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.
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).
One word to the child:
No.
Repeat as necessary.
Yes, it fucking is. Granted, it is 100% the responsibility of the gaming industry to provide information (e.g. ratings) about the content of their games. But it is the parents' responsibility to make decisions for their own children based on that information. Parents are not being deceived here; each game has a recommended age printed on it, along with a laundry list of potentially offensive topics or images that appear in the game.
Any parent who buys Grand Theft Auto for their child (you don't even need ratings - read the title!!!) is a either a goddamn psychopath, or woefully ignorant. Either way, it's their fault for accepting or ignoring the consequences.
Yo mama so fake, she failed the Turing Test.
It seems to me that the movie industry, haveing been made an offer it couldn't refuse (from the US gov't back in the '20s) set up self regulation: Films get rated, distributors won't screen X, unrated or (often) NC-17 films.
Uhm. So has the games industry... what the heck do you think the ESRB *does* exactly?
The problem is that video games are being harassed by lawmakers *despite* having set up a mature self-regulation system, and movies (for instance) are not. Novels, which can be extremely disturbing and violent (see: American Psycho) have never had a self-regulation system, and they're entirely ignored by politicians and the press. Why? THAT is the issue.
Comment of the year
Um... feel free to correct me (and I'm sure everyone will leap at the opportunity), but I thought the whole idea of the bill was to ensure that the parents DO get involved. Ie, a child cant go to the video store and buy a NC-17 game (or whatever the classification system is), but instead has to get their PARENTS to buy the game for them.
Otherwise, the kid could just buy the game and hide it until the parents aren't around.
Yes, this is an inconveinece for the store clerks, that have to vet customers ages, and yes it'll reduce sales because there'll be fewer games being sold. But saying that this bill does NOT support a parent's interjection in a child's activities is just stupid.
Posts like this just make my head spin...
Parents ought to keep a close eye on the things their kids do, but it is also the community's responsibility to raise kids rightly.
But? But?!? Parents ought to keep a close eye on the things their kids do. PERIOD. There is no 'but.' You're just making excuses for bad parenting, and then blaming it on society. Right. It's everyone ELSE'S fault you're a shitty parent and your kids is going nuts in a public place. That kind of attitude is part of the problem.
So too is it important that industries concentrate on producing high-quality, wholesome products. Whether this be something as nutritious as breakfast cereal or as empty as your typical R-rated movie, it is important that the community standards to which a majority of a community profess are supported by the corporation's product.
It is important for industries to concentrate on goods and services that people want to pay for. Thats it. No, no, stop, really. That is ALL. If it isn't in the industry's interests to produce what you call "wholesome" products, then it has no responsibility to do so. The industry doesn't owe you anything. Why should anyone be able to hold them to their own personal standards of decency through enforced legislation? Thats just crazy. If you don't like what they're selling, don't buy it.
There always seems to be a handful of outspoken activists railing against one thing or another that they consider offensive. There is always talk about common decency, community standards, etc. But you get right down to it, most of the stuff they find offensive (popular Movies, TV shows, GTA) is hugely popular. Many many many times more people are actually buying and enjoying the very things these "defenders of decency" are opposed to. This leads me to ask "Just what mythical puritan community ARE these people representing?" Because when you look at the numbers, THEY are the ones in the minority.
It is good business to provide people with things they need. But there is also a lot of money involved in selling people their vices. We do not accept people who wish to sell drugs to minors, nor do we absolve of guilt those who would ply them with alcohol.
You're comparing video games drugs and alcohol? You've got to be kidding me....
It is not always 100% the job of the parent.
Um, yes. Yes it is.
The community must be held responsible to the extent that they have offered moral corruption from beyond the purview of the child's parents.
As I said before, the community is not responsible for your child. You are.
But say you're right. What if this mythical magical "community" is responsible? What are you going to do about it? Who are you going to punish? All community is, is a group of individuals. Are you going to just start selecting subsets of individuals and punishing them for their 'irresponsibility'? In the case of GTA, who do you pick? Do you punish the head of Rockstar games? The development team? The marketing guy? Suddenly one of these people is responsible for your kid? Or what? It just doesn't make any sense. These people don't even know you, or you them. There is no way they can be blamed for your poorly raised child.
Your kid, Your problem
"To lead the people, you must walk behind them"
"Of all tyrannies, a tyranny exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive. It may be better to live under robber barons than under omnipotent moral busybodies. The robber baron's cruelty may sometimes sleep, his cupidity may at some point be satiated; but those who torment us for our own good will torment us without end, for they do so with the approval of their consciences."
C.S. Lewis