Slashdot Mirror
ESA to Sue California Over Violent Game Law
Advtg writes "In response to last week's bill banning the sale of violent video games (/. coverage),
the Entertainment Software Association has announced that they are preparing to sue the State of California. From the article, "The Entertainment Software Association is
planning to sue the State of California over the passage of AB1179, a bill that has outlawed the sale of violent video games to minors. President Douglas Lowenstein said that he
'intends to file a lawsuit to strike this law down,' and added that he is 'confident that we will prevail.' The article goes on to show how muddy the law is in comparison to other
laws meant to protect minors."
Regardless of whether one agrees with the banning of sales to minors or not, I think it is somewhat one-sided to only look at the relatively clear alcohol laws. Looking at the Children's Internet Protection Act, for example, reveals that such vague terminology is not unique to this act. CIPA includes language such as the following:
(2) HARMFUL TO MINORS.--The term ``harmful to minors'' means any picture, image, graphic imagefile, or other visual depiction that--
(A) taken as a whole and with respect to minors, appeals to a prurient interest in nudity, sex,or excretion;
(B) depicts, describes, or represents, in a patently offensive way with respect to what is suitable for minors, an actual or simulated sexual act or sexual contact, actual or simulated normal or perverted sexual acts, or a lewd exhibition of the genitals; and
(C) taken as a whole, lacks serious literary, artistic, political, or scientific value as to minors.
What is "political value as to minors"? Minors lack the right to vote, so political value to me is quite unclear. What is scientific value? Is breast cancer research of scientific value as to a minor, who is unlikely to contract such disease at a minor age? While slightly clearer than the California act, I think CIPA is a good example of the fact that laws protecting minors are often ambiguous, and that this is not groundbreaking legislation in terms of lack of clarity. Are we to say that all legislation must be binary? You're 21 or you're not? If so, we need to re-write a significant portion of our laws in the US.
... go get them EA. It just feels wrong saying that.
"Armed forces abroad are of little value unless there is prudent counsel at home" - Cicero
Wasn't CIPA found unconstitutional?
The law doesn't say that it will ban the sales of games with just violence in them, but heinous and sexual violence. If parents don't have the sense enough to not let their kids play games with that in them, then I wonder if the government should step in. We are talking about minors here.
On the other hand, maybe there should be two different levels of minors. Minor minors would be under 12, regular minors would be 12-17. Regular minors could buy these games, minor minors could not.
There's no emoticon for what I'm feeling! -- CBG, "The Computer Wore Menace Shoes"
The MPAA sues every country for not allowing minors to view rated R(18A) movies.
"WONT ANYONE THINK OF THE PROFITS!"
-EL
Clearly parents aren't responsible enough to make sure their kids aren't deranged, and that they do not feed their psychoses with violent video games.
The only solution is obvious, let a government entity dictate it for us! They've clearly demonstrated tremendous judgement, and organizational skills!
My ZooLoo
The fact that the law mentions "standards" and "values" in determining which video games qualify really lead me to believe that this is just a "feel good" sort of law that is there to appease the people who want legislation, without actually having any sort of enforcable merit.
And no, I am not a lawyer. But I did stay at a Holiday Inn Express last night.
You are in a maze of little twisting passages, all different.
There's nothing in Grand Theft Auto that doesn't happen every day in Southern California.
If it offends you, do something about the real crimes that occur, don't take it out on videogame makers.
If you "get" pointers add me as a friend (116)!
It's the parent's responsibility to say what their kids should and shouldn't buy. If I feel that I can give my kid $50 and know that he's not going to buy something stupid (drugs, etc.) then I trust that he knows right from wrong enough that some violent game won't make him decide to go postal in the real world.
We MUST water down all entertainment to protect the children!!
Won't anything think of the Children???
Personally, I'd favor a law that enforced the existing video game ratings, instead of the vague "You could make a bland football game illegal with this" law California passed.
On the other hand, if they made it illegal to sell a video game to a 15 year old that's been rated as "Mature" then I'd consider that far more reasonable. The ratings tend to be a good way of estimating a game's age appropriateness, but they need some enforcement.
"Live Free or Die." Don't like it? Then keep out of the USA
Perhaps I'm missing something, but isn't this issue one where the state is making the ethical decision? Not the federal government?
There's no emoticon for what I'm feeling! -- CBG, "The Computer Wore Menace Shoes"
The two parties just announced that they will work out their differences over a cup of hot coffee
People like us who are asked to make games typically strive for an experience that's as close to reality as possible.
None of the crimes you see in violent video games don't exist, i.e. this stuff happens all the time in cities.
So these "steps" you think should be taken -- what's the purpose? Are you denying reality?
If you "get" pointers add me as a friend (116)!
Sue? Just get ya homie's and do a drive-by. Oh... wait...
After seeing the wild-eyed look kids get after they squash an innocent mushroom or turtle, after seeing the sadistic glee they obtain from causing Sebulba's pod racer to crash, I fear for our next generation.
My question is, what are they going to do about black trenchcoats?
Step into a huge movement. Don't Tread In Me.
Selling porn to children is something most of us agree is Bad. But porn could be as hard to define as video-game violence. The famous quote is "I know it when I see it."
Violence is hard to define, if you're trying to separate the "squashing goombas flat in Mario" type from the "setting people on fire and laughing at their cries for help" type. It's going to take some subjective words like "sadistic" and "intentionally causing suffering."
But if it's hard to define legally, I don't think it's that hard for most people to see that Mario and GTA are totally different things in the hands of a little kid. The question is: can we make it legally clear?
They have to sue to overturn this. For one very major reason...
Most of the games that feature this stuff, that stuff isn't of major interest to most people playing it.
