Slashdot Mirror
NY Governor to Target Violent Video Games
NoMoreGuns writes to tell us that Governor Eliot Spitzer is planning to target violent movies and video games in a new bill. "Spitzer said he wants to restrict access to these videos and games by children, similar to motion picture regulations which prohibit youths under 17 from being admitted to R-rated movies without a parent or adult guardian. Under Spitzer's proposal, retailers who sell violent or degrading videos or video games to children contrary to the rating would be sanctioned."
Back to focusing on trivial things, while important problems go un-addressed.
Unless I'm really misreading this, he isn't targeting the violent games at all. What he's targeting is the sale of violent games to minors, in the manner of R-rated movies.
I expect that sort of misleading headline from the mainstream press, but Slashdot should really have fixed it.
Slashdot Burying Stories About Slashdot Media Owned
But leave the damn consumers alone.
Maybe I'm missing the big picture, but what's the problem with preventing minors from buying games specifically market for adults? I know legally there's been no teeth in it up until now (and parents should really be watching out for their kids) but what's the objection to this? The only group I would think could possibly object is minors.
headshot
Lets ban children from watching, listening to, or reading the news. There are all kinds of accounts of anti-social behaviors contained in the news. Shouldn't we be "protecting the children" from that too?
Besides, are social problems like school related shootings really being encouraged by video games, or is it possible that massive news coverage plays a larger role? I mean, I take what I see on TV to be a lot more "real" and "possible" than anything I see on a video game.
Interesting that the supreme court(?) has just struck down this very same bill, in Louisiana. The Judge berated the state for trying to undermine the constitution, as well as not seeing what has happened to very similar bills in other states. They also made the state pay out the 94,000$ in lawyer fees that the gaming industry had to pay in order to fight this.
Apparently there was a quote from the group responsible for the bill saying that they would try again. Millions of dollars wasted in 'thinking of the children', when most stores do that anyway.
I have mod points and I am not afraid to use them.
So he wants to make sure that certain violent games, let's presume for the moment he means M rated for the sake of argument and then deal with T, cannot be bought by people younger than 17...does New York not already have this law? I know for a fact that in Arizona selling an M rated game to a minor is illegal and actually punishable by some law, I had to show my driver's license to buy Counter Strike.
The only thing I can see about this bill that might concern people is the definition of violent. If, by that, the bill means M rated then who cares. M rated is supposed to be sold to 17 year olds or older, so now it'll be enforced by law, that's nice. Now then, if by violent the bill intends for all games with violence, with no care to the rating, to be sold to 17 or older then we have a problem, especially since every game has violence except the most absolutely boring arcade games.
That's all I'm concerned about, how is a violent video game defined? I'd presume by the movie part as well that it means M rated but hey, it's politics, they could very well mean to ban all games in one fell swoop.
There are two kinds of fool One says 'This is old therefore good' Another says 'This is new therefore better'- Dean Ing
I'm all for a law like the one mentioned but it won't work at all anyway since Grandma will buy Junior any game wants for Christmas. They need to teach clerks at stores to ask people who the game is intended for so they know what they're buying.
I know a ten year old who was playing GTA San Andreas and thought that the dildo he found in the police station was a purple balloon. He's running around beating people up with it when I walk in and ask him where he found that weapon. Well, I'm still laughing. His much older sister felt compelled to explain it to him. Later he was asking me why the women were approaching his car asking if he wanted a good time. So he's way too young to be playing this and any reasonable store clerk wouldn't sell it to him, but he borrowed from a friend.
I'm sorry, but these are just getting ridiculous. For as long as I remember, retailers haven't been selling M rated games to youngster's due to the reliability of doing so. Way back in the day I wasn't even allowed to look at M rated games at GameCrazy until I was old enough. It's simply not an issue. This stuff is just busy work for Senators to do to make it look like they're actually doing something.
Parents have been basically regulated into the ground by governments like this one. They can't punish their kids without social services show up, can't buy their kid a handgun and let them carry it in their own car to a range, even if the kid is a 100% balanced eagle scout, can't let them drink, can't let them do that. All the while the parents shoulder most of the blame if their kid does anything wrong.
That's why I say fuck the "community." The only person raised by a village was a feral, tribalist, not a civilized human being.
Gamestop's new policy seems to be working, I'm 23, about 6'2'' 210lbs...and definatley look older than 16...and I got IDed at gamestop buying F.E.A.R. and I don't carded for cigarettes or alcohol.
In a world of acronyms, the words are the real victims.
So when "Spitzer said he wants to restrict access to these videos and games by children, similar to motion picture regulations which prohibit youths under 17 from being admitted to R-rated movies without a parent or adult guardian." Either Spitzer is ignorant about the law, he is lying just to get headlines, or just possibly he knows there aren't any such laws and so it would be technically correct to say that there will be regulations "similar" to film regulations.
Either way he is an ass.
There are no laws in the USA regulating the sale of any entertainment medium. There are regulations on things like porn, but those are a genre and they are notoriously vague in that at least once a year a comic book store gets busted for selling comic books with drawings of boobs.
If videogames were to be singled out there would have to be a mountain of evidence that shows that they are dangerous to children. No such mountain exists. Therefore, it is just singling out videogames because it is an easy way to look like you are "looking out for families."
http://www.popularculturegaming.com -- my blog about the culture of videogame players
You're a dumbass. This is about actually regulating something that is supposed to be a rule anyway.
