getting an R or rated magazine or movie if you're under 13 (isn't that the age?)"
I suppose that "hard time getting" wasn't a pun?
But, seriously, if I can sue someone for selling games because I'm to lousy a parent to parent my own kids, then why can't I sue a TV-company when my kid would watch an x-rated movie at night, but I'm to lousy to parent him then too?
I think there IS a bit of a double standard.
Your explanation of what effects the psyche more then something else is an unsubstantiated opinion; I've never seen any actual scientific measurements, and they are certainly not used or determining the RG rating of games in any objective way. In fact, the whole issue of whether and how much violence and sex has an impact on the youth (let alone would cause traumas) is still under discussion.
In any case, it depends far more on the general attitude about violence, and the context in which your kid sees a book, a movie, a game...then on whether or not it *are* pictures, or a movie, or a game.
--- "To pee or not to pee, that is the question." ---
All I suggested was to stop promoting and subsidizing it, not to coerce people not to.
I see. I suppose I would have gotten that if you'd mentioned people who are too stupid to use proper birth control. Y'know, the ones having kids when they're not even old enough to get a driver's license.
"The newly born animals are then whisked off for a quick run through a giant baking oven." --heard on Food Network
The populace, under 18, needs to be prevented from pr0n, booze, weapons, and in this particular case, violent video games or those video games with adult images in them.
Nope.
The populace under 18, needs to protected from authoritarians like you who would take away their basic human rights under the umbrella of "protecting them." People under the age of 18 have had pretty much everything except the video games for hundreds of years. Who are you to say all that needs to change. Who are you to actually think such a thing is possible or desirable?
Kids will always get booze and porn because they want them and they have the means. If it is illegal they will pay a bit more and buy it from some guy who is also willing to sell them heroin. After being told booze will ruin their lives and then finding out it doesn't, why should they believe the propaganda about heroin. Great way to cry wolf, genius.
As for weapons, what are those? Will you make it illegal for them to own guns? What about knives? Clubs? Chains? Chairs? Belts? You can strangle a man with your boot laces. How about instead of locking everyone under the age of 18 into a padded room for their entire adolescent life, we just teach them personal responsibility and ethics? I fired a shotgun at the age of 9, under the watchful eye of my grandfather. I know how to use weapons and when to use them. I've never shot anyone, even though I kept a gun in the trunk of my car all through high school to use hunting afterwards.
Did I need to be protected when I was a kid? Sure, but kids are not helpless, or idiots, or without personal responsibility. Teach them properly and they can take care of themselves. If I wanted to snort cocaine when I was a kid it would have been nearly impossible for my parents to stop me from doing so. Instead they taught me why it was a bad idea and did not lie to me constantly or try to keep me from hurting myself with booze and guns and video games. As a result I respected their opinions and listened to them. I also made a lot of good and a few bad choices. I was and am responsible for what I do. Trying to take that away is one of the least "American" things I can think of and trying to tell parents how to raise their children is another. So sit the hell down and mind your own business.
How silly.
I don't think we can agree in most any way. Sorry. Your sense of juvenile liberty is alien to me.
---- Teach Peace. It's Cheaper Than War.
The reason drugs are outlawed isn't because they're bad for you, it's because of all the crime connected to selling them and using them.
...
The scary thing is, I think you're actually serious.
People like you truly amaze and frighten me -- how is it possible to have such an appallingly weak grasp of logic and still function day to day in the real world?
SIERRA TANGO FOXTROT UNIFORM
I'm not entirely caught up on the legal wrangling, but I'm sure the people standing neck-deep in contaminated water wanted a little help. Nothing wrong with giving it directly to them.
Visual IRC: Fast. Powerful. Free.
I have mixed feelings on this case. While I agree that it's none of the governments business, the government already regulates a large number of things in the entertainment industry. For instance, you cannot see a movie that's rated R without parental guidance. Likewise, you cannot see an NC-17, regardless of parental presence.
Incorrect. Movie ratings are not enforced by law.
