Slashdot Mirror
Oklahoma Senate OKs Violent-Games Bill
CNet is reporting that the Oklahoma Senate unanimously approved a new violent-games bill on Monday that makes it a crime to sell violent video games to children under 18. From the article: "The bill passed 47-0 in the state Senate, but is being held on a motion to reconsider the vote within three legislative days before being sent back to the House to vote on Senate amendments."
I don't know about the rest of you, but I found some of the definitions extremely amusing. Selected quotes:hahaha - turgid (sounds like its written by a 14 y.o - why don't they just say 'erect'). Also we have:Thanks guys - I would never have guessed! - here's a scarier one:wtf? Does this mean you can't have two guys holding hands in a game? *shakes head*
There are shills on slashdot. Apparently, I'm one of them.
Make Your Point, a political internet radio show, had a show about this kind of thing a couple of weeks ago. You can find it here, the show was on 4-13. Interviewed was the head of the Video Game Voters Network, parodied on penny arcade here.
that after the similar Michigan law was drop-kicked by a Federal judge that the Okies wouldn't even try. I guess there's always that sound-bite they have to go for...
You know... "We're doing this for the children!"
What a load of bollocks.
Kierthos
Mr. Hu is not a ninja.
This type of thing really pisses me off. Are they going to ban violent sports games like football, boxing and hockey? There is a lot of hitting in those games. Are they going to ban sales of violent rated "T" games? This is just another example of legislators usurping parents' roles. It will be struck down, they're doing it all for show.
Taking guns away from the 99% gives the 1% 100% of the power.
Seriously, this isn't a big deal. If the kid wants it that bad, they just need to get older. It happens to all of us. Either that or convince someone to buy it for you. The bill makes it illegal to sell to someone under 18 but not give it to them. Even Penny-Arcade agrees.
I recommend that people interested in the effects of violents in the media should this book/site. The guy makes some very interesting points, one of them being that the effects of being desensitized don't surface until someone is actually confronted with a violent situation.
Was it not a crime already? Here in the UK the same rating system for movies is applied to certain video games, thus a game rated 18 cannot be sold to anyone under this age. Supplying GTA to a minor can land the shop keeper in a lot of trouble.
Does the US rating system differ?
Never underestimate the power of stupid people in large groups.
Making it a crime to sell such games is pointless if one can simply supply a child with them. Say, for example, on the 25th of December after weeks of begging.
The problem isn't some immoral shopkeep hawking his wares to unsuspecting kiddies whilst twirling his moustache, but the permissive parents at home who mostly don't give a damn if their child is virtually running around with a virtual gun shooting virtual people with virtually aroused sexual organs.
Correct me if I am wrong, but this law simply restricts minors from purchasing/renting "violent" games without their parents' knowledge. This simply forces the parents to get involved. If a parent doesn't think that the game is too violent, then that parent can simply authorize the purchase (ie: purchase it for the child). This law seems to really be made for parents who don't care to get involved with their child; it simply governs the child when the parents fail to.
Robbers, thieves, murderers, assaulters, drunkards, slanderers, rapists, pedophiles, embezzlers, illegal drug makers/dealers/users, illegal aliens, kidnappers and all the rest of humanity's evil doers get to continue their nefarious acts while you and I and every lawful, polite, peaceful citizen get to pay for it.
What a mess. Is this all humanity can aspire to? I sure hope not.
Where's my nano-factory and space ship. I want off this rock. The meek shall inherit the earth, but hopefully just after I've left it for the stars.
(3) the material or performance lacks serious literary, scientific, medical, artistic, or political value for minors, or
I'd say video games hold serious artistic value these days.
Slashdoters will probably poo-poo this, but I think it's a good thing.
To me it's obvious that there is some content that is not appropriate for minors, that's why we have ratings on movies PG-13 and R -- video games are no different.
boxlight
It's as if these legislators don't pay any attention to what happens in other states.
This has been tried before--the courts have ALWAYS struck it down as a first ammendment violation. What makes each state think that they can get away with it?
Isn't exactly what this law does? (at least according to TFSummary, haven't read TFA)... if a parent determine something isn't "too violent" for his/her kids, he/she just buys them the game. The only thing this bill would ban is to sell that game to the minor directly.
I don't have much of a problem with not selling "violence" to children under 18. Matter-of-fact, whatever is marked "violence" will make the demand grow larger for that game to the youth.
:)
My problem is the male-slanted characters, that have gone to literally being able to adjust the "bounce" and size of the breast of women, and pits them in scantily clad outfits to feed the male appetite. Is the definition of nudity just showing an erection and showing nipples?