But frankly, I'd be perfectly happy to have things be a bit more European around here, with less tolerance for violence in the media and also less prudish reserve about sex. So long as I'm quoting humorists, I direct your attention to George Carlin's statements on the subject: "People much wiser than I have said, 'I'd rather have my son watch a film with two people making love than two people trying to kill one another.' I, of course, can agree. It is a great sentiment, I wish I knew who said it first. I agree with that but I'd like to take it a step further. I'd like to substitute the word 'f**k' for the word 'kill' in all of those movie cliches we grew up with. 'Okay, Sherrif, we're gonna f**k you now, but we're gonna f**k you slow.'"
PHEM - party like it's 1997-2003!
They would have the tools if laws like this weren't fought tooth and nail. What tools can they have if their children take the money they got from their paper route (or other legal job for minors) and buy a game their parents aren't allowing? If they don't happen to catch them in the act, whose fault is it? It's just like the laws against purchasing pornography for a minor. The parents can't stop their children if they are being helped by outsiders (such as the video game store clerks).
Resistance is futile. Your technological distinctiveness will be added to our own. You will become one with the morgue
Wouldn't it be novel if, instead of telling us how the poor children need to be protected from violent video games or movies or comic books or sinful negro music, a politician who claims to be concerned about our children's welfare has a major campaign to get them better medical care and education?
http://twitter.com/OLDTELEGRAM
The majority of voters in America are seniors who still hate comic books for "destroying America's youth." So, of course, politicians are going to use anything they can to leverage more votes. Look at how many Democrats are trying to propose this type of legislation. 10 years ago the Dems would never support anything that has been struck down as a free speech violation.
Unfortunately, in the USA, baby boomers are the ruling party.
Resistance is futile. Your technological distinctiveness will be added to our own. You will become one with the morgue
Why don't they target lame games like pokemon or other pansy games as well, that have the potential of turning children gay when they get older?
"Warning: This video contains extremely gay content. Any attempt to recreate any action portrayed on this game may lead to homosexual tendencies. Use with caution."
There were killing sprees way before video games had violence in them. I remember seeing the clock tower massacre, which I'm sure is way before any video game was even created. What a joke. Why don't they work on laws to prevent parents from using video games as baby-sitters as well?
"Please, shut up. Just when I think you can't say anything more stupid, you speak again." -Archie Bunker.
"Kids should not get their hands on these games, but that's the responsibility of the parents. They have the tools."
Correction... it should read "My Kids should not get their hands on these games, but that's the responsibility of the parents. They have the tools."
When you state that universally "kids" should not get their hands on the games, you validate the idea of creating a law. After all, if it is an absolute truth that "kids" should not get their hands on the games, then the only time the law would go into effect is when a parent is not doing their job. Add to that, that what a "kid" is, is a political mess. The government still considers people kids up to a decade or more ofter reaching puberty.
Also, no disrespect intended with this, but, I'm not any more comfortable with you defining what my child should and should not be exposed to than I am with some politician making the same decision.
But his proposal is not like films at all. Films ratings are set by a non-government group called the Motion Picture Association of America (MPAA). Keep government out of it and let the free market decide what to do.
Accordingly the the dictionary of ME, "back in the day" is in reference to something that was in excess of 5 years in the past. Just like a "shitload" is the number of a certain item in excess of two.
How do they talk about restricting access to games without once mentioning the ESRB's ratings. They compare it to preventing kids from getting at R-Rated movies, but they never once mention the M-Rating. You think that once, just once, they would look at ALL the times laws like this have been overturned by the courts, and say, maybe we should try something different, maybe we should use the rating system that is ALREADY in place?
All they would have to do is take the old R-rated movie law, and sed it to change MPAA to ESRB and R-rated/rating to M-rated/rating.
Let me preface this post by first saying that I have played plenty of games of many different kinds, whether they be FPSs, RTSs, or RPGs. Some were not violent while others were.
I don't see this issue as a matter of whether video games are bad for children. This issue has more to do with society and how it relates to family and more generally accountability. Fifty years ago, a matter like this wouldn't really be a question since parents either wouldn't give children money to buy such things. If this wouldn't happen, the store owner may not have sold such goods to a child since he may have been a family friend, a neighbor, or someone who didn't believe that a child should have "bad" games. Now shameless commercialism allows people to do almost whatever they want since people are no longer directly shareholders in the lives of each other. It may be cynical, but it seems like people care less about each other than they once did.
The fact is that society has been liberalizing and I don't mean "liberalization" in a political sense. When I say "liberalization", I mean that people are free to do as they wish, no matter their age or any other factor. Parents let their kids run rampant in today's society. Freedom is great, but it can come at a price when people aren't careful about how they take their freedoms. When someone goes wrong now, they don't look at themselves as the source of an issue. It's always someone else's fault. Accountability of people's actions has been left to the government. This is why there are so many lawsuits today. People can't settle issues between themselves because they no longer choose to do so. Furthermore, people don't want to accept the fact that they may have been wrong.
Are games bad for children? It's almost impossible to say since we don't have the ability to test cases in parallel universes. The origins of many of society's problems have a common source. All one has to do is take a basic psychology class and observe a few different family situations to realize that how a child turns our directly correlates to how they were raised. If people were more concerned about being good parents instead of obsessively focusing on their careers or blaming video game companies or the government, society would benefit.
Great! Another silly law that actually does nothing but attempt to fool people that our lawmakers are actually addressing "real issues". I hate thees "protect our kiddies" - laws most of all. Isn't it the parents job to monitor and raise their kids? It certainly is not the job of the State. This is basically saying, "Parents your too stupid to know what's bet for your kids, so we are going to do it for you.." This is such a waist of money and resources.
The more restrictions and taboo placed on violence and sex will only draw children towards it and further disassociate it from what really does occur in reality when the same acts are committed. The sooner politicians and citizens realize that making items difficult to acquire only drives up the popularity and creates black markets for sale o the items at exhorbitant mark ups.