Visual IRC: Fast. Powerful. Free.
I don't think we can agree in most any way. Sorry. Your sense of juvenile liberty is alien to me.
Here's a starting point for understanding my position. Juvenile people are still people, just like you and me. They may not have as much experience or knowledge and they are dealing with rapid changes both within themselves and in their environment. It does not change the fact that they are people. Just like black people or women, children are people and are deserving of the same basic rights as anyone else. Try to understand that taking those rights away will cause them to react in the same way any other people would, and guess what, they are in the right. If you tell black people they can't drink, vote, or own guns, they are right to rebel and take those rights. If you tell a 17 year old, or a 15 year old who already has as good of an understanding of the world as you do that they have to submit completely to the authority of another and that they are to be denied basic human rights, well they are right to rebel against that too.
Why is it so hard for people to understand that children are people. Don't you remember what it was like?
We certainly agree that they are. No doubt.
;)>
But they're also blank sheets of paper. I'm not saying they don't have rights at all. They do. But they also are unable to take responsibility for their actions until they have the values to do so. Those values are best instilled by parents. Then they can make the choices given a context, which they're not born with, and it doesn't evolve naturally, except as a dice roll of the environment one's raised in.
Young people think they own the world. Yes, I thought the same things. But I also had parents that helped instill the value system that I have, and as mentioned, prior, it's all a question of values. I don't want someone skewing that value set, and so if I give a child GTA, then it's my values that did it, and my parental right to do so. If someone else does that, then they've thwarted my right. My kids will do that on their own
---- Teach Peace. It's Cheaper Than War.
So having the government pass laws about what your children can and can't do will help them develop personal responsibility? Laws like this are worse than useless. They are just telling kids they don't have to take responsibility for themselves because the government will. That is an attitude far too many adults seem to share. So your kid will shoplift this game, or buy it from someone who did, or an older guy, or play it at a friend's house. The law can't stop any of those things. And all the while, it won't be your kid's fault or your fault because the government is responsible for keeping your kid from playing that game.
Here's a novel idea; tell your kids not to play the game and tell them why you think they should not do so. If they agree with you, great. If not, ask them to respect your judgement over theirs as a favor to you and ask them to promise to do so. Don't threaten them with consequences or treat them like they have no rights, just ask them to make a promise.
Kids take that sort of thing very seriously. If you give them a responsibility, they will learn to be responsible. If you and the government and schools constantly tell them they can't do things and try to take responsibility for them in all things, then they will learn to be irresponsible, because that is what you are teaching them.
Maybe you don't want your kids to have matches. Should the government pass another law? What if you don't think your kids should be out after dark... another law. What if you don't think your kids should wear pants with holes in them... another law?
It is not the government's job to raise your kids or restrict their actions. That is your job as a parent. Children have a lot of responsibilities whether you like it or not. Trying to take those away is very counter productive for their development and is what will cause them to be irresponsible and give them targets to rebel against.
I hope you're joking. Kids usually spend most of their time with people other than you. They will encounter all manner of people and influences. They will almost certainly have the opportunity to view porn, handle weapons, try drugs, drink themselves stupid, have underage sex, and, yes, even play video games. There is no practical way for you to stop that.
If you really think laws will limit the values to which your children are exposed, you haven't been paying attention. Underage sex, porn, drugs, alcohol, cigarettes, etc. are all illegal for children, but most children still have access to all of them at some point. Books, Movies, Video games, etc. are currently regulated by their respective industries, and guess what, your kids will still probably be able to get them.
Either you are the government trying to take responsibility for every aspect of your children's lives is useless and even harmful. Teach them values and ethics and responsibility and trust them to do the right thing. Otherwise, all you are really teaching them to do is lie to you and hide things from you because you've taught them they are not responsible for their own actions and thus they aren't doing anything wrong if they can get away with something.
We disagree in too many ways to make this a useful conversation.