All that being said, the last games I have bought were Black and the last GTA. Like my movies, I really only like to watch rated R given the choice. So I don't shop at Walmart
I guess this is the kind of bill that comes out when our elected officials are completely bereft of the intelligence and courage needed to do the hard things that really need to be done. This kind of law has been invalidated in state after state, so this is just stupid and a waste at this point. Indeed, this is no longer news at all.
To the making of books there is no end, so let's get started
Kids find ways of getting their hands on all sorts of things whose sale to minors is prohibited. Who here was even close to 18 years old when they first saw a set of boobies a raunchy magazine that your friend got from his older cousin? Or had a friend's cool mom buy you smokes? Or knew someone over 21 that bought you booze? Smokes, pr0n, and later on, booze. We had all these, no one gave a shit, and if they did, you hid it from them, simple as that.
Check out the cave on the east side of lake Hylia. Strange and wonderful things live in it.
I wonder what they will do about all the kids playing Doom online?
He who knows best knows how little he knows. - Thomas Jefferson
I read in New Scientist a long time ago an article about violent video games and whether or not they actually affect children, and they seemed to suggest that it really doesn't affect them at all. Here's the article: http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg16622425.000 .html, although I'm afraid you can't read much of it unless you're a subscriber.
The problem isn't in saying "Okay, these games are violent, we shouldn't be selling 'Game-Name-Here'".
The problem is that what THESE guys define as violent and in bad taste could range from anything from overly pokey nipples to firing off guns of any type (And when you can include Ratchet and Clank or Final Fantasy VII on a list of banned games with enough legalese...)
By that token should we infer that the effects of playing Frogger will not surface until the player attempts to cross the street?
Correct me if I am wrong
allow me
this law simply restricts minors from purchasing/renting "violent" games without their parents' knowledge
it also restricts minors from buying games that any kind of sexual content
a stiff/hard nipple, an erect penis COVERED by trousers/pants etc
Walmart and its brethren will just do what they've been doing, and not supply anyone with the material in question at all. They don't sell anything they consider "objectionable." These stores are the very reason record companies have spent the last 10-20 years releasing censored versions of albums that remove all the bad words and disappoint anyone who receives them as gifts from clueless parents.
I'm still waiting for publishers to start releasing Walmart-friendly versions of M-rated games to Walmart. Imagine the guy from San Andreas refusing to get into any car unless he asks the driver nicely for permission to borrow it first.
Slashdot Burying Stories About Slashdot Media Owned
Nothing wrong with this Bill. There is enough violence on CNN anyway for kids to be exposed to.
[%] Cingular Ringtones
From the text of the bill:
"Harmful to minors" means:
GetOuttaMySpace - The Anti-Social Network
Great, now not only will I have to deal with theese little hoodlems when I go to the quickie-mart, I'll have to watch out for them when I go to Bestbuy too.
Wanna fight ? Bend over, stick your head up your ass, and fight for air.
I wasn't aware that there were any children in the US over 18.
Are you new to Slashdot?
Violent games fund terrorism and child pornography, don't they.
As an Okie, I'm glad that the bill is passing to protect the kids. Although, I thought blocking what kids see is the parents duty, but I guess parents are doing a pretty crappy job of that lately.
But I don't think this will work like they planned. They're trying to set a solid rule, as if the world still operated like that. Its like the "Porn" rule I mentioned in a previous thread, about how Oklahoma doesn't allow their citizens to purchase magazines or videos with full view of P&E. But, a short drive to Texas or a quick Google search will get around that law.
To add to that, a parent can also be persuaded to buy their teenager a violent game for them and then bring it home. Who is going to prove it was for the child? Who is going to prove they didn't have the game before the law went into place?
"Don't you hate it when 'The Solution', 'THE SOLUUUTSHION', has nothing to do with the problem."
The problem with kids today is not advertisements, pornography, drinking, or smoking pot. The problem with kids today is that they act out irresponsibly. The reason for this is that the PARENTS are irresponsible. That's right, the parents. If the parents are doing their job, the the kids will behave reasonably. They will at least PRETEND to study in school, and stay out of trouble. If THE PARENTS don't have the wherewithal to keep THEIR KIDS from doing "bad" stuff, well - you figure that one out.
If you want to make the job harder for THE PARENTS, make the thing that contributes to bad behavior "ILLEGAL." Because, we all know that something that is illegal for a stupid reason is, um what's that word - oh yeah, GLAMOROUS.
Let's take drinking for an example: In Europe, teenagers drinking is not a problem. Let me repeat: TEENAGERS DRINKING IS NOT A PROBLEM. Yes, teenagers in Europe (At least in: Great Britan, Germany, France; Italy) drink. It's true: BUT THEY DO IT IN MODERATION, mostly. IN EUROPE, it's not illegal for teenagers to drink IN MODERATION. What happens is that when teenagers start bugging their parents about drinking, they are allowed to drink (wine, beer, or other soft stuff) at the DINNER TABLE. That's right, IN EUROPE, kids learn about drinking booze from their PARENTS. AT HOME!