I mean, the "hot coffee" mod was pretty lame, all things considered. If you were tittilated by the poorly pixilated hanky panky that happened in that mod, you haven't seen a naked chick or had sex, and probably spank your monkey while sitting in a chat room.
It's time to take the government out of parenting. Let the parents screw up if they want. I'm tired of paying babysitter money for brats that aren't mine.
The algorithms involved are surely interesting, yet must also be incredibly difficult to implement.
I know they typically search for skin tones and then the outline of a body and compare the percentage of skin to the surface area of the entire body to determine if the individual is clothed.
If you "get" pointers add me as a friend (116)!
Yeah, he dies at the end of all 3 movies.
What are you talking about?
Of course. The Terminator grabs a bunch of attention with flashy displays of destruction, but is eventually crushed, melted, or blown up.
Life mirros art? We can only hope.
The enemies of Democracy are
He gets melted down to slag?
Schwab
California Resident
Editor, A1-AAA AmeriCaptions
For what it's worth, the criteria for this law are very similar to the FCC's profanity rules (through 1995 or so at any rate). The real problem in both cases is that everything is subjective and there is no formal review process in place to question uneducated rulings. Assuming games could be considered "art" or that a game may include content which is intended to provoke discussion, the possibility of hasty judgements resulting in 'improper' censorship are very real (assuming a store may not carry a game because it has an 'M' rating, which seems a reasonable assumption). For reference, this has happened with radio broadcasts from time to time (google "Sarah Jones" and "Your Revolution"), and the resulting mess took years to sort out--a time which could make or break a game company .
What exactly does this law hope to accomplish? Alcohol and cigarette laws make sense to a degree--a child can drink or smoke anywhere and both involve health risks. But games are typically played at home (where parents should be aware of the child's activities), and there are obviously no health risks involved. I half wonder if the movie industry lobbied for this law in order to regain viewership lost to video gaming.
..... Maybe a BFG9000 would be more effective?
This is my opinion. To make sure you don't steal it, it's covered by the DMCA.
...want to KILL somebody.
W..w..W - Willy Waterloo washes Warren Wiggins who is washing Waldo Woo.
I dont think its illegal for anyone to let minors into R movies, since here anyway, R movies are 17... Its just internal theatre/video store policy, the industry policing itself, as it should, and as it does in the case of video games! Most stores have a policy that they dont let minors buy M games, much the same way they dont let them buy R movies. Nobody's clamoring for laws to make it illegal to sell R rated movies to minors, since its not a real problem! The real problem is mommy and daddy buying their 10 year old GTA, and it would be the same problem with them buying him *glances at DVD collection* uh, fight club or pulp fiction.
"Sic Semper Tyrannosaurus Rex."
It's offensive to think that people have sex with their pants on (especially dirty gansta jeans), it's like believing Ricky and Lucy Ricardo slept in twin beds.
Is it really the minors that are being "protected?" Or is it protecting outdated/outmoded thinking by a large portion of the population in the state? Or is it protection the public's "right" to not have to think about what their children are doing?
Come on, people... you can't legislate morality. It didn't work in the Prohibition Era, and it won't work here either. Young people, regardless of what the "moral high ground" would lead us to believe, don't require such close supervision regarding their entertainment choices. For the most part, kids are a little more astute than many people would give them credit for. Yes, for the extremely young children (under 10) there should be close parental supervision while online. Older children start understanding the difference between reality and what is portrayed as entertainment.
This isn't to say that some kids will never grasp the concept that GTA or UTx or other games are not meant to be practiced in the real world, but those children require professional assistance, and not from a lawyer either.
Government shouldn't be a substitute for common sense and good parenting, but it's trying too damned hard to be that way.
Agreed. However, are parents doing their job? It seems that more and more parents aren't taking this responsibility of teaching their children. I have two sisters and one sister-in-law that are teachers and it seems that more and more they are having to teach kids things that they should have learned at home (potty training being a big one). Parents seem to be shoving their responsibilities over to whomever the government will pay to do it, and shirking their duties. I'm not necessarily saying this is due to laziness, it's almost become necessary for two incomes to support a household -- especially one that contains children. What are parents to do, but let the government become the parents.
There's no emoticon for what I'm feeling! -- CBG, "The Computer Wore Menace Shoes"
And drug war has nothing to do with ethics, eh? Perhaps you should be a little more specific. I've heard a great many people say that what someone does alone in their own home is nobody else's business.
Why does it apply to sex and violence but not drugs?
I'm not arguing the point either way. It just seems like your attitude is a bit of a double standard from a moralistic point of view.
Mod me down and I will become more powerful than you can possibly imagine!
Mr. Lowenstein proceeded to give quite a rallying speech:
"We are one people. With one will. One Resolve. One cause. Our enemies shall talk themselves
to death. And we will bury them with their own confusion! We shall prevail!"
About which time some mysterious running woman threw a hammer into the large projection monitor behind him.
random underscore blankspace at ya know hoo dot comedy.
Has this law really changed anything?
It seems to me this is against clerks and stores and not consumer rights. A store clerk is liable for selling booze to minors. So doesn't this make store clerks legally liable for underage sale of GTA to 12 year olds? I get ID'ed buying rated R movies in most stores (I'm 22). Isn't this the same thing?
What I don't get is why this law made it past (even) semi-sane legislation. It looks like a knee jerk reaction to "Hot Coffee". But even more so, kids will use the same old ways to get the games.
Since Mortal Kombat came with a voluntary warning sticker, to the ERSB... kids just get the older sibling or parent to buy it for them. Or just get a copy from friends...
So again? What?s this law's practical "real world" effect?
--Digital-Madman
A bullet sounds the same in every language. So stick a fucking sock in it...