When children were exposed to death routinely, either through the horrors of war or through the exceedingly high infant mortality rates (most people over 30 have grand-parents who have dead siblings who died in early childhood) death was not taboo and there was a knowledge and familiarity with death. Now, people are so far removed from death and violence that they only way they experience it is in virtual situations that do not mimic real life behaviours.
These kinds of laws will do nothing but further that disassociation and increase the likelihood of someone committing a violent crime because they will be unaware and unable to comprehend the reality of it. Want to make a kid more aware of the reality of where his food comes from? Have him clean and gut his own deer or go out back and chop the head of the chicken so Mom can de-feather it and cook it up for dinner. These types of actions were once a part of normal everyday life and brought us into contact as a society with the idea and consequence of death. As we move further away from it the society begins to break down because it is too far removed from reality.
Interestingly the article also says that he wants to extend the death penalty to people who kill cops or those labeled as "Terrorists". No specific context is given to explain a) why such measures are needed as killing cops and terrorism can already get the death penalty in many ways (e.g. capitol murder or federal executions) or b) how "terrorists" would be defined according to the law.
As vague as the definition of "porn" is "terrorism" is just as loose, and far more telegenic.
Jack Thompson already did blame it on video games: http://kotaku.com/gaming/virginia-tech/breaking-id iot-blames-va-shooting-on-games-252702.php
Custom electronics and digital signage for your business: www.evcircuits.com
You got to be kidding! A regulation on a video game, but in Virginia it's perfectly ok to by a gun without even a license or cooling-of period. An assault weapon is ok if its not "to be used in anger". Why don't you take one step back and get your priorities right.
No it is not-you just BELIEVE it is. Otherwise cite the LAW you are talking about.
Like many slashdotters, I have an extremely low view of politcians but Spitzer is a good man.
When he was in New York District Attorney's office, he single-handedly ended the Gambino crime family. When he became New York's Attorney General, he showed a great zeal in going after biggest Wall Street firms like Goldman Scahs, JP Morgan that were inflating stock prices and giving biased investment advice to customers. He did it inspite of a great deal of pressure. Then, he went after music companies practising "payola" schemes to get their songs played on radio. He didnt even spare huge insurance companies like AIG and chip manufacturers practicing price-fixing and other fraud.
Even in the current case, he is NOT against violent video games. He is just against the SALE of mature-rated video games to minors. This is no different than preventing minors from purchasing tickets to R-rated movies
Treat M-Rated video games the same way as cigarettes and beer. If the customer is not the legal age and doesn't have identification to prove his/her legal age, no sale. If an adult buys a M-rated game for minor, they should be busted the same way for buying cigarettes and beer for a minor. Why is this so hard?
Shed a tear, gaming is growing up. No longer is gaming a hobby of a small specific group of people, but a mainstream activity! Like comic books and rock and roll music, gaming has come of age: and is promptly attacked by government and concerned citizens groups.
It's a rite of passage.
PnP RPGs, you are still my favorite red-headed stepchild.
If at first you don't succeed, just keep trying, right? Hey, it's not their money these scumbag politicians are wasting each time they get their state(s) sued over these idiotic laws, right?
Liberty in your lifetime
I'm sick of getting my butt kicked by teenage punks in Unreal Tournament.
But, this guy evidently has failed to look at what most corporations are doing such as Gamestop. If an employee sells to a minor a Mature game, he's fired. Truthfully, if the kid wants the game, he's going to get it. I wanted Mortal Kombat when I was a kid, and so I sat down with my dad, and we talked it over. He asked what it was, I explained to him that it was a combat game that involved blood, and beating up other players. I even mentioned the fatalities. My dad, simply asked if I realized the difference between reality and fiction (I was seven at the time), and so we had a discussion about it. Once he realized that I wasn't going to Back-Back-B my sister, it was agreed that I could get the game. The only stipulation was that if friends came over, they couldn't play the game unless their parents allowed them to (who were called by either my dad or mom). I turned out fine, right? =P
PG means Parental Guidance suggested. "Suggested"
g _system
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Motion_picture_ratin
I think we should have a lawmaker rating system.
E Everyone this rating means new bill helps everyone
POOR this bill only helps those below the poverty line
$ This bill only helps those above the poverty line
$$ This bill only helps those with million dollar homes
$$$ This bill only helps those owning private jets and or islands
OIL These bills only help George W. Bush and friends
WT These bills are a waste of time
FOOL These are the foolish bills that the creator doesn't even understand
GMM (Give More Money) This is for crap like wars.
I grew up reading things like Robert E Howard novels. The hero would be slipping on the decks of ships from all the blood while a man that was just gutted by a sword grabbed at his own entrails. Shakespear is full of violence and if the Colubine kids had read The Art of War they might have done a lot more damage and it's thousands of years old. I've got no problem restricting the sale to minors I'm concerned about over reactions and the witch hunts that follow. Like all good witch hunts they rarely burn the guilty party but they do get everyone worked up and afraid. Focus on the actual causes not the percieved causes. Games and movies get lots of hype but when's the last time you heard some one say the killer just read Truman Capote's In Cold Blood and decided it'd be cool to rob and murder a family in a farmhouse? Violent content may trigger a reaction from a tiny group of people but it's never really found to be the root cause. Columbine was thought to be brought on by abuse from jocks. No one said to crack down on abuse from jocks. I recently read that only a couple of percent of students were free of abuse. The rest were either victims or causing it. It's easier to blame the media than the system itself. It's been a lot of years but I still remember clearly what school was like. The jocks ruled and everyone else was a friend or afraid. Apparently this kid had a chip on his shoulder about Rich kids. I've read that they were very concerned about his writing before the incident. After Colubine they didn't target jocks but they did target outcast types. Man am I glad I wasn't in school then. Now what? If a kid writes something violent in nature can they be expelled? If a 16 year old had written a story like Stephen King's Rage would he considered likely to commit an act of violence? Possibly but out of a million kids that might write something like that one may commit the act. That's a lot of punishment for one crime that may or may not happen. You can't paint such a broad stroke. You might as well say if you have the gene for alcoholism you can't get a drivers license. It may save lives but at what cost?