In America, IN AMERICA, for the most part kids learn binge drinking from their buddies. What is the difference here? Come on, say it with me... IT'S THE PARENTS STUPID. What do we learn from this? If you want your kids to drink in moderation, YOU need to teach them to drink responsibly. If you want your kids to go on giant benders, let em learn from their friends.
Now, if you want to see more games with whore bashing, general crime, and cop killing: Rely on some law making it illegal for kids to play to do the PARENTS job. You are too much of an irresponsible lazy f*ck to know that they have a copy stashed with the porn anyhow.
Disclaimer: I am a parent, and old enough to know better than to argue with some brainless idiot anyhow. Don't even get me started on the financial arguements about making pot illegal.
Yep, just another case of the government trying to step in and raise our children. Well, someone has to - sure as heck isn't the parents doing it in today's world.
Down with the career politician! SUPPORT TERM LIMITS
I don't believe it is the government's responsibility to regulate the sale of games in this way. Nor do I agree with their assessment of what is or is not appropriate for 17 year olds. That decision rests with the parents and is not to be usurped by the government.
/ age 31
"HB2122 passed and was signed by the Governor. This new law allows Permit/License holders to carry onto private parking lots their concealed firearm and store it in their locked vehicle. The Bill States, "No person, property owner, tenant, employer, or business entity shall be permitted to establish any policy or rule that has the effect of prohibiting any person, except a convicted felon, from transporting and storing firearms in a locked vehicle on any property set aside for any vehicle." The law becomes effective 11/1/04." - in fairness, it must be mentioned that this law was set aside (forgive the nonlegalese, IANAL) by a Federal judge, and also the minimum age for possessing a firearm is 21.
But you have to wonder at the logic of a legislature that needs to "protect" kids from videogame violence up until 18, and then at 21 lets them buy REAL guns, carry them around concealed, leave them in their cars (oooh! The car has to be LOCKED - that'll stop a car thief), and so forth. Note this is not an anti-gun post - it is only an anti-hypocrasy post. Don't promote the carrage and use of weapons of deadly force on one hand and then act holier-then-thou and say we're "protecting the children" by not letting them see video-game violence on their own (on the TV it's fine, evidently).
The publishers are against this because the only likely outcome of this law will be an increase in piracy.
Hmmm witty sig or funny sig? Maybe elitest techy sig!
Homosexuality isn't a form of sexual conduct. It's a sexual preference. Anal sex is sexual conduct. Oral sex is sexual conduct. A Dirty Sanchez is sexual (mis)conduct.
Homosexuality is no more a form of sexual conduct than heterosexuality is, the latter of which appears to be missing.
That's purely prejudicial to include one and not the other. A homosexual character in a game makes it illegal to sell to minors? Please.
...around here, video games carry a stigma with them. I'm a resident of Oklahoma and for the most part video games have this negative aura around them. My in-laws all use the word "video game" and "computer" in a negative fashion, and they are pretty typical Okies.
So, if this came up as a vote for the Oklahoma people to decide... well, I'm sure it would pass by an overwhelming majority, a majority who wouldn't have even bothered to read the law. They would see "no violent video games" and check "Yes!"
Does this mean you can't have two guys holding hands in a game? *shakes head*
." More at 11."
Tomorrows news:
"Ohio makes it illegal to sell Kingdom Hearts II to Minors. Lawmakers point out that the male characters "totally hold hands, and that creeps us out" though they are quick to add that this "doesn't make us homophobic or anything. We just, y'know, yeah. .
...instead, it's the parents' job to make sure their kids don't play violent video games. Just as it's their job to make sure their children don't buy cigarettes, booze, crack, etc. We need to stop these opressive laws which are preventing our children from buying whatever they want to with their allowance behind their parents' backs and instead make sure that a sixteen year old child is under constant supervision not by big brother, but by big parent.
I think the only people who get mad at this sort of legislation are the people who are buying games their parents do not approve of behind their backs. I know, I used to be one of them.
Since when did it become a crime to become a man? I remember when I was younger running around with cap guns, bb guns, bow & arrows, etc. ... Video games are the modern day equivalent ... I haven't blown anybody's head off yet!
If your against this bill, then you are probably 12 years old.
This sounds an awful lot like "If you're not doing anything wrong, you've got nothing to hide"
Last time I picked up a game a mother in fron of me was there with her two sons who looked to be about 15 and 12. They wanted a M rated game, the clerk pointed out to her that it was a M rated game and all she gave him was a completely blank look... no comprehension whatsoever of what it meant. Needless to say the kids got the game and I'm sure this mother never even watched them play it a little. Parents need to be involved with their children's hobbies, not just toss some cash at them to shut them up.