>>people say that what someone does alone in their own home is nobody else's business. ehh it is other people's business though you selfish nut because trafficking affects commerce, transportation, illegal immigration, violence, oh and the AID'S epidemic!! One's made in the US such as Meth are even worse because it kill or brain damage those making it and using it - that becomes a problem for everyone because taxpayer money now has to pay for their freaking medical care when their brain is fried. It was the cause of two deaths this winter in Nebraska and thousands of dollars of manpower and untold value of volunteers that went looking for them because they called 911 in a hallucinatory state while they wandered around in a snowstorm. And that's just one of hundreds of weird cases you can find about Meth use alone!
...including a severed arm tumble out of the back of a car on prime time TV but showing a pink dot on a female chest (as opposed to the SAME PINK DOT on a male chest) or using a short list of "bad" words- many not bad in other contexts gets everyone riled up.
I don't think kids should know about sex or that kind of violence until they are 15 or 16. But in the real world- there are too many sources so why pick on video games over movies, television, radio, books, magazines, etc?
She was like chocolate when she drank... semi-sweet at first and then increasingly bitter.
teachers ... are having to teach kids things that they should have learned at home (potty training being a big one).
That's a pretty bad example. Potty training is a 24/7 activity, so it necessarily includes parents, teachers, and any other adults taking responsibility for the kids during any particular part of the day. Otherwise, you are implying that the children should only be in the company of their parents during the potentially long period of potty training. I'm guessing that would leave a lot of teachers and parents unemployed.
No doubt. When I went and picked up my copy on release day I saw some little kid, and I mean 8 - 9, waiting in line with the game in hand. I thought to myself "No way this kid is going to buy this game, the shop keeper will stop him." Then, little man's Dad comes up when it's his turn and buys it for him. When he passed me I asked him if he knew what was in the game, and told him it was generally out of bounds for what most younger children can digest with complete comprehension.
You know what he told me.
Fuck Off.
I look forward to shooting that kid when he tries to rob me. Which I am going to increase my likelyhood of doing by playing SOCOM 3 right now.
Brooklyn girl, 9, admits killing playmate, 11
Now do you think violent video games or violent media helped perpetuate this?
Personally I think the latter. This little girl probably didn't play Halo, GTA, Manhunt, Splinter Cell or Metal Gear Solid. But probably watched some shooting and killing that's on broadcast TV. The parents probably didn't have parental controls on any of the channels and could have let her watch HBO or other movie channels.
What do you think?
Causing Chaos Everywhere,
Nik J.
The strange world of a loner, in a populous city, drowning in society
However, are parents doing their job?
Yes, they are. The problem is parents (and other adults) seem to think its all the other parents who aren't doing their job. Therefor "we" need to enact laws to force other parents to do things the way "we" think "they" should be done.
Don't allow yourself to fall into the trap of believing all other parents must be bad parents. They aren't. Some have different ideals and priorities, but that doesn't mean they're bad parents.
And, BTW, the reason schools are doing so much isn't because any parent thinks their child needs it, its because they think everybody else's child need it (from potty training to sex ed).
The law is so widely open to interpretation that it provides no enforcable measures by which to "draw the line".
It isn't just standards and values that are vague. Whether the violence is good or bad depends on your point of view.
Consider this child's description of a toy:
"Haven't you seen the Haibo doll? It's like a pet, a robot pet. You have to feed it and pet it or else it dies, and it's the coolest thing ever! Santa has to bring me one!"
Sounds like a nice, wholesome toy, huh? Now consider this description:
"Now I'm never gonna get my Haibo robot doll!"
"Is that what this is all about?! You came up with this whole idea so you could get a stupid toy?!"
"It's not stupid! It's a toy that you can starve! If you don't feed it, it dies. It's sooo cool."
Same toy, different point of view. It's not the toy manufacturer's fault that this kid treats the disincentive as an incentive.
Now, instead of the fictional Haibo, substitute "The Sims".
Oh, say does that Star-Spangled Banner entwine / The myrtle of Venus with Bacchus's vine?
In related news, the NRA is fighting to allow children to purchase guns too. After all, it's not the guns themselves that kill people right?
Do you have an actual example of them campaigning against any minimum age to buy firearms laws, or was this just a bizairre analogy for the sake of trolling?
Fogger should be banned. I once got board and made him jump into the path of a lorry. It made me smile for a nanosecond.
How did this bull get a +2? They arent saying they want kids to buy and play violent games. They are standing up for our rights as gamers. Its not illegal for a 12 year old to see an R rated movie, why should it be illegal for an M rated game? What happens when stores no longer sell M rated games because they are afraid of fines? If that happens it means developers wont be making any M rated games which means I wont be playing Gears of War or Halo 3...in which case ill be pissed off at morons like you who support the removal of our rights as not only Citizens of a "free" country but our rights as people TO MAKE CHOICES.
It's been widely discussed whether or not Video Games contribute to silent destruction of our society (cough cough); and it has been discussed for; oh hell let's pin it at a good fifteen years now. (As far back as the date at which red pixels could be written using Qbasic only to be portrayed as blood splatters to be precise.) And I'm not going to get into that. Whether or not it becomes regulated by some prodigal facet of the Californian government or not, software is software; and as much as we church going suburbanites would like to see our children stay far far away from any type of negative influence (regardless of how pleasurable it may be).. kids will be kids and just download it anyways. Right? Just like hanging out at the local 7-11 waiting for some scruffy to buy you cigarettes; it's point and click and you can easily download the virus infected full blown .EXE for immediate enjoyment.
Tongue in cheek.