stop, stop, stop!! These people are idiots. When will the people in power realize that violence, murder, rape, has been going on for as long as humans have walked the earth? Damn it, stop blaming video games and movies to push your selfish agenda..we are tired of this shit, christ
angry anonymous coward
He only gets re-elected because he passes such laws, which inherently appeal to parents of children and old people or he passes other laws which are good for certain business. In the mean time small business (like mine) and young professionals do get undermined by a lot of fees to get anything done in NYS.
Another thing is the harsher laws on DWI (and DWAI) only account for more 'poor' people that get caught to lose their jobs and life. I know a guy, that has been re-applying for his license for years. The DMV in NYS doesn't (have to) give him any honest process, just denies all claims (did you know the initial claim is ALWAYS denied) which they collect $50 for each time, his license is still revoked. The guy didn't have that much (cable guy, installing boxes) with no prior history, so a lawyer wasn't in it, he isn't a drunk (only got caught once, barely over the limit, never hit or hurt anyone). In the mean time, I know of another guy, that went in debt to shill out 10-20k for a lawyer, he DID hit somebody and he only got suspended for 6 months.
Taxes keep on rising upon residents as do the price of the utilities. Now the market in NYS is finally 'open' for utilities, still providers are allowed to raise an extra fee on top of the other providers costs for 'using their network' (gas and electric, not phone or anything fancy). Where I live, such surcharge would be $10/month, thus killing off any savings that I would get using an alternative or 'green' provider.
Try to get ANYTHING done in NYS, you'll see that for any form that you want to file to the State, there is on average an instant $10 'administrative fee' not even to mention the 'processing fee' ($30-60) if it was a claim that needs to be approved and then processed.
Custom electronics and digital signage for your business: www.evcircuits.com
Violent video games to target NY Governor.
Close. It is about making a frivolous law to ban something that most reputable retailers already have policies about. Actually, even closer to the truth, this is about getting votes.
New Jersey would like to take this momment to thank the Governor of New York for sending even more tax revenue their way. They invite NYC residents to their malls, now with an even bigger video game selection.
Where are the parents? Like it was mentioned only minors would really object to federal laws restricting sales of violence in >insert medium to minors. Surely that can't hurt but when it comes to it, it is the parents job to raise their kids. The government should provide the base guidelines, it's the parents job to fine tune them. I'm not saying have the government regulate everything. Just that there should be penalties if a 14yr old strolls into Best Buy and walks out with some "adult" entertainment.
~Vexed and loving it!
I am all for it. If they don't want children playing those games then so be it. However, what everyone seems to forget, is that a law like that puts a huge amount of responsibility on the shoulders of the retailers. When in fact, if parents don't want their children to play/watch violent video games or movies, perhaps they should act like "parents", instead of having the retailers do the parenting for them.
The piece is clearly satire. There are notices to that effect all over the site, but all the same it's become sadly prophetic:
The best part is reading the comments below from people who think it's utterly serious.
The MPAA ratings and their adherence came about specifically to stop this kind of legislation. By creating their own voluntary code and then getting theaters to agree to uphold it, they maintained control of what movies got what ratings (thus no NC-17 rating for documentaries the government doesn't like, etc.)
Fortunately for the MPAA, theater owners were smart enough to get that they didn't want government control and smart enough to realize adherence was the way to avoid it. Enough theaters abided by the code, the problem went away. Now, years later, everyone assumes it's some kind of law.
That's what the ESRB ratings were supposed to be. Unfortunately, unlike movie theaters, videogames get sold anywhere and everywhere and their sellers aren't that smart. It gets even worse when stores like Walmart get involved and now you have checkout clerks in the garden center who know and care absolutely nothing about avoiding imposed legislation for the industry.
As theaters have it, the government cannot decide a movie doesn't suit the ruling party of the time and thus raise its rating to the point where it's unprofitable. Over zealous police captains who are going for promotion in a conservative town can't start sending sixteen year olds who look thirty in to movies in order to levy fines and show they're tough on crime.
Unfortunately, due to the ESRB's inability to regulate stores that sell the games, we are most likely going to see government control of rating and enforcement. We already have total dross forced on us because games have become so expensive to develop that the might of publishers like EA is mandatory and they're not interested in taking risks. Now imagine a world in which anything remotely approaching edgy content or political expression gets regarded as a risk to ratings, thus a risk to sales, and something they won't fund development of. Now add in small conservative towns where there are no videogame stores because the sheriff's mounted a bunch of stings to curry favor in elections.
That's absolutely not the manner in which R-rated movies to minors is regulated. The differences are subtle and often overlooked (or assumed not to exist at all) but they make all the difference in the world.
Thank goodness we have the politicians on this. Guns don't kill people, games do!
ceci n'est pas un sig
What happens to the law. He knows just as well as everyone else that this law will get struck down as unconstitutional. What he is seeking is to establish himself as the politician who did something to protect the children.
However, elections are coming up for the Republican party, and he needs to show the people that the Republicans are thinking of the children. It doesn't matter what the ultimate fate of the bill is, this is just political posturing for himself and the Republican party.
The Republicans know that in order to gain political traction, they have to shift the focus away from Iraq and onto other issues.
The society for a thought-free internet welcomes you.