Frankly I hope more of this sort of thing happens, so that videogame companies will be forced to start marketing games for MATURE AUDIENCES, not just a demographic aimed at 13 year olds with extra language violence or sex thrown in to get more sales. I mean so, so many games have the plotline and writing equivalent of a Saturday morning cartoon, but simply have enough gore thrown in to make it mature.
How in the world is homosexuality immoral?
Unfortunately, you have no clue about what a democracy is. Here's a hint: Democracy does not mean dictatorship of the majority.
Accepting homosexuality as something normal is not the minority dictating the majority, it's simply the majority showing a bit of respect for the minorty.
We have relations in Oklahoma. Decent folks, live and work on their family farm... and as susceptible to idiocy like this demagogue's "anti-violence" bill as anyone could be.
This is the state that elected Tom Coburn "Lesbianism is so rampant in some of the schools in southeast Oklahoma that they'll only let one girl go to the bathroom" as a senator. It's a fricking demonstration case for Dick Nixon's "Southern Strategy" social issues being used to scare and dupe people.
In these folks' minds, promoting "anti-violence" legislation that addresses sexuality as if it's "violent" and preventing churches from controlling who brings concealed weapons to Sunday service are not fundamentally incompatible actions. We're talking my relatives -- whose response to my idea of putting numbers (10 cents, 25 cents) on our coinage was that it smacked of world government.
"Fundamentalism" isn't about divine morality. It's about human authority.
It's not based on the ESRB rating system, nor does it create its own similar system. It's based on "contemporary community standards" as understood by the "average person over 18 years of age". This means that the stores CAN NOT KNOW FOR CERTAIN which games are illegal to sell to a minor.
This is a STUPID law.
Is this just me, or is this legislation absolutely redundant and unnecessary?
:P
It is not going to change a damn thing either, because 90% of time these games are bought by parents/guardians of with their explicit permission.
If little billy gets carded in the video store, he will come the next day with his older brother, or his Dad and get the game anyway.
Eh, legislation for sake of legislating. This is nothing else but some blatant political maneuvering. Because "protecting children" looks good on the record
I'm teminally incoherent
Seriously, what's the problem here? Here in NZ games are rated by the office of film and literature classification in exactly the same way as movies. This seems perfectly sensible to me.
In America we have something called the First Amendment that prohibits the government from regulating speech. I don't know why you think its ok for the government to decide what's appropriate for the people.
Give me Classic Slashdot or give me death!
Our games aren't even required by law to be rated at all - as far as I know, the ESRB rating system was created voluntarily by the industry in response to political pressure. Some places probably won't sell adult rated games to minors, but violence is pretty much never enough reason to rate games at the highest level here (AO - Adult Only).
None of this matters, however - the bill as written never mentions the ESRB rating system at all. They are not using that as a standard for determining whether the content is appropriate for minors - they wrote their own (extremely vague) standards instead.
is that it's still not illegal to sell rated "R" movies to people under 18.
Maybe not, but around here, it is illegal to sell cigarettes, alcohol, guns, fireworks, or porn to people under 18. So this is not completely without precedent.
Like woodworking? Build your own picture frames.
Please read the bill and tell me how the store owner determines which games he should or should not sell to a minor. Do we assume he has played ALL of them and knows which ones contain too much violence? Should he hold a meeting with the community in order to determine their contemporary standard?
and ask yourself if you really want people from Oklahoma being exposed to anything violent, sexual or otherwise part of this or the last centuries culture.
it's just too much for them
let toss a blanky over the state and let them nap a bit longer
Sorry, I don't believe we need more games filled with whore bashing and cop killing.
Sorry, I think we do. Why are your desires more important than mine?
This is a fad I am very happy to see waining, and I applaud any state or country or franchise that attempts to curb the proliferation of this kind of crap.
You really think the government should step in to stop a fad? Just because you find it distasteful? Do you have any concept of liberty?
Games can be fun and exciting without being derogatory, racists, sexist, or promoting behaviour that many minors in fact mimicking in real life.
Yes they can. They can also be fun and exciting WITH being derogatory, racist AND sexist. I'm glad that we have enough room in this society for both.
If your against this bill, then you are probably 12 years old.
No, you just have to care about freedom of speech for all.
Nobody over the age of majority should have to worry or complain about this bill.
Just because you're not directly affected by an injustice doesn't mean you shouldn't care about it. Remember, all that is necessary for evil to triumph is for good men to do nothing. When you are the victim of injustice, you will be glad that others care.