To make the frightened parents happy, I suppose a few things "could" change. (To keep happy those people who will take this into serious consideration when marking the X on their ballot slip..sigh)
Refer to this faq on ESRB's website. The point here that I've linked to could use some work I suppose. Revise the standards so that every game must be rated.. maybe build it into the industry standard publishing contract????
Then just blame the rest on the retailers if a restricted game is sold to a minor. That OR the parents. You know. Good 'ol family made rules.
I'd vote for the latter.
The beatings will continue until Morale Improves!
Can you imagine the uproar if overturning this law also overturns the laws around movie ratings?
I have been killing aliens and bad guys (and even cops in GTA) for 20 years in videogames and have never once, even thought about doing something harmfull to another human being. So somehow videogames are bad, but football, a sport where coked out, steriod slamming, thugs beat the ever-loving shit out of each other is ok? I'd love to see a study to find out who ends up being more violent on average: nerdy kids who spend their youth playing videogames, or testosterone addicted jocks. When's the last time you saw a bench clearing brawl at a LAN party? Actually, that might make them more fun.....
"When the going gets weird, the weird turn pro" -Hunter S. Thompson
You might be sarcastic here, but I would think that the chance of that child who belongs to a family with the means to buy video games would be less likely to try to rob you than an impoverished individual with no means to buy video games at all.
... of taxpayers dollars and time.
While I worked at Gamestop, we couldn't sell M rated games to minors, but that sure as hell doesn't stop us from selling it to the parents who are standing right there with the kids that are playing the games.
Besides, if the kids want the games they will get them whether there is a law slowing them down or not. Kids drink alcohol before they are 21, they smoke before they are 18 and get porn before they are 18 too.
If it's a "knee jerk reaction" to the so called "Hot-Coffee" mod, the government is really out of touch more so that I thought before. Worrying about some lame-ass "porn" like that in GTA is retarded when the whole point of the series is shooting cops and selling drugs.
Lawmakers really need to get in touch.
Sig* sig = theOneSig();
Both problems (the double standard thing and the we have to clean their mess thing) are easily solved if the government just stops trying to fix society. When everybody is responsible for himself, nobody will have to enforce standards (so no prob with double or triple ones) nor to care about idiots such as those described (because they will have to take care of themselves). See? Easy.
Global warming is a cube.
I wonder if Zonk ever gets tired of posting the same three flamebait stories every day.
You're right! We should make a law forbidding them!
Well, with violance being banned, the super conservitive, nanny type anti-skink anti .xxx domain government in controal of the internet, is there going to be anything good left? (apart from /. except for the soon to be outlawed anti-bush stuff)
I remember the days when speach was free, being "kinky" would not get you sent to a mental hospital (no, that is actualy real) and the internet was a good place. oops, no, sory, that was my imagination.
Let the parents deal with this, it is there responsibuility, there child, and the childs choice of the parents retirement home. Hell, I was reading Cujo at the age of 12 and laughing...
ok, maybe that was not sutch a good example...
Many of the above are bipartisan, as well. I'd bet money you can find a lot of decency laws encapsulated in common law as well. It's nothing new, nor is it strictly a Democrat thing.
You better watch out, there may be dogs about . .
I'm agreeing with the Dad in this case.
1. It's none of your business what he buys for his son.
2. It's not your job, nor anyone else's to declare what's "generally out of bounds for what most younger children can digest with complete comprehension". That's his job.
3. There is absolutely no direct coorelation between playing violent video games and real crime. As a matter of fact, it's been shown that over the past 20 years, violent crimes performed by minors has gone significantly down.
4. He's probably sick and tired of everyone else in the country trying to be the parent for his child, including you.
How will this affect the game America's Army, the U.S. military's Orwellian recruiting tool? They're having trouble with their recruitment numbers already (I wonder why?). The right will have to figure out whether they want the game played by minors so they will be more likely to sign up to fight wars, or if they want to continue scapegoating the video game industry for all of society's ills.
Ceci n'est pas une sig.
...or more of the right wing heavily-armed-cop state BS. Neither party is a rich source of social libertarianism right now. So it depends on your PoV.
Right, left, my preferred PoV is first-person. And as a proud player of violent videogames, all I know is that laws like these make me want to take a chainsaw to a legislator.
PS - Check out Barbara Ehrenreich's "When Government Gets Mean: Confessions of a Recovering Statist" from the Nation, 11/17/1997. (Sorry, paper research req'd.) Basically, anarchism isn't just for Grover Norquist anymore.
Note to modders: These paragraphs are intended as insightful/funny/informative respectively. If that's not enough, keep in mind I also love Google and Linux.
I'm not sure if it was posted yet, but: "Outlaw games and only outlaws will have games."
Every time I start to have faith in humanity, I ruin it by driving to work between 7 and 8 am.
Sounds like a law written by people who never played video games being fought by people who want to sell them to minors. Maybe they should be told about other games. Return to Castle Wolfenstein teaches kids to set fire to Nazis. Freedom Fighters teaches kids to hate commies. C&C Generals teaches kids to fight terrorists. Doom 3 teaches kids to fight hell. Final Fantasy 7 teaches kids to fight city stomping monsters. It's all about context. Kids under 15 probably shouldn't be allowed to play GTA, the lesson there is that you can get away with crime. But there are other games containing violence they should be allow, SWAT3 allows you to be violent but encourages you not to.
"The whole principle [of censorship] is wrong. It's like demanding that grown men live on skim milk because the baby can't have steak." --Robert Heinlein "The Man Who Sold the Moon" p.188. People say Mark Twain said "Censorship is like telling a man he can't have steak because a baby can't chew it," but I can't find the source for it (and neither can wikiquote).