Those were entirly different.
This one just implements the same rules regarding buying a ticket to an R movie.
Big fucking deal.
A parent isn't , and can not be, around there teenagers 24/7. It isn't possible and would be unhealthy for the child.
Theya re not banning the games, or even banning minor from playing them, only purchasing them, and if a Teenagers needs toi sneak off to buy a game, then they are most likly violating there parents whishes. A lot of people say it's up to the parents, and they are right.
The Kruger Dunning explains most post on
if america wants its mercenary army to continue being its main export it damn well better be making kids watch violence
and geting used to it.
desensitized==better troops
back in the day we didnt have no old school
...but, as a supporter of the death penalty, pro Real Death. Good luck with that.
Reduce, reuse, cycle
So you expect a parent to be around their teenager 24/7?
No, this is a toll to help parents, as far as the store goes, making it a policy to check ID will pretty much remove responibility.
really, how much effort is checking someones ID?
The Kruger Dunning explains most post on
Spitzer is a _Democrat_, and a newly elected one at that.
A sentence you'll never see on an Internet discussion board: "You know what? You're right."
It depends where you are. Every Canadian province has laws regarding film and video classification, with penalties for non-compliance (including exhibition, sale or rental of "unclassified" materials.)
I think we were talking about the U.S. here. On the whole, Canadians seem to accept a much higher degree of government interference than I think would be acceptable in the U.S. (This may or may not be due to a greater degree of trust in their government, but I'd argue anyone who trusts any government is a fool, since all governments are corrupt, some are just lacking in subtlety.)
Attempting to codify the MPAA rating system into U.S. law, in a way that's similar to Canada's, would probably run into substantial (and not at all unreasonable) First Amendment objections. Nobody has ever really realistically suggested that the government should be involved in censoring movies and other media, at least not recently. The MPAA likes to use it as a bogeyman, a sort of implied threat -- "hey, you may not like us, but we're better than having those monkeys in Congress do it" -- but I'm not sure if there's really any serious risk of it happening.
At best, without substantially changing the U.S. legal framework, you'd have to redefine "obscenity" to include violence and sexuality (and anything else you wanted to restrict), in order to carve out an excuse for government regulation. Or you might be able to threaten stores who sell such materials to minors with prosecution under one of the vague "injurious to the morals of a minor" statues, in order to 'encourage' "voluntary" compliance. (That's probably the most realistic scenario, and it sounds close to what Spitzer is trying for.) I'm still not sure how far it would fly in court though.
This whole thing is just a political football; Spitzer is dragging it out in order to make himself seem more appealing to conservatives, because he has an election coming up in 2010 and he needs to have some resume lines for it. Since he can't 'protect the fetuses' (he is, after all, a Democrat), 'protecting the children' is a pretty safe alternative that ought to buy him some soccer-mom votes both in the downstate (liberal) and upstate (moderate to conservative in some places) districts.
"Ladies and gentlemen, my killbot features Lotus Notes and a machine gun. It is the finest available."
Let's develop a game that shows the world that violence isn't the problem.
In this game, you should get points for:
humiliating and ostracizing people who are different from you,
evading taxes by exploiting questionable tax breaks,
using barely legal accounting practices,
manipulating other people's emotions for political objectives,
taking campaign contributions that create conflicts of interest,
and suing people under immoral circumstances for profit.
Personally, I'd rather kids pretend to shoot people.
http://www.accountkiller.com/removal-requested
This is Slashdot, and the tubes, so I fully expect a large outcry against governmental control versus personal liberties. The fact is, either way there's going to be opposition, whether it's regulation or deregulation of video game ratings. At least here in New York, there's a tradition to protect a parent's rights to determine what their children can watch or play. That is exactly what the enforcement of the law does; it protects the rights of parental enforcement by disallowing retailers from selling games rated for adults to teens. There is nothing in this law (or its enforcement, which is what TFA is about) that dictates a parent can't buy any video game for thier kids, even if it's the newest edition of EA Sports Circle Jerk 2007 (tm). Furthermore, this law protects retailers, so these games can still be sold, and even made. In a day and age where people are so quick to assign blame for the horrible things that happen, the retailers and producers need to be protected. How many anti-violent gaming laws are proposed every year? What prevents these from passing is the ESRB rating system. Enforcement allows a retailer to point back at the parent for buying the game in the first place, or point at the child for duping the retailer in the first place. Either way absolves the retailer of responsibility. Now, I understand that at sixteen, people are probably capable of making decisions and recognizing the difference between a game and real life. I know if someone told me I couldn't buy a game when I was that age, I would have been upset as well. Unfortunately, it is simply much to inefficient to judge everyone on a case-by-case basis (and whose responsibility would that be?), not to mention dealing with the various ethical textures of assigning people an "age." Therefore, an age limit needs to be set.
They would not give the reigns controlling national globalization policy to the likes of Wal-Mart, who care nothing about your childs future and everything about corporate profits. What are "The Children" going to do when there are no decent paying jobs left in the country? Hell, what are they going to do when they can't even work at Wal-Mart because every product has RFID sensors and no staff are needed to ring your products up at the register? BTW, Wal-Mart is the largest contributor to congressional campaigns, so what they want is done, not the will of the people, and definitely not whats in the best interest of our "Poor Children"TM.
I've read Slashdot for the last 5 years, and now I start posting... Go figure
Seriously, I know its the parent's responsibility to raise their children right (ask 100 parents to define "right", and you will get 100 different answers), but parents can't be there all the time, and once kids get mobile, whats to stop them from doing stupid stuff? I know I did...
Are you for removing the restrictions on alcohol, tobacco, firearms & movies (including porn)?
How about restrictions on driving?