Give me Classic Slashdot or give me death!
So a seller will face legal penalties if they sell Mature (Teen?) rated video game to a minor? I fail to see how this is a big deal. If this makes Wal-Mart check IDs for these games, so be it. You can't get into many movies, clubs, vote, buy weapons, etc. if you are under age. Now an argument can certainly be made on what is considered violent, or even harmful for that matter. I would absolutely agree with this as another intrusion by government into things that should be squarely in the domain of responsible parenting.
Or, "if you're against the war, you're probably a commie."
Many Bothans died to bring you this sig.
The GP poster also implied that the law allowing those with proper gun permits to actually carry their weapons somehow promotes the use of guns. In that case the friggin US Constitution "promotes the use of guns" by making it a right for all citizens to bear arms. So laws that help clarify and regulate that right are somehow promoting gun use? Technically such laws are inhibiting that right by putting more restrictions on it. Mod down GP post, they were close, but no cigar.
-- I'm not a pessimist, I'm a realist. It's not my fault that life sucks so much. --
For some reason sex has always been seen as worse than violence by the authorities. It strikes me as a bizarre double standard. You could always show someone being murdered in TV and movies but show a woman's breast and it had better be attached to a tribes-woman cooking dinner in a National Geographic special. I don't recall the FCC ever freaking out over a bloody scene on TV but they sure did when Janet Jackson flashed a boob. I guess your kids are better off seeing people killing, without seeing the consequences of course, than having them see genitals, which they see every time they take a bath anyway. If I had to choose I'd rather they see "turgitity" or breasts than see some guy getting beaten senseless on "Cops". I'm not advocating showing explicit sex of course.
It is by the juice of the coffee bean that thoughts acquire speed, the teeth acquire stains. The stains become a warning
Because:
i-name =twylite [http://public.xdi.org/=twylite], see idcommons.net
The problem with all of this pontificating about supposed "desensitizing" effects of violence in games and other media is that violent crime has been dropping steadily as both games and movies have become more violent and more realistic. And it has been dropping most sharply in the demographic group--young males--that are the most avid consumers of such legislation.
So any possible pro-violence effect of such entertainments must necessarily be negligible in comparison to other social and demographic factors that influence violent behavior.
This is likely to be a problem when it comes to justifying the law in court. After all, this is necessarily going to harm the business of game dealers, if only because it introduces red tape--people must bring ID or parents to the store to purchase a game. The courts are likely to demand evidence that such games really are harmful--evidence that simply does not exist.
Well?
"The government grants you rights, not the other way around."-- beav007. Yes, these people really exist...
Say you've moved into Tuttle from somewhere else (I know, I know...but accept it for argument's sake for a moment...) and you're selling off some of your old videogame titles. They're rated "T" and you're selling to a minor, so it's okay. Problem is, the game falls under the definitions of a violent game, and the Police Chief doesn't like you- he arrests you for violating the law, where it'd probably never get enforced that way in, nearby Moore or Norman.
It's a stupid, poorly written, and dangerous law. It's just a bunch of legislators grandstanding for votes when they should be removed and replaced (They did say they'd uphold the State and US Constitution in their oaths of office- they're in violation of their oath for having voted for this...). Parents should be protecting the kids, not the government- the only time they should step in is when the parents are derilict in that responsibility and this isn't one of those times.
I am not merely a "consumer" or a "taxpayer". I am a Citizen of the State of Texas
"That's purely prejudicial to include one and not the other. A homosexual character in a game makes it illegal to sell to minors? Please."
Where does it say that? I didn't read that, so you apparently made it up.
Second, you've made the assumption that one would be able to identify a "homosexual character" somehow. Tell me, oh wise one, how exactly would you be able to do that?
There's no prejudice here, just a rampant need to find some to bitch about.
"The government grants you rights, not the other way around."-- beav007. Yes, these people really exist...
Fair enough, I've only personally dealt with the US, Germany, and Italy. And in Germany, I was prob. hanging out with the wrong crowd.
By around here you must mean in your personal circle. I also live in Oklahoma and there is no stigma surrounding video games. This bill is basically a result of our legislature doing what it pleases, with very poor press coverage of the event in the state and the average American political apathy. This is really more of a generational and religious issue. If this law were a referendum it is true that it surely would pass here, but similar bills would pass in many states if put to a vote.
And hypocracy aside this is really no big deal in principal. So you can't sell sexually explicit or overtly violent content to kids. So what? Sure the details might be laughable but so are most bills if you take time to read them. All I have to say to the underagers is go get someone to buy it for you like you do your beer and cigarettes. *shrugs*
Mod parent up.
Next question, please. Maybe this time you can come up with something that actually adds to the discussion. Good luck.