Yeah, we should all just shut the fuck up and not try to influence each other. Sorry, but I think that in order to live in a society, people should discuss with each other various issues and try to come to a mutual understanding, even if they don't agree on all points. "Mind your own business" is one of the most pathetic social failings of the United States. No, I won't mind my own fucking business, I'm going to let you know what I think of your decisions, and I have a right to do so guaranteed by the 1st Amendment.
Right, left, my preferred PoV is first-person. And as a proud player of violent videogames, all I know is that laws like these make me want to take a chainsaw to a legislator.
Don't you mean that you want to take a virtual chainsaw to an image of a legislator?
/allegedly
They are right, this bill is trying to clearly define things that are subjective.
What happens when laws like this pass? We start making borderline games that will pass for sale to minors, but are just as bad AND large software companies will push a little cash one way or another to get their game an "okay."
They should really ban the sale of electronic games to minors. If they want them, relatives can purchase for them. Unfortunately, the idea of a game is almost as vague. "Mouse Trap" is obviously a game, and it's probably not electronic, but what about "Operation?" What about today's fancy graphing calculators?
Let's look at what the electronic violence bill hopes to do:
-involve parents
-prevent children from buying and playing "violent" video games that do shape their developing perspectives
As for the arguments, here are some pre-argument questions:
What part of growing up requires children the ability to play games?
-look back a few generations to the people who grew up before video games existed
-think third-world children
Is it some sort of torture to disallow children access to games?
-stop thinking about third-world children
-think about children doing something that provides intellectual stimulation, like chasing each other or playing tag
-if a child is tortured by their lack of playing, couldn't we call it an addiction?
-the only time this will be torturous is if one child is allowed to play while another one watches
Do video games have any truly positive impact on the development or well-being of a child?
-so-called hand/eye co-ordination
-entertainment
-stress coping (fantasy worlds; places where they are in control of things)
-keeps kids out of trouble (mischief and even drugs)
-potential for learning something
-potential for work creating or playing games (I'm stretching)
Some negatives?
-time consumption (starting a hobby young grants the hobbyist a grand advantage)
-physical strain (hand, eye, and postural)
-artificial reality during development can lead to psychological problems/disorders (ADD, addiction, and [meh]violence)
-overload of entertainment may lead to disinterest in reality and a lack of motivation and inability to self-entertain
-reliance on external device for stress coping
I was even being pretty modest about the negatives.
Is the Video Game publishers and stores not actively enforcing their Voluntary ratings system. The government gave the industry a chance years ago to leave it in their hands.
But, as always, greed and making a buck in the short term won out and the industry ignored the potential consequences of what they were doing. The precident is already there...the movie industry is enforced already by a similar set of laws.
All that needed to be done here was simply rate the games fairly, then don't sell the games with a certain rating to someone not the appropriate age. That's it.
Yes, proper parenting is the most important thing here. Parents should be aware of what their kids are doing and take an active role in their child's life. But, all normal parents want(not the generation gap fanatics) is a rating system that gives them an idea of what they are buying, and a system that prevents children from buying stuff under their nose to make their job as parents easier so they don't have to worry about kids hiding stuff(we all know they do).
That's all, and no the government doesn't need to be enforcing this, and I wish they weren't trying. But, it still is the publisher and retail seller's fault for blowing the chance they were given.
You are who you are, let no one tell you different. But, never close your mind to a new point of view.
I saw no evidence to suggest that the original poster was one of those who supports laws such as this one.
"Censorship is banning steak because babies can't eat it".
(Could be apocriphal, but the idea still is sound).
"either of the following: (B) Enables the player to virtually inflict serious injury upon images of human beings or characters with substantially human characteristics in a manner...cruel...in that it involves torture or serious physical abuse to the victim."
All I have done there is remove some of the "or" options. As I understand it, one of the most popular games of all times, The Sims, allows one to lock one's Sim into a house or even a closet and deny them food or water or a bathroom. If that isn't torture, I don't know what is. Even a stick figure is an image of a human being, so when game with educational value like SimCity allows you to "test" your city by starting fires or tornadoes or plane crashes or monster attacks, it can be argued that you are terrorizing and therefore tortureing the people of your city. All you have to do is find a D.A. and a judge or 12 people to agree and there is a great deal of software that would be illegal.
This law is worded so vaugely that it isn't just about beating a prostitute to death with a big, purple dildo.
Don't moderate flamebait as Troll. Know the difference or you will be Meta-moderated.
I think the message is that if the movie industry has been allowed to self-regulate itself for, what, a century now, the video game industry should have the same right. Hell, I think the video game rating system is *better* than the movie rating system, and it's certainly applied more consistantly. (How the hell did Scary Movie get an R? It had a guy on the toilet getting killed by a penis through the skull!)
Comment of the year
If you've got an idea that you think may help society as a whole, great! Discuss it with your peers, your children, your elders, society. Don't sit on a high horse, get a handful of like-minded individuals to lobby for a law that society probably doesn't even want.
Most importantly, DON'T approach an individual, especially a parent, who's breaking no laws, and question thier actions in a manner which suggests they may be ignorant of your particular moral code. It's rude, it's uncalled for and it's none of your damn business.
Yes, and of course, your 1st Amendment right is more important than the 1st Amendment right of whomever you're about to get a "STFU" from.Hahahah, looks like yet another gullible person who doesn't know that MAVAV is a hoax. Nice try though.
FC Closer
...but that's okay because the victims are different from us.
Ha! Give me a break. Now Mario promotes racism?
And the fact that "people empathize with the victims in GTA" hardly makes the player go, "Gee, violence really is bad." If anything, it tells you that other people's remorse is just part of your fun.