While they get exposed to many things, it's my hope that they have the context to understand them. That's what I see and feel my parental duty and responsibility is to my kids. I know they have access to lots of adult items. They shouldn't. The causal anarchy you propose doesn't help parenting, it thwarts it. While I'm a caring parent, I know many who are not. What of their children? Do we as a society try to protect their innocence until they have the context to understand these clearly adult situations? And who sets that context? I do, as a parent. As you can see, I take it very seriously.
I expose my children to lots of different cultures, and they get exposed to even more, and the pseudo-culture of television. They soon learn that TV is far more make believe than reality. But what of school and playmate situations? Friends? They learn about the happiness and tragedy of life in spurts. I hope to be able to have helped form sufficient values that they can be taken in context. Clearly, other parents do not, and have a very laissez-faire attitude towards parenting. I see a number of those kids turn out well despite that, while others are in and out of juvenile detention and the court systems, or otherwise end up living life in a way that's clearly not the stuff of dreams. These kids needed someone that cared. No one did. And sometimes, despite the best of intentions (which the road to hell is paved with) kids don't turn out right.
The government, within a republic of a civil society, does indeed have the nexus to protect its citizenry, especially those most vulnerable. Fie on your sentiments otherwise. I'm not a fascist, I'm a strong civil libertarian. But I'm also well keenly aware of the protections needed by the citizenry from other citizens, and sometimes, themselves.
---- Teach Peace. It's Cheaper Than War.
strong civil libertarian. But I'm also well keenly aware of the protections needed by the citizenry from other citizens, and sometimes, themselves.
You profess to be a civil libertarian and in the next sentence claim to be aware of how the government needs to protect us from ourselves? Perhaps you should re-learn what the term "civil libertarian" means.
It is not the job of the government to protect us from ourselves, nor is it their job to raise our children. Even public education of children is somewhat opposed to the concept of libertarianism.
You see this law and think, "great the government is restricting what my kids can do, so I can have more control over them, and thus protect them from themselves and the world." Here's a news flash for you. The government is not only telling your kids they can't do something, they're telling everyone's kids they can't do something. They're telling the kids themselves they can't do something.
Tell me why the government should have any role in telling a parent that their kids can't buy certain video games. What's next books? I suppose you think it is a good idea for children to not be able to buy certain or all books until they are 18 too? After all those books may contain sex, racism, fascism, propaganda, lies, etc. that will skew their world views. Surely you will support the government restricting your children from buying those books and allowing you to control what they can and can't read? For that matter, they might buy a hammer or a saw at the local hardware store and then hurt themselves. Their are too many items to blacklist that might be dangerous. Surely you support a whitelist of items children can buy that includes only healthy foods and plush toys. After all, if you want them to have paper or candy bars you can buy them for them, right? It just gives more power to you as a parent to raise your kids the way you want. And why should we stop at buying things, surely their are other ways the government can restrict your children for you, to make your job as a parent easier. Why not pass a law that says children cannot use public transportation or ride bicycles without a signed statement from their parents?
Are you getting the point yet? I challenge you to provide one strong argument in favor of banning children from buying certain video games that does not apply equally to books.
Otherwise, if you don't want your kids to buy certain video games, don't let them. Legally, you have almost total control over their lives. If you can't handle it, fine, put them up for adoption, but don't go passing laws that tell everyone else what is and is not appropriate for their children.
You confuse liberarians with civil libertarians. The two are largely not synonomous. I can and do actively restrict what my kids will do. Somethings they'll do anyway. I realize that.
I let them read what they want; I have over 3000 books in my library and am the author of ten. I've seen Anais Nin books missing from the bookshelves, only to mysteriously return. So did the Joy of Sex for a while. I don't hide these, nor do I encourage them to read them at age 10.
Your use of metaphor to extrapolate clearly normal activities from those that are clearly the domain of mature individuals, dare I say adult, doesn't make your point.