How about the age of consentual sex or entering into binding contracts?
Whats the difference?
Why draw the line on video games?
If a parent doesnt mind, there is nothing in the law (that I saw) that prevented them from playing them... the parent can go out and buy it for them. Parents have a hard enough time now, two parents almost HAVE to work, this isnt the 1950's anymore...
Thanks to file sharing, I purchase more CDs
Thanks to the RIAA, I buy them used...
Any enforcement of the ratings on movies (or games for that matter) is currently on a voluntary. While some theaters or stores may have policies to restrict kids from buying/renting R or M material, the vast majority of them DO NOT.
You're right about it being voluntary, but I think you're wrong in saying "the vast majority do not." I can't think of any major theater chain in the U.S. that doesn't enforce the MPAA ratings on movies. If you can find one that doesn't, it's just because the employees are looking the other way, not because of any official policy. I mean, the theater owners have representatives in the MPAA -- they sit on the appeals boards for rating movies. (Go see "This Film Is Not Yet Rated" if you want to know names; it's basically a who's-who of theater ownership.)
Movie rental and sales may be a little more lax, because they're more focused on making a buck. However, the big chains all at least pay lip service to the MPAA ratings, and any difference between policy-as-written and policy-as-enforced (like being lax about the "R" rating, because it would hurt sales too much) is just going to get blamed on the employees.
"Ladies and gentlemen, my killbot features Lotus Notes and a machine gun. It is the finest available."
Even if we wanted to, there's no way to effectively ban children from getting the news without banning adults also. On the other hand, preventing kids from buying games while allowing adults to do so is trivial. Yes, they could order online, but if you trust your kid enough to let them have a credit card then you should trust their choice of games.
This bill does not ensure perfect control by the state but it does give parents more control.
Never let a lack of data get in the way of a good rant.
Spitzer, like Hillary, is a fool, putting effort into stopping violent video games rather than tackling real issues. If you want to stop violence in America, work on changing the empty, soulless Hollywood culture. America has a great cultural history, but our lack of decent leadership combined with the media's efforts to replace our culture with silly, stupid nonsense have created generations without identity or purpose, who end up as psychos or self-indulgent gluttons.
plus c'est la meme chose.
After every shooting they always go for the game/movie industry instead of actually looking at what the problem was. It;s always who can we blame or sue.
The pressure of an academic carrer is quite intence. Money/Job + Studying can be quite taxing. But no one will look on how to improve the life of a student just how we can stop so called outside bad influence. There needs to be a fundamental change in how we think and how we live. I know it;s quite a Star Trek ideology but it's a good one. We have to strive to improve the quality of life so that everyone can feel some sort of accomplishment. So lets start with the schools. Make them free, lets offer more tuitions. Help for students who needs it.
and it's going to fail in New York. Mr. Spitzer should stop wasting his time and taxpayer dollars.
No, you are a dumbass. This law will just be unconstitutional.
Avoid Missing Ball for High Score
After all, if you're over 13 in VA, you could just buy a handgun.
Then you could hold up the video store, get your violent game and be done.
Bush has said he is against any regulation on guns, so this is going to
remain the easiest option.
So I am in charge and this is freaking everybody out and I gotta do something but there's no quick fix really but hey what a great opportunity to be in charge and do things... so, what is that I can do easily and make noise about it and look good... to my voters? Hey, look at the TV! Grannies against violence in video games... Eureka! gamers don't vote, grannies do. Here I come!
...but that's because I'm Australian. Here, the ratings are enforceable in law. Specifically, we have two ratings, MA 15+ and R 18+, that are legally restricted to persons over 15 or 18, respectively, unless accompanied by a parent or guardian blah blah etc. (Actually, we also have an X rating, which can't legally be sold in any state, and a 'refused classification', which is just plain illegal.)
The problem? R ratings only exist on movies, not games. If a game would merit an R rating, it cannot be sold in Australia. Now, part of this is because the politicians are stupid -- I read a report on a get-together of the state attorneys-general, where the South Australian AG literally said they had to think of the children -- but it's also partly because they realise that retailers generally ignore the legalities of the MA rating.
If retailers started being told to toe the line and check ages when selling MA games, we'd be one step closer, paradoxically, to a less regulated video games retail industry in Australia.
Lets all create laws that will penalize everyone else for not being a parent to every pip-squeak they encounter! This makes SO much sense. Legislate away parenting responsibility from the actual parents - who obviously are doing such a wonderful job - to some stranger who's doing 'something else'. Like earning a living. I just love how some folks "think". What ever happened to parents anyway? Never did hear about 'em being on the "Endangered Species" list - must be though, by now. What with all these 'legislative parenting' things flying all over. We all gotta pitch in it seems. Maybe that's the real problem. parents were never recognized as being at risk, never got listed so no Federal money to support their waning numbers. Who's supposed to be watching out for this anyway? Lets make another law for that!!
Senior NCO in the fight against entropy. I've seen things, man. Things no one should have to see.....
I recall being told by a librarian once that they cannot restrict access to R-rated movies, and that if they did, they would likely be sued by the MPAA. Why? Because the MPAA didn't want to let their rating system become a tool of government censorship.
I'm not sure if that's true, but I suspect that if it is, New York may be in for a fight.
(Note: Movie theaters are private entities, so them using it so doesn't count.)
Yeah, because there was no violence before video games... too bad this wasnt one of his campaign issues, because he would then do the exact opposite, like "Never" allowing another casio to be built (which most people in the county dont want, and has so far been blocked by the feds), lowering property taxes, improving health care, fixxing Workman's Comp...
Just another douchebag politco trying to grab headlines...