I'm not trying to establish cause and effect, but let's not be ridiculous. It's much easier to draw a "moral" from a game that simulates real crimes in a real city than one with a a leaping Italian plumber in a pastel fantasy world. I've personally played GTA, then later caught myself wanting to swerve erratically on a real road. I've never had Mario give me stompin' fever.
Can we get someone to churn out a doom mod replacing the imps with bmp's of representatives?
Because that would be sw33t with a capital 3.
If letting people know that I believe they are behaving incorrectly makes me a prick, then I'm proud to be one.
2. I don't think these sorts of laws are a reasonable or effective way to deal with social problems. But the original poster (the one who was told to Fuck Off) made no mention of the law either -- he just related an incident in a store. From that, you made an assumption that may not be correct in his case, and certainly is not for mine. You unfairly simplify people's views when you assume that because they hold one idea (the idea that kids probably shouldn't be playing games like this), they must therefore hold another (the idea that we need laws to enforce this).
3. Yes, and of course, your 1st Amendment right is more important than the 1st Amendment right of whomever you're about to get a "STFU" from. Point out where I said or implied anything of the sort. Of course the guy had a right to tell him to Fuck Off.
But personally, I think the baby CAN eat steak. My kid's growing up listening to Snoop and watching John Woo. For some reason, I worry more about deprivation of culture than about potentially unlocking a sociopath. But more importantly, to say ratings systems have nothing to do with censorship ignores the chilling effects of centralized speech guidelines. Content producers constantly strive to comply with arbitrary ratings systems contrived by the MPAA or ESRB. Effectively, ratings ARE censorship. We'd be better off with decentralized ratings boards, and each community could listen to the ones it respected the most. People who want more restricted content already do that, they consult Parents Television Council or something similar. Since people with more restrictive values will already fend for themselves, it seems like the official ratings should be the most permissive. That's the only way to make the most people happy. And people who are PRO-ratings shouldn't have any problem with decentralization. Eliminating centralized ratings would never eliminate ratings, it just means no monopoly on ratings. That way, no one who's anonymous and unaccountable could make capricious decisions about what's commercially feasible, as they do now.
I'd agree 100% on the Republican core value shift, if you consider the current administration and those of the same mindset as "Republican". Which is hard to do. McCain and his ilk strike me more as the Republican party than Bush and his cronies.
And I don't know if I'd say the Dems were against control; perhaps that's just my ignorance of their historical relevance but they've never struck me as. . . non-invasive. ;) After all, the term "tax and spend" was coined to describe the Democratic party. And taxation is very much Government control in your private life. Some would contend the only control that matters ;)
But yes, times have changed. After all, I'm SOBER right now!
You better watch out, there may be dogs about . .
My kid's growing up listening to Snoop and watching John Woo.
No! You should put your child in a *box*, lock it, and never let him out! Completely shelter him from the world! That way, when he hits eighteen, he will be completely mature and capable of dealing with the world! Why, you can dump him out of his box in the red light district, and he'll do fine!
Any program relying on (nontrivial) preemptive multithreading will be buggy.
If a PARENT wants to keep their kid from buying something, by all means, let them. But the government has no place to tell people "No, you can't buy this!"
Show this to your friends and family that don't know what a real hacker is
I'd say that most people are a little irrational about good and evil.
A *lot* of people (anyone that describes themselves as a moral absolutist is a good candidate, but most people probably vaguely have some opinion along these lines) feel that we order society based on morality.
I'd say that morality arises to address social problems. Something causes major social problems? It becomes "bad". Sure, sometimes government or other social structures can solve social problems, but making people irrationally do something because it's "good" or avoid it because it's "bad" is a pretty effective fix in a lot of ways.
I'd say that a concept of "good" or "evil" may even be important to a learning organism like a society. As Turing theorized (and seems pretty plausible), the way to build a learning system is to build a simple system that has the ability to learn, and then give it a "teacher". To avoid pure trial-and-error learning, you want to get the learning system to tend to treat the "teacher" as a significant factor in seeking out that-which-the-mind-seeks (the combination of positive external stimuli and positive internal feedback).
If you believe that "good" is a pretty stable, simple reduction of social fixes to solve otherwise-difficult-to-fix social problems, then you want everyone in a society to follow "good". If you can establish that "good" is associated with that-which-the-mind-seeks and then build a widespread concept of "good", then you have your teacher (well, a teacher) capable of bootstrapping a stable social system.
Because, frankly, I understand how annoying it is when someone says "we're going to ban this because it's *bad*", but you have to figure that if everyone just suddenly went entirely amoral, maybe society wouldn't be stable. Even if it's in people's interest to act in a fashion that mimicks how they'd act if they were acting based on a moral code, you can make mistakes in rational thought -- "maybe it's beneficial to kill this person that makes me angry". It seems like a simple moral code could solve this.
The time I'm most suspicious of people trying to apply morality inappropriately is when it relates to new technology or a wildly new environment. If you believe that morality is a set of societal-level knowledge, then morality is only well-adapted to deal with the past and continuing conditions that accurately reflect the past. So, for example, when it comes to genetic engineering, I'm exceedingly dubious that morality is worth a tinker's toot when it comes to deciding what to do...because moral codes weren't built up in an environment *containing* genetic engineering.
This is your random dose of philosophy for today.
Any program relying on (nontrivial) preemptive multithreading will be buggy.
That would have cut a lot harder if you could spell 'divisive'.
...it's really a sad day for America when we require a goddamn ACT OF CONGRESS to make our DVD players work properly. ~
#3 could not be more wrong. Alot of people on Slashdot seem to like to believe that there is no link, but most research indicates otherwise. Exposure to violent video games increases agressive behavior (r=.18), agressive cognition (r=.27), and agressive affect (r=.18). And this is not a single study, this is from a meta analysis on a large body of research that has been conducted in the area. Both correlation studies (non-directional) AND experimental (CAN infer causality) support the link. If someone can cite a few articles not showing the link, I'd love to read them, the overall juvenile crime rate is not a remotely good justiification.