I'd rate you up if I could. Funniest comment today :-D
I hope someone mods you up. You've hit the nail on the head. I wouldn't even say that people have to be stupid for this to be relevant. Its a guideline for all the normal people out there who don't have time to study everything themselves - to play every game, watch every movie, read every book, watch every play, listen to every piece of music that their children might come into contact with. A child is a parents responsibility but society should offer some guidance, otherwise why do we all bother living together?
When will Oklahoma be passing the law making it a crime for ignorant parents to let their children (under the age of 18, of course) play these violent games?
No, just another case of the government trying to "simply forces the parents to get involved" in raising their children.
Lars T.
To the guy who modded me down from perfect to terrible Karma - Apple haters still suck
They were more precise for showing : So showing a nude female breast (even if it belongs to a non-female person) is outlawed. Unless it has no nipple
I have discovered a truly remarkable proof for my post which this sig is too small to contain.
The members of the community this is affecting need to call or write their legislative critters and politely request the following:
* There is no reason that violent games should be singled out. Violent books, movies, tv shows, plays, and actions should also be outlawed for access to children.
* Then, list out specific examples of violent items you think should be limited. Cartoons, chess, checkers, Parcheesi, football, basketball, rough playing by other children, and temper tantrums. Be sure to make an exhaustive list of everything that might potentially be considered violent and/or entertainment. If you can, sneak in "state congressional meetings" to the list.
The more of these that can be added to the law, the bigger the article in the newspapers that will result about the stupidity of the lawmakers in the area, and the more likely that:
a) the law will be immediately struck down or simply fail on the amendments, and
b) the morons responsible for passing it will be ejected in the next election.
If the law eventually passes anyway, get together with your local retailers and have them grab a single copy of every single game, every single movie, and every single book they sell, and drive the truck up to the capitol steps. Ask them in person if they could just go ahead and suss out which ones can and can't be sold to children, and then every time they pick one that's "OK for the kids", list out specific instances of violence present in the media. Be sure to act like they're the devil for suggesting that children be allowed to view such filth. The more ridiculous, the better.
Oh, and invite the press. They love showboating like this. The more embarassment you can heap on the lawmakers, the better.
Enjoy!
That green slime had it coming.
You talk a lot about Europe, but in my humble party experiences... the Europeans are just as happy to get trashed, thrashed and hammered as any American.
And that is in addition to their 'normal' drinking habits.
I really wonder where the "Europe is teh bett3r" meme got started. Just cause the under-21 crowd over there can drink in public doesn't mean they don't throw wild parties and wake up hungover beyond all belief.
[Fuck Beta]
o0t!
My guess 52. One for each state, one for DC, and one for the Feds.
I see it as more of the government giving concerned parents a tool to help them to manage their child's access to such content.
Let me cover the traditional major objections that Slashdotters have raised to this sort of legislation:
1) It impinges on the rights of the minor.
Minors have significantly fewer rights than adults; playing video games is not a right that minors possess. It should rightly be up to the parents to decide whether or not their child is mature enough to handle explicit content. Further the law does not say minors are not permitted access to this material period (like states say regarding alcohol), just that they need an adult to make the purchase on their behalf.
2) Involved parents should be able to control their kids' access to this soft of material without such legislation
Too true, though not every parent has enough time to set up a police state within their house; some are too busy making sure their child is able to eat. And not every parent believes that a police state is a healthy environment. These same parents are not hypocritical to also think their child is not mature enough for some sorts of content, and this provides the means for them to establish certain perimeters at the same time the parent expands other perimeters.
3) Kids will get access to the material anyway
Although this is certainly true for some kids, erecting a barrier of this nature means that there is no question on the kid's part as to whether or not this is something their parents want them doing. This sort of specious reasoning is on different from saying that you might as well not establish limits for your child since they will just exceed those limits anyhow. Believe it or not, psychological barriers of this nature do influence behavior. A parent is able to remove the barrier for their child if they feel it is inappropriate in the case of their own child.
It is another tool for parents to help control access to materials. It is not a slippery slope in the direction of censorship; in fact it's an attempt to avoid a slippery slope where our children are exposed to more and more content before they are ready for it.
4) It violates free speech on the part of game manufacturers
No one is saying that game manufacturers aren't allowed to make explicit content, they're just saying a certain group of individuals, who have a high incidence of emotional immaturity, should first get consent from a parent, guardian, or other adult who knows more about their psyche and its ability to distinguish reality from fantasy. Your right to perform free speech is not greater than my right to not hear your free speech, nor is it greater than my right as a parent to not permit my children to hear it.