Having a 10 year old hack another human with a joystick or game controller is a bad idea. It teaches the wrong message. I don't even like it when it's an alien.. because it too easily teaches that using one's cunning and skill to kill might be a good thing. It's my believe that violence is only proper in the presence of a clear and present danger to life and limb... and only there. All six of my kids have been to the Holocaust Museum in DC. All six were in tears, and so was I. Man is an animal, and taken to unnecessary cruelty. In a civil society, where there is governance, that governance makes rules to control the civil behavior of its adherents. Those that don't follow those rules, are often punished. Some of those rules plainly are insane, but in my personal belief, not this one. To live within that civil construct, however, I have to follow all of them or suffer the consequences.
Do I believe in government control of everything? No. But I do believe it's a parent's essential right to determine appropriate materials for their children, and excessively violent games are one of those items. Expanding the context, to summarize, doesn't prove your point... it's just bad and inappropriate metaphor.
---- Teach Peace. It's Cheaper Than War.
The problem is that there are already a larger number of people having children who shouldn't be. Do we want to become a third world country where the only people having children are the ones who can't afford to have them? This country already has a problem where those on welfare, and immigrants are having more children than those who are middle class, pay their taxes, and if they have children, try hard to raise them properly.
Please don't take that to mean that I am against immigration or have anything against those who end up on welfare. But as a country, it's going to KILL our economy if we continue to tolorate those who are poor having children, then expecting the rest of the people in this country to pay the bills.
But this is all off-topic.
Sales of video games SHOULD be restricted to those who are of the appropriate age. A Mature rated game shouldn't be sold to a younger teenager than the game was intended for. If this means that games need to have seperate sections for those 12, 12-16, and 17+, then that's fair in my opinion.
There are laws that keep "improper" behavior from being seen by those that are underage, and those laws should apply to games. That's not the same as saying that violent games or games with sexual content shouldn't be sold, but it's saying that there NEEDS to be rules in place to keep adult content out of the hands of children.
On a related subject, while most teenagers don't become violent due to playing violent video games, those with limited mental ability may not be able to seperate what they do in a game from the real world. It only takes one child(or adult) with a mental disorder of some kind to play a violent video game then get a gun and run around shooting people.
Too many people feel that because THEY have a solid grip on reality there shouldn't be rules in place to protect us from those without a proper grip on reality. I don't want to be shot by some 12 year old kid who wants to act like a character in a Grand Theft Auto game, and I don't think anyone else does either. Unfortunately, there are those who are over the age of 18 who may not have a good grasp of reality either, but we can't require a license just to buy video games, that's going a bit too far.
I let them read what they want... I do believe it's a parent's essential right to determine appropriate materials for their children, and excessively violent games are one of those items.
You have not answered my question. Let me state it more simply. If you fear that playing a video game (classified as "mature" by the U.S. government) "teaches the wrong message" why is it that you don't fear that reading a given book (classified as "mature" by the U.S. government) will also teach the wrong message? What is the fundamental difference between the two mediums that in one case makes you crave government branding and purchase restrictions and on the other hand does not?
First, I don't "crave government branding". I'm suspect of what's done.... and will admit that some ratings are done seemingly arbitrarily; I would push towards a more conservative side from many perspectives, because I have a pacifistic philosophy. I abhor violence and see violence as an easy solution. Reading about violence and participating in its emulation are two different things. I've read many volumes on WW I & II, and the US war between the states. But that doesn't make me want to pick up a gun and volunteer for Iraq.
In the same way of thinking, I don't want to find myself actively carving up people in Wolfenstein 3D, no matter how evil I believe Nazi's are, because it's participatory violence. So is GTA, along with a sad value system. Sure, it's a game, you might say. Some people don't know where the lines are drawn (even in their 50's). But a large population of those indivduals that don't know where the lines are under 18.
And so I ally my sentiments with the legislature and governor of Michigan, who believe that selling this partipatory violence to minors warrants a fine and maybe jail. It's ok when a parent has put their (hopefully) values into the context of such participation. If an 18 year old buys an adult rated object and gives it to a minor, then that's a problem-- unless that person is a parent or guardian. Note the phrase, 'parent or guardian'.