Anderson, C. A., & Bushman, B. J. (2001). Effects of violent video games on aggressive behavior, aggressive cognition, aggressive affect, physiological arousal, and prosocial behavior: A meta-analytic review of the scientific literature. Psychological Science, 12, 353-359
Last time I checked squashing some bugs or other sucks things wasn't comparable to killing people either. At the same time, it's how the violence is portrayed... it's perfectly alright to masticate on a piece of deer steak after going out and shooting it blammo, dead... but if you were running around thumping wild animals with a sledgehammer it might be considered less so.
Violence in mario also has a degree of seperation from reality. While the GTA variety may imply negetive consequences if you beat the crap out of somebody with a bat, it still involves a level of violence closer to reality than mario. Those 'in charge' seem to draw correlation between those who pump their enemies full of pixels and those who commit real violence. Of course, it is often enough that those who commit real violence play violent video games, but I highly doubt the axe-murderer type would play powerpuff-girls now would he?
Actually, a lot of stores I know, most in-fact will not sell to minors without an adult present. EB Games is one I've seen this happen recently.
However, most times (and I've also seen this happen) the kid will just go grab their clueless parent, who will listen to the spiel about ratings with dull eyes whilst junior says "gimme gimme gimme" and perhaps a few other kids are nagging on the other ear... and the game is bought. Since it's a sale to an adult it's not against store policy, and unless I'm reading it wrong still not against the law.
And then little Billy will come over to Johnny's place and play GTA, because Billy's dad won't let him buy GTA, but Johnny's dad was clueless and happily forked over the little disc'o'sex'n'violence
What happens when said clueless parent sues the game store anyways, because he/she bought the game for junior? How does one prove a video game store sold the game to a minor, and not a clueless parent. Is it guilt until proven innocent, or does the store have to prove they didn't sell the game to a minor? How about it the parent was present and consented to the sale (as tends to happen now).
Perhaps game stores will start requiring a signature from adults buying mature-rated games? Not only is the definition of the games a little violent, but a lot of the particulars in how they will track such things are as well. Perhaps kids will get bootleggers to buy games for them. I couldn't see a kid confessing to getting "Jamie 18" from bootlegging the game for him, but rather just saying "I got it from EB." Of course it could just be that they will institute spot-checks with kid-agents?
I can see a whole lot of ways this law isn't going to work...
To take only one of the more notable examples, there's her husband, Bill Clinton, who signed the unconstitutional Communications Decency Act (CDA) into law in 1996, and then when that was struck down, followed it up with the also unconstitutional Child Online Protection Act (COPA) in 1998, most of which has since also been struck down.
Incidentally, most of the Democratic Party's Senators and Congressmen voted for those laws.
10 PRINT CHR$(205.5+RND(1)); : GOTO 10
Progressives have been for state control of morality for as long as progressivism has existed as a political philosophy. Many of the prominent campaigners for women's suffrage, for example, were also campaigners for prohibition of alcohol.
10 PRINT CHR$(205.5+RND(1)); : GOTO 10
Electronic Arts is a member of the ESA, and probably the largest member that doesn't make its own console.
idiot.
It is *NOT* illegal to watch an R rated movie. No matter how young you are. It is *POLICY* not law that prevents a minor from watching an R rated movie.
"we're giving part of your paycheck to that dude with the nasty goatee who spends his days selling pot on the street corner".
What do you have against people who make and sell baked clay goods?
If I'm bitter about anything, it's the market manipulation.
No one who's seen 1/10th of the internet can honestly say "the market" wants "family-friendly" content. Maybe you're thinking the market only wants adult content in privacy, not in the BnM world. Then why do studios always make
movies that push the edge of the ratings,
NC-17 films that only make it to R
after a healthy bout of resubmissions,
sometimes without changing a thing?
Besides, if the market really wants content to be produced within these arbitrary boundaries, why do we need centralized ratings at all?
So what could explain this apparent disconnect? Maybe it's because rating boards are supported by nothing more than industry-wide collusion. Collusion makes the baby market cry.
Someone who respected capitalism would prefer an open market of ratings systems that compete fairly with one another, as I advocate, rather than propping up these coersive cartels.
So why not make the "official" ratings system incredibly permissive, and let people who disagree with it consult one of the free alternatives that already exist? All this does is kill the chilling effects of a centralized system. This lets you keep your ratings system for your kids, letting me choose differently for mine. Why is that such a threat? Why do you need everyone else to follow the ratings system you happen to prefer, when it's supported by neither a free market nor democracy?
What you are saying is a red herring. It has nothing to do with the point in question.
Why does the GGP's ethics state that the drug war falls into the government's jurisdiction because has nothing to do with ethics, while regulation of the other stuff does not because it has everything to do with it?
This is where the double standard lies, and is the point you have to deal with.
Mod me down and I will become more powerful than you can possibly imagine!
I wonder why a law like this is even necessary. It should be the sole responsibility of the parent, especially with minors! Not the minor should buy the games, but the parent. The government has no dealing into this.
Many times people just don't want to take their responsibility, and expect the gov't to regulate some more, and later they argue about that there is too much regulation.
80 CC D8 AF AE D3 AB 54 B7 2E CE 67 C7
I in no way was trying to tell him how to raise his child. I was doing what I thought was right and letting him know that the material is generally considered too mature for younger kids. I was actually making sure HE was informed. He may not have been, he could have been one of those people who still thinks games are for kids. Then he would have become one of the people SUPPORTING this type of legislation.