5) This is just a conservatist attempt at stifling modern forms of art that they personally find objectionable
Maybe this is a factor in such a law, I don't know, I'm not the people who passed it. But that doesn't change the fact that it is a useful tool for me to permit my child to begin exploring the world outside of my supervision, without having to worry as much about what sort of smut they're getting into. I've known 8-year-olds who were more emotionally ready for explicit content than some 21-year-olds. The point is that if I can control access, then I can do a better job of managing access to material that my child might not be mentally ready to accept without it distorting his or her perception of reality.
It's my personal belief that very very few kids are half so mature as they think they are, and that games like the GTA series will have a more significant impact on their world view than they would be willing to believe. I can remember as a kid wondering why I was treated like a kid so much when I always acted so mature. I now look back and see the behaviors I was engaging in, and lo and behold, I was a kid, and it turns out I was more impressionable than I would believe.
Really, if you think you're at a certain leve
Slay a dragon... over lunch!
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Miller_test
This has been hashed out for years. I'm surprised someone who is so concerned about the first amendment doesn't know about it.
"The government grants you rights, not the other way around."-- beav007. Yes, these people really exist...
Unfortunately, you have no clue about what a democracy is. Here's a hint: Democracy does not mean dictatorship of the majority
Actually, a straight-up pure democracy is just that.
That's why we live in a CONSTITUTIONAL democracy (or constitutional democratic republic if you want to get technical). The democratic part means "majority rule". The constitutional part means "minority rights". Without such constitutional protection, the minority's differences are suffered only at the pleasure of the majority.
Then again, since a constitution only has any real effect when it's supported and enforced by a majority of the populace (which also means keeping a few individuals in purportedly official positions from violating it), a constitution doesn't seem to be much more than a nice sentiment of how things ought to be.
Which seems to be the real source of all social and political failure: no matter what your ostensible form of government, things only work out well when a sufficient bulk of the populace are decent, respectful folk, AND have the balls to keep those who aren't so respectful from trampling all over everyone. Maybe certain documents are capable of inspiring people to be more respectful, either sentimentally or by convincing them that to do so is in their interest, but in the end it's really all a matter of public opinion. Even a utopian form of government, if nobody supports it, isn't going to make a lick of difference in the world.
-Forrest Cameranesi, Geek of all Trades
"I am Sam. Sam I am. I do not like trolls, flames, or spam."
I take it you have never tried buying violent videogames in Germany? In many cases you get horribly butchered versions (hell, in Alien Hominid they've replaced the blood with FLOWERS!) and sometimes the games aren't available at all (God Of War anyone?). Adults suffer from these restrictions.
Justice is the sheep getting arrested while an impartial judge declares the vote void.
In most nations with censorship boards, the board provides a rating/classification only. They cannot prohibit adult access to the material.
Free speech rights apply to children too.
People are stupid. By extension, parents are stupid.
By extenstion, governments are stupid. When an individual is stupid, they only affect themselves and a few others, when a government is stupid they affect millions of people.
Give me Classic Slashdot or give me death!
With how poorly written this bill is, it could damage one of the few game companies in this state. That company is 2015 studios, which is based in Tulsa, Oklahoma. I encourage slashdotters and the gaming community to email the writer of the bill and provide factual proof that games do not lead to violent acts. I have a letter on my blog, http://mattluria.com/2006/04/26/letter-to-senator- coffee-author-of-the-anti-video-game-bill/
Feel free to copy and use the letter to stick it to him!
Visit http://mattluria.com/!
"Submitting a film is purely a voluntary decision made by the filmmakers. However, the overwhelming majority of the producers creating entertaining, responsible films do in fact submit their films for ratings. All five Classification and Rating Administration rating symbols have been trademarked and may not be self-applied."
Next time when we have one of these articles on Slashdot, can they include this text at the end? It would save us a lot of time.
Spell cheek you've failed me four the last thyme!
> So even if the original texts properly translate directly to fornicate, which of those three definitions do we use?
All of them. (C.F. 1 Cor)
I find it intersting that the link you provided does show three definitions, but none of the three says anything about sex outside of marriage. Unless of course, you do it for money, or it is against the law in your country to have sex oustide of marriage.
If you are not allowed to question your government then the government has answered your question.
While I agree with you - and there are a lot of English that I've met in thier 20's that love to get hammered - I've also met a bunch where it's just not a big deal.
"Underage" drinking is a good thing since the kids probably can't drink and drive. if you can only start drinking when you are 21 (okay, no one does this, but in some wierd parallel universe) you pose more of a risk to yourself and others.
Society helping to reccommend these sort of things to parents, fine. We already have this with the *voluntary* ratings systems in place for movies and games already. Parents generally understand movie ratings just fine... they just need to take a little time to understand the games ratings as well, if their kids want to play them.