There is no fine, and there is no jail, if a parent or other person over 18 does the buying, acknowledging the responsibility endowed by giving it to a minor, who is in fact, not supposed to get this material. The same thing goes for booze in Michigan, although the age qualifications are different still.
The equations to books versus games then follows in this way:
You can learn from both. You actively participate in the violence of (as an example) GTA by doing what gets you points in that game, killing cops, running over various locales in the pursuit of car theft. Negative values are rewarded strongly. You have to be pretty ruthless and prepared to kill cops. In real society, this contrasts with what we would prefer to do, no matter whether cops are liked or disliked. They have a job to do that's pretty thankless.
Did this game cause anyone to become a murderous car thief? Likely not, but it did make them behave in an emulation/simulation like one. If they're mature enough to handle it, they survive the entertainment with the experience, positive/entertaining or not/disturbing/neutral.
The difference? The increasingly real emulation/simulation of the actual experience.... these are two different media, two different experiences. When a book is read, it's finished, to be remembered. Games are designed to be played over and over again. The copy of Halo II here is over-used here, but all the players are of age. I'm not one of them; I acknowledge that adults that live here may do so. It doesn't harm me, and the adults aren't harmed, either. If they put it on while my younger child is around, that's a problem for me, and either the child gets booted out or the players do. Sometimes, they now bribe the younger to leave so they can play. That's a good thing. The young one is too tender. That'll change. Until then, that's where I, as a parent, draw the line.
---- Teach Peace. It's Cheaper Than War.
I don't want to find myself actively carving up people in Wolfenstein 3D, no matter how evil I believe Nazi's are, because it's participatory violence.
Your claim to have written 10 books is undermined by this blatant inability to use the apostrophe in a linguistically correct fashion.
You actively participate in the violence of (as an example) GTA
False. A player of GTA cannot participate in any violence. They can interact with depictions of violence, but no actual violence takes place. To say that GTA features participatory violence is equivalent to claiming that Arnod Schwarzeneger has killed more than 80 people with gunfire.
It is physically impossible for any computer game (or film, or book) to contain violence.
A democracy cannot exist as a permanent form of government. It can only exist until the voters discover that they can vote themselves largess from the public treasury.
An empty aphorism. It is no more useful or convincing than the innumerable minor variants:
"A democracy/monarchy/theocracy/ representative-republic can only exist until the voters/nobility/priesthood/senators discover they can give themselves largess from the public"
You're an editor? How droll. Yes, ten books. Nice sellers. But I need editors. I married one, too.
In terms of the violence of GTA, the simulation gives one the ability to control characters. One chooses to kill a cop, and presses a button to do so. No, it's not real-- but you do participate in the game's metaphor of murder. Kill to survive. How guttering. How unimaginative.
But your tight definition of violence is just, well, goofy. I don't think we can agree here. But thanks for being consistent. If a misplaced apostrophe is so important, then maybe I can do violence by missspelling, too. Getting heeted? Starting to grab yur chest yet? DIzzeee? Kwik-- diyul 911.
Linguistics my ass. It's grammar that you criticize. Linguistics is another topic altogether. Ever read Chomsky? Campbell? Other real linguists? Egads.
---- Teach Peace. It's Cheaper Than War.
It's grammar that you criticize. Linguistics is another topic altogether.
Wrong and wrong. Punctuation and spelling are not grammar, although all three are subcategories of linguistics (which is something you have apparently confused with post-modern linguistic anthropology, which is something else altogether)
Let's see. Reference.com says about linguistics:
linguistics P Pronunciation Key (lng-gwstks)
n. (used with a sing. verb)
The study of the nature, structure, and variation of language, including phonetics, phonology, morphology, syntax, semantics, sociolinguistics, and pragmatics
Then says about grammar:
A formal definition of the syntactic structure of a language
(see syntax), normally given in terms of production rules
which specify the order of constituents and their
sub-constituents in a sentence (a well-formed string in the
language). Each rule has a left-hand side symbol naming a
syntactic category (e.g. "noun-phrase" for a natural
language grammar) and a right-hand side which is a sequence
of zero or more symbols. Each symbol may be either a
terminal symbol or a non-terminal symbol. A terminal symbol
corresponds to one "lexeme" - a part of the sentence with
no internal syntactic structure (e.g. an identifier or an
operator in a computer language). A non-terminal symbol is
the left-hand side of some rule.