/. mindset to take cynicism and twist it into opossing opinion when it suits their needs. So I can see where the misunderstanding comes from, but you're way off.
Buy whatever you want for your kids, you have to pay for the consequences. I don't want to try and actually STOP you, but I'm never going to hold my tongue when it comes to passing information.
Now tell me, when did I try to tell him what he should buy for his kid? I didn't.
When did I say that violent video games caused minors to commit crimes? I didn't outright, but it is the
Show your references for your statistics, cause there are plenty on both sides of that argument. And they offset.
He's sick and tired? How is what I did any different from your high horsed critique of my post based on ignorant misinterpretation? It's not, you hippocrite.
Yeah, I know. The difference being that I don't need to post AC to voice my opinion because I'm actually proud of it.
/. Karma, are we? Get some real priorities.
Worried about our
I am the one who was told to "Fuck Off." Now read my post again, when did I tell him what he could buy? When did I say he shouldn't buy it for his kid? When did I state that I support legislation like this? I didn't, that's because I don't. In fact, I'm one of the people who actually does something about it and volunteers my skills in helping oppose it.
You say I questioned his actions? I asked if he knew what was in the game. I was attempting to inform HIM! Not make a judgement call, not raise his kid for him, not instill my values. Inform. You know why? Because if he bought this game not knowing what the content was (because he was one of the countless adults who thought games are for kids), saw his child playing it, and then became offended - HE WOULD BE THE TYPE OF PERSON TO SUPPORT THIS LAW!
Wow, I must be some sort off asshole for trying to nip the problem in the bud. Trying to solve the problem through open dialog at the source, the parent, and not through needless legislation. You guys amaze me. You scream at the top of your lungs that you don't want legislation like this to become a reality. Yet, when someoen takes the "educate the parents" route, you shoot that down too. I guess we should all be able to do what we want when we want and not let each other know if we don't think thats a good idea. Yeah, that will work.
To address the response I got, look at the post I was originally posting to. It deals with parents not giving a shit about what there kids play, or what media they ingest. I was relating a story illustrating that point. You, and likeminded people, decided to interpret that as me forcing my values and getting on a high horse. How the hell did you get that out of my post?
If you are of the opinion that recreational sex, gang violence, and more instances of the word "fuck" than I could count are ok for a 9 year old, cool. Have at it. And on a case by case basis, it might have been OK for that particular child, yet that wasn't the point of my post at all. In most cases, younger children cannot digest these things with complete comprehension of their context, they haven't even finished developing socially enough to have the tools to do so. Source me a child psychologist that states otherwise and I will reconsider my stance on that.
Generally it is the parent who is ill informed when it comes to the content of a game, not the child. I never got that far in the discussion because he told me to fuck off. Probably because he thought the same ignorant thing you did, that I was trying to raise his child for him instead of informing him. Had he said "I know what the game is about", it would have ended there. Cool, sorry to have bothered you. That's not what happened. He told me to fuck off. Now, if you think thats a good example of social behavior to exhibit in front of your 9 year old, fine. Just don't expect me to support it.
Quote me where I told that guy how to raise his kid, or what he should or shouldn't buy for him. Hell, tell me where I stated I support this law too.
Why call B.S. as an AC?
As it turns out, right or wrong, it's quite common to refer to preschool caregivers of 2-3 year olds as "teachers". Plus, it's actually much more common than you might expect for boys to still be working on potty training at 4 years old (boys do generally potty train later than girls). It is really very child dependent as to when they are ready, and not some kind of "proper parenting" issue.
It's a strict reliance until I get a chance to review the game.
How do your kids submit a game to you for review?
I didn't check, is DDR rated T?
ESRB's site claims that at least Dance Dance Revolution Ultramix 2 is rated T for mild lyrics and suggestive themes. (At the time UM2 was released, there was no E10+ rating, which corresponds to the MPAA's PG. DDR Extreme 2 and Ultramix 3 are rated E10+.) Another music game was shooting for an E rating and was told by ESRB that it had to edit out the word "naked" from lyrics that went roughly "I'm all out of faith, this is how I feel, I'm cold and I am shamed, lying n*k*d on the floor."
If so, maybe the rating takes complexity into account and there's a generalization on the amount of gameplay a teen would understand over a young child. Although I did see my kids play DDR in the arcade without missing a beat early in the game.
True. My 6-year-old cousin passed every song in Dance Dance Revolution Konamix on maniac (also called hard or heavy) before his sixth birthday.
Getting to the store was easy. Just ask a parent to drop you off with your friends while you browse the games. They can go to the bank or wait in the car. It doesn't really matter. Or you can just ride your bike or walk to the store assuming it's within a mile or two, as I did most of the time.
Getting the money ($35-40) was a little more difficult. I would go door-to-door, trying to do chores for people to make money. Often, I'd do work for relatives for a few bucks here or there. Sometimes I'd make things like puzzle books or some kind of food, and sell it while my parents would have a garage sale. I got much of my money for Christmas and my birthday from relatives, and the rest came from a meager allowance. Depending on how much money we had, what normally ended up happening is that my games were actually 1/2 mine, split between me and a random friend or my brother. I remember one game, Renegade for NES, we split 4 ways.
I boggle when I hear people ask where children get money because they must have had a much different childhood than me. Buying my own games taught me the value of a dollar and hard work. Obviously a parent isn't going to sit back and let their little kid watch hardcore porn or play something horrifically, emotionally violent, and as long as the kid understands this when buying a game, they will make the right decision; Clearly, the last thing a child wants is for the fruit of all that hard work to be confiscated when they get home and turn it on.