Parents are responsible but its not just solely them children are also raised by their environment. Unless your children are isolated from their society in a 'cave' they are also being raised by the society they live in (which includes their peers.)
WE NEED A REAL RATING SYSTEM so parents can realistically exercise their parental rights.
I should be able to set my TV, computer, and consoles with detailed instructions on exactly what I will allow shown. I don't care who applies ratings but I do think federal government is needed to define and require a smarter ratings scale.
A good detailed rating system in some centralized online database would probably work out quite well (probably work better than wikipedia.)
Unfortunately, the FCC didn't take the opportunity to make digital TV support a form of 'bleeping', frame-level blanking or even a standard detailed realistic rating scale for the whole show...
Broad ratings are as stupid as labeling fast food as "healthy","mildly unhealthy", "unhealthy..." There is NO VALID reason we can not label media in a similar way we label our FOOD. We should list the profanity used in an album on the album cover.
Sure, if you label it kids can read it out of context. Big Deal! Kids SEE written profanity and don't know its profane, later they still don't know the meaning, after that they know the profanity and the only point in limiting exposure is to try to prevent them from developing habitual use of it. You have to be an idiot parent to think your kid isn't exposed to written profanity before they can read it.
We don't know most the junk on our food labels but if we have to avoid something we look for it by name on the label.
Until the government imposed a labeling system on food we didn't really have one and it would have totally sucked if the industry was pushed into defining it, taking a never ending string of lawsuits to get each ingredient listed after it hurt some group of people.
Not flawless, but the same universal rating system could be used on film,movie,games and even webpages. Food labels are not perfect either.
Democracy Now! - uncensored, anti-establishment news
is that movies have regulated themselves, for the most part to the satisfaction of constituents. The ratings system was started because the industry knew if they didn't do it, the legislators would step in.
There may be a ratings system for games, but apparently some people feel they aren't doing a good enough job at keeping violent stuff out of kids' hands.
I hope we don't end up with law passing, but I don't think it's a bad thing if the threat of legislation prompts the industry to self-regulate a bit better.
Unless you are going to do something about the availability of guns, these efforts are not only pointless but hypocritical.
Fiat Homos et Pereat Theos
Here's a simple test. Would you have this regulation apply to books? Are there some books -- and I'm talking about the kind with just words in them, now, no pictures -- that are not only inappropriate for anyone under the age of 17, but that should be illegal to sell to those under 17?
Here's me, the pimple-faced kid with the cracking voice from The Simpsons, and I'm behind the counter at a bookstore. Lisa walks up with a copy of Tropic of Cancer and I ring her up. WOOP! WOOP! Alarms sound, red lights flash, and out come Chief Wiggum and the boys to throw me in cuffs.
Sounds funny, but this sort of thing regularly happens to comic book stores. Comic books aren't seen as "books," so there's not the same stigma attached to banning them. So in certain communities, you have people hanging around comic book stores waiting for some kid to buy a copy of Legend of the Overfiend. When the purchase is made, in come the undercover agents and they take the kid behind the counter to jail. He's charged with a crime and ends up having to pay fines.
And the funny thing is, there's no law on the books specifically prohibiting the sale of adult comics to minors. In fact, there isn't even a real ratings system. (Don't talk to me about the Comics Code -- it hasn't had any teeth since the early 80s.) These arrests are based on so-called community standards, which legal precedent says is the benchmark for determining "obscenity."
This is how censorship starts. "What? Who me? I didn't censor anything! I don't even have the power to censor these products. I'm not the government. I'm just a lowly citizen." No, but what you did was hang the risk of arrest over anyone who sells the products, so it becomes to prohibitive for retailers even to stock them. That cuts into sales, especially in such a low-profit segment as comic books. And sooner or later, the company that produced the material to begin with can't support the operation anymore, and the offending material disappears.
Back to books. You think they didn't try it with Tropic of Cancer? Oh hell yeah, they did. We've been fortunate that, over the years, the efforts of various individuals and groups -- not least of whom, Holocaust survivors -- have put an even bigger stigma on book-banning than the stigma around selling books full of naughty things.
The real shame of it is that it's so much easier to want to ban videogames and movies than books because, I suspect, most people figure kids today aren't going to read books anyway. It sickens me to think that people don't realize how totally fucking unacceptable that excuse is, on so many levels.
YES, there is material that is not appropriate for minors. Where you draw that line, however, is fairly arbitrary. Parents should be raising their kids, right on through the teenage years. My own folks took a fairly laissez-faire approach to my adolescence, and through my peer group I got exposed to lot of eyebrow-raising ideas and situations, but that doesn't mean I was raised by wolves. On the other hand, if the government would have stepped in and said, "This is for you, this is not for you" ... I can guarantee you that I would have struck back in some way. And, ironically, I would have done it while being a much more ignorant person, having had blinders put on by the government.
Bottom line, the idea that we're going to have a wooden cut-out of Chief Wiggum with his hand up and a sign that says "You must be at least THIS tall to watch this movie," while it may be comforting for a lot of scared parents, is not only silly, it's dangerous.
Breakfast served all day!
"Well, there's Death-Sex-Blood-and-Death, that's not got much Death in it".
I hope it passes.
.............
But we all know how this works... you can never have enough law and order. Soon this will spread to the west coast, and when the west coast runs out of victims, they'll start a special victims offshoot.
As an ex-employee of Best Buy (who worked for them for over 2 and a half years) I know that our company policy was always to check the ID of anyone attemting to purchase an "M" rated game. If the person was not 18years old or older, we refused the sale of that video game. Even though this isn't really yet a law, Best Buy put this policy in place early to make sure that sanctions would not be placed against them if this ever did become a law. I guess it looks like planning for the future may pay off for Best Buy in the long run.