One rule is normally designated as the top-level rule which
gives the structure for a whole sentence.
A grammar can be used either to parse a sentence (see
parser) or to generate one. Parsing assigns a terminal
syntactic category to each input token and a non-terminal
category to each appropriate group of tokens, up to the level
of the whole sentence. Parsing is usually preceded by
lexical analysis. Generation starts from the top-level rule
and chooses one alternative production wherever there is a
choice.
Sentence, Paragraph, page, chapter, book, trilogy. UB Trumped, Chump.
---- Teach Peace. It's Cheaper Than War.
It took a while to find it, but you've done a bad spelling job. Viz:
Re:Ha! (Score:2)
by Minna Kirai (624281) on Wednesday April 06, @01:29PM (#12156224)
You have accidentally boldfaced the wrong part of the US Constition. Let me help:
To promote the progress of science and useful arts, by securing for limited times to authors and inventors the exclusive right to their respective writings and discoveries
When the USA was young (prior to 1860 basically), it could best promote progress by ignoring patents from other nations. If not for the patent-infringing development of factory technology in New England, the South would've won the War of Northern Aggression.
Found at http://www.softpanorama.org/Copyright/index.shtml
Awful, awful stuff. I suggest hari kiri soon.
---- Teach Peace. It's Cheaper Than War.
Perhaps they simply do not agree with your oppinion of how their kids should be raised?
There's no 'perhaps' about it! The mere fact that someone disagrees with my opinion doesn't make the right, (I'm not always wrong you know).
However I seriously doubt that my definition of "demon spawn" would quite match up with your definition of "demon spawn". I don't know you and your family, but you should consider the possibility that your family might just fit my definition. I am a strong believer in values, but my values may just conflict with some of your values.
Allow me to illustrate using a true story of a crime that occured in my neighbourhood. Teenage boy A made a pass at girlfriend of his friend, teenage boy B. Some weeks later A, B, C & D go camping. B enlists the help of C & D to crush A's skull with rocks and then bury A in a shallow grave. Now you know what I mean by demon spawn.
I don't care what values you raise you kids with, providing that those values (or the lack thereof) don't lead to your kids injuring mine (or me for that matter).
lets say that the way I've raised my 4 year old is nothing like the way you raised your 4 year old ... And lets say that I taught my 4 year old that things on TV Are Not Real, and that there are things on TV that Should Not Be Done. etc.
You've just contradicted yourself. :)
The question is, do you think you have some right to PULL OUT A GUN AND FORICBLY IMPRISON ME if I do that? And that is what we are really talking about with laws, the idea that you can "hire" a government police officer to pull out that gun for you, and to imprison me for you.
Given the fact scenario you just presented, clearly my answer would be "no". On the other hand should the criminal law restrict the access to certain types of violent media on an age basis, you would of course be oblidged to defer to that law. Or would you rather live in a lawless society?
Lets say I've paid a mechanic $1000 to fix my car, but instead of returning my car to me, he sells it to another party for $6000. Do you think I should be able to enforce the contract using the force of law? Because if you do, what you are really talking about ... well you know.