Letting Government control it, on the other hand, is asking for trouble. Once it's no longer voluntary and becomes a law, we're stepping into uncharted, slippery-slope territory.
I just find it a bit strange that people are happy allowing retailers to make that decision rather than parents - especially since it seems practically understood in the US that companies are somehow legally obliged to enhance shareholder value above all else (or so the Slashdot meme goes) - that drives things in a strange direction, from an outsiders perpective anyway.
Not to say I agree with this law, but that is simply down to bad wording and bad iplementation rather than it actually being a bad concept.
The rights (and duties) of children are limited.
No rights are absolute: all rights are restricted but the amount to which they infringe on other rights. My right to free speech is restricted by your right to your good name, hence the crime of defamation. A child's rights to freedom of association and freedom of religion are restricted by the parent's right to bring up their child as they see fit, which includes the protection of religious indoctrination.
All rights have reciprocal duties or responsibilities: the flip side of the right of parents to bring up their children as they see fit, is a responsibility of care. Which makes it clear why children's rights may be limited by their guardians: you cannot exercise your duty of care if you cannot prohibit your children from interacting with certain people, or engaging in certain behaviour.
When government is clever, it can protect millions of people against their own stupidity. That includes people who don't have the rights to protect themselves ... like children.
i-name =twylite [http://public.xdi.org/=twylite], see idcommons.net
How would minors being unable to purchase a game cause an increase in robbery at sea?
1. By that standard, heterosexuality is immoral. Many heterosexuals engage in premarital sex. 2. If we'd let homosexuals marry, they'd have a few more options in that area. Most homosexuals don't have the option of homosexual sexual activity within the context of marriage.
Never give in--never, never, never, never, in nothing great or small, large or petty, never give in except to conviction
So - you would be in favor of ratings on books?
They've had them on comic books for about 50 years.
Look up the Comics Code Authority sometime. In the mid-1950s, comics were in the same position that video games are today: blamed for all manner of juvenile delinquency. A moral crusade was launched, congressional hearings were held, and in order to protect their business, the comic book industry put together the code. Newsstands wouldn't stock any comics without the Code seal on them, and to get that seal, the book had to be the equivalent of a PG rating. Maybe a G by today's standards.
The end result was that only G-rated comic books survived outside the underground publishing circuit. Crime and horror genres disappeared entirely. EC comics, known for titles like Tales from the Crypt and True Crime, had to drop their entire line, leaving behind only Mad Magazine (now owned by Time Warner).
Keep in mind that this all happened without actual government legislation. Just hearings and hysteria.
In the late 1970s, after some rewrites of the Comics Code, the major publishers started to experiment with non-approved books. There was a Spider-Man story that involved drug use -- portrayed negatively, of course, but just portraying it would have violated the code -- which went out without the seal and still managed to get onto the stands and into the hands of readers. By the mid-1980s, even DC started selling some comics labeled "For mature readers only," later collecting those series into the launch of the Vertigo label. The Code has been relaxed again and again, and Marvel even dropped it in the late 1990s in favor of its own rating system, which featured movie-style PG labels and a music-style "parental advisory" for their 18+ comics.
It took 30 years to for the comic book industry to start climbing out of the PG-only ghetto, end even now, 50 years later, you still find people who will challenge an obviously-not-for-kids comic book because it has material inappropriate for kids. Check out the Comic Book Legal Defense Fund for more info on that fight.
Oklahoma does not allow the sale of books showing sexual penetration. Same for movies. Same for magazines. There may be some educational exceptions but pornography, in the traditional fellatio and intercourse sense, is not legal in Oklahoma. I don't think it's even technically legal to possess it - but I can't recall anyone ever being arrested for possessing porn.
... except carrying guns. :-D
It's been that way for a loooooong time. I know because I've lived here 30+ years.
And don't get me wrong. It's available. It's just not legal. So your post is incorrect. All kinds of things are banned. Well
I don't think that is a reason not to do it. To make an obvious analogy, kids can very easily download pornography from the Internet. Does that mean it shouldn't be a crime for a storekeeper to make money by selling it to them?
If it's been decided by society that it is inppropriate for someone under 18 to own or view a certain thing (which is another debate, I acknowledge), then sure you can police that at home, but I don't know many parents who would supervise their 17 year old when they're out shopping. That's when you need to trust either the kids or the system. Sadly the truth is that not all 17 year olds are mature enough to be trusted when there's something attractive on offer.
Really, do I have to explain to you how studies and control groups work? Is this a serious question or are you just baiting me?
I received this email only hours ago. Senator Coffee asked me to relate to you that HB3004 has already passed out of the Senate and has returned to the House. This bill passed out of the house and senate unanimously.
Visit http://mattluria.com/!