Slashdot Mirror
California Passes Violent Games Bill
TecnaDigit writes "Today, after sitting on the bill for nearly a month and constant political pressure, Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger signed Assembly Bill 1179, the bill that would prohibit the sale and rentals of violent video games to minors. Again, the Entertainment Software Ratings Board and the Video Software Dealers Association (VSDA) are challenging the bill. According the the VSDA, the bill is faulty in that a game is decided whether or not it is 'violent' by juries, and different juries could have different opinions on what is defined as 'violent'." Commentary on GamerGod.
If parents cared then we would not be in this whole entire mess.
Which is precisely the point. Too many parents don't care. Most of them do, but there is a minority that's way too anarchic with their children. I don't have much of a problem with organized anarchy, but it doesn't really work for raising children.
The real solution would be to find the parents that don't..well..parent, turn the kids over to child protecive services and then a loving adoptive family, and castrate the parents. (Hopefully if you catch the parents while the child is young enough, it won't be too traumatic.) And then monitor the child in case the bad parenting is genetic.
The very existence of the need for a government agency of child protection is proof that there are parents who don't parent.
Kids will get their hands on games the same way they get their hands on alcohol and cigarettes: by finding a store too lazy to card them, or just getting an over-18 friend to go out and buy it for them. The first option is by far the best, because word-of-mouth spreads fast among kids with a desire to purchase age-controlled products; this means that the wealth of the newly-attained business will pay for any fines the government can hand down. The second option is the fatal flaw in any situation: there will always be some older guy you know, or some uncaring 20-year-old outside the store that will do it for you.
People who oppose this bill are anti-family
That's one of the nice buzzwords used by Republicans and the religous right to discredit people in debates, but WTF does it mean? How can somebody be "anti-family"? Does that mean you wish for divorce? Spousal abuse? I hate that fucking term and it needs to get it's own Goodwin's Law.
this has nothing to do with the sale of these types of games but with the right of parents to control what comes into their homes. If a parent sees nothing wrong with the game they can buy it, end of discussion. People who oppose this bill are the types who gripe when movie theaters card for an R rated movie
And parents need a law to control what comes into their home? How are the kids going to buy it unless the parents give them money? And what happens exactly if they do buy it and the parents don't approve? They can't take the damn thing away? That's what my parents would have done -- no laws required.
And I am one of those people who complains when I get carded for an R-rated movie and I refuse to show my ID. If they refuse to let me in (hasn't happened yet) then I'm going to get a refund of my money. As an adult I think I've earned the right to enjoy a movie without being carded. Besides which, this type of nanny state attitude leads to some pretty ridiculous occurrences -- like when I got carded at Wally-World for buying "Peacemaker", but not for buying beer the next day.
This bill has nothing to do with the games but seeks to reinforce the concept of parental control. Period.
My parents managed to have control without needing the state to enforce it for them. This bill has nothing to do with parental control and everything to do with the culture war and grandstanding politicians looking to impress people. Period.
I want peace on earth and goodwill toward man.
We are the United States Government! We don't do that sort of thing.
Wait, is this Arnold Swarzennegar we are talking too?
.... but we can't control everything a kid comes in contact with. The current games are labelled (which just means they sell better). But I just look back on how violent people were before TV and video games and have to wonder why the world wasn't cured of all evil back then.
Unless he repents all his movies -- which were mostly aimed at the same kids this bill is designed to "protect" -- isn't there a mental disconnect?
I saw "Collateral Damage" -- and it was "sorta fun". But this violence filled fantasy has nothing practical about solving societies ills, other than the timeless virtue of killing a few innocent bystanders as long as you "get the bad guy".
Anyway, I'll agree with everyone saying "parents"
If people really want to reduce violence, then they'd be better off improving kids diets in the schools. Perhaps giving courses on conflict resolution. And, paradoxically, martial arts or fight training. People who feel threatened, angry, or weak will get more violent. I don't see how a video game would change this other than in the most empty life.
>>"ad space available -- low rates!!!"