The question I was raising was this one, do you think I have the right to train my kids to PULL A GUN OUT AND DISCHARGE SEVERAL ROUNDS INTO YOUR CHEST (say because you're black, Jewish, a woman, American etc)? Or don't you mind being shot at, provided it's not being done by the police?
a subtle point that people often overlooked in understanding freedom of speach. It's not the words/content that is illegal. Saying "I'll give you a million dollars to kill my wife" is not illegal. Attempting to cause the death of your wife is illegal. Saying those words as part of a movie script, or otherwise without intent to actually cause a death, that is perfectly legal
Arguably it is the speech that is illegal, depending on the context. Try saying that to two undercover detectives and you'll find out what I mean. Although I'm not an American lawyer, my understanding is that exceptions to the 1st amendment rights (such as fighting words) are actually exceptions to the first amendment rights (ie. they are prohibited as speech), in contradistinciton, to say, child porn, which is protected speech, but is illegal if it involves the use of actual children.
The responsibility to other citizens is not to violate other citizens rights. The responsibility not to commit crimes violating other people's rights.
Hear hear! Additionally, it is the responsibility of parents to impart this notion to their children. Whether by act (such as the Hezbollah TV children's programming), or omission (ie just not taking an interest), many parents are failing in this responsibility.
Part of the requirements of good parenting is at least a basic understanding of the different
Better to be despised for too anxious apprehensions, than ruined by too confident a security. --Edmund Burke
Reading about violence and participating in its emulation are two different things.
I suppose you'd like to see chess regulated, with laws to keep minors from purchasing sets then? After all, it is a simulation of violence. Also, "cowboys and indians" that is much more direct simulation of violence than any video game. And yet we don't hear anyone trying to stop or regulate it. You know why that is? It is is because no one cares about violence in games, or books, or movies. Nope, in order to get public action and media attention you need to have sex involved. That is exactly what this law is going to be used for, to increasingly remove sex and swear words from mainstream games. It will be just like television in another 10 years.
I fundamentally disagree that reading about violence and playing video games are qualitatively different in their influence on people. Books and movies have had a profound influence on people for many years and there are cases of people who could not tell the difference between a book and reality and who caused themselves or others harm. People are prompted to act in a violent way by books that glorify war and violence, or books that preach hate and intolerance. Plenty of neo-nazi propaganda has convinced gullible men and adolescents to act violently. Does that mean it should be banned? In my opinion, no. Responsibility is a requirement for freedom.
The difference? The increasingly real emulation/simulation of the actual experience.... these are two different media, two different experiences. When a book is read, it's finished, to be remembered. Games are designed to be played over and over again.
This is a load of bull. First, playing a game is nothing like actually driving a car, running, firing a gun, etc. and anyone who can't tell the cartoons on a computer screen, with it's two dimensions, pixilation, and weak rendering from the really, real world which is experienced with all the senses, not confined to a screen, and without all the pixels and cartoons is someone already insane. Second, their are plenty of books designed to be read over and over again. Third, maybe you're not very creative, but a book combined with a good imagination can be much more realistic than any video game I've ever seen.
The copy of Halo II here is over-used here, but all the players are of age.
So you already have a violent video game there, which you successfully prevent your child from playing. How would the proposed law make the situation any different for you? Obviously the other adults there can still purchase it and it will be available. You still have to be a parent and prevent your kid from playing it. What benefit does this law bring to you? Or is it just that you are concerned about controlling what other children besides your own do? Maybe you're interested in legislating how other people should raise their children.
Butt out. It is none of your business. If your child is mentally unstable and can't tell a game from reality, well fine, go ahead and stop him or her from playing video games. That, however, is where your parental responsibility ends. Censorship is a dangerous thing and it has been misused to control or restrict people more often than to actually prevent harm. This is just one more tool for pushing puritan values upon as much of society as possible.
You think games with violence are dangerous, well other people think books with sex are dangerous. Other people think games with digital nipples will corrupt your soul. Show me some real, peer reviewed, evidence that either is a real danger to the average person and then you have a leg to stand upon. But it damn well better be some pretty serious harm to society to justify restricting free speech, one of the single most important freedoms guaranteed to the people. Useless legislation like this is all about getting votes, sensationalizing things, and "won't you please think of the children." all it does in the end is try to turn our culture in