A technological progression of insanity.
It is clear that the government decides for you... everything. This includes how to raise your children. Land of the Free....freaking Bullshit
Look, I love violent video games as much as the next guy. Ask anyone; I waste more time playing Doom3 and Battlefield: 2142 than anyone else I know.
HOWEVER...
I don't think violent video games belong in the hands of children, and I have no problem whatsoever with the government stepping in and restricting sales to people 18 and over. I think it's an excellent idea.
Take San Andreas, for example. Here's a game where you get to "enjoy" being a thugged-out L.A. gang banger, breaking into people's houses to steal their shit, fucking hookers, carjacking, killing cops, and doing every other psycho thing nobody sensible would ever do in real life. An adult will generally be able to play that game, work off some stress, laugh at the sheer over the top character of it, and not emulate it in any way.
Kids don't have that level of maturity yet. They're still learning what it means to be a member of our society. And I think it's in everyone's best interest to restrict them to media that will help them grow into mature, productive adults. The government has a valid interest in regulating this process, in at least attempting to enforce a positive outcome. At the very least, games for children should be relatively harmless, with no realistic violence.
Why is everyone so heated up over this? It's not like Spitzer's trying to take away your games. CHILL, people.
NO CARRIER
ESRB is a start its nothing like TV or film. They should be more like ESRB.
Democracy Now! - uncensored, anti-establishment news
Its just a rating system NOT censorship, NOT 1984.
profanity whatever... Yes, I want some rating scale conformity not 3 different ratings systems.
Just WHAT IS "Suggestive Themes"??
Is that sex,drug,murder...? Saying sexual innuendo would be more informative.
Its subjective and debatable and in case YOU didn't know, food labels are also subjective-- Yellow 5 isn't a vitamin and artificial flavors listings could take up a page (and you do not want to know...)
The government need not make the list; although, it shouldn't be that difficult to setup some panel (well maybe when we have less despotism.) The government mandates the system which can be defined by some other group if you are so sure it is so defunct it can't handle such a simple problem. (Me, I think industry largely runs the US government so then you should be largely happy with the results.)
Democracy Now! - uncensored, anti-establishment news
He's a man who actually uses his public office to fight for the average citizen. Like the parent poster said, he took on the biggest financial and insurance firms in NY AND kicked Microsoft's butt for monopolistic behavior--Anyone who is known as "the most feared man on Wall Street" is both really intelligent (you would have to be) and has big brass balls the size of Toledo.
Unlike the Bush administration or virtually anyone else holding public office in America that I can think of, he's exactly the kind of person you want and that every Slashdotter grouses every day of the week that they wish they could find to lead the country instead of schmuck X.
So he wants to pass this law. *Shrug* I'm an adult and I don't care. It might be a good thing, it might be a bad thing. It's really not that important in the big scale of things. Getting health care for New Yorkers IS important. Cracking down on the very, very corrupt big business assholes who like to play masters of the universe with everyone else's lives IS important. Reforming the state's educational system so that its graduates might actually be able to read IS important. Passing environmental laws that kick-start an alternative energy future for the entire country and world IS important. And Eliot's doing these things. In my book, that makes him way on balance someone who is not an ass.
Do what you can, with what you have, where you are.
Tell us how you *really* feel.
The society for a thought-free internet welcomes you.
was this before or after the virginia tech shootings?
Now here's one iPoddy site! iPod Range
Perhaps I should have cleverly twisted the wording into slashdot-speak so you people don't irrationally rush to judgment?
An open standard which is mandated by government for content classification allowing for realtime automated filtering based on user defined rules to replace the multiple inconsistent proprietary systems.
That more slash-speak for you?
You make general assumptions that you have no bases to make. I do not even own a TV!
I didn't say the government should tell you what is appropriate! Right NOW we have corporations (or their funded puppets) deciding what is appropriate when they use their meaningless film or TV ratings (ESRB is best but could be better.) I said government should mandate the use of the same ratings scale for all media. I also said government should define it and while I was vague, define can mean almost anything! government DEFINES a great deal of your life. Wake up! you think NGOs, corporations, civilized commerce, etc. exist purely without government??
There is a serious time problem for parents to fully supervise the media consumption of their kids. It is not realistic to just tell people to do some idealistic extreme, because they will not. It is NOT unreasonable to provide summary information to parents in a structured way so that they can leverage technology to save them time (which they may not have.)
Food labels contain MORE than just ingredients that may kill some people. Its still a valid comparison. Yes literal word or nudity isn't the only problem. There is subjective stuff which I think can reasonably be classified; furthermore, who said that subjective things had to follow the same rigid rules and labeling? Wired-TV of the future could tie shows to 3rd party services of your choice which provide subjective ratings. The ratings system would be standard, subjective decisions could be made by any number of sources... Do I have to come up with all the ideas?
I also realize how the moderation system on slashdot works which is why I rarely bother to post things that go against the norm.
Democracy Now! - uncensored, anti-establishment news
1) Food labels are not as 'objective' as you may think.
2) Government standards definition is common and has been abused at certain times; however, they can only go so far with definitions. Besides government changes to reflect the public in the larger picture. Privately defined stuff can not be uniform between parties- We can't even get SONY to adhere to the industry defined CD audio standard. Film,TV,Video will be worse. It is FOR THE PUBLIC and the public has ZERO influence on private organizations except when they threaten or attack them using government. Vote with your $ is a false dilemma and over simplification as well as undemocratic and without equality.
3) It is never direct censorship; it could be a form of indirect very weak censorship. We have that today with LAWS in some places to punish vendors for not enforcing the pathetic privately defined ratings we have today. So your kid can't see a R film without an adult and its R because Viacom does not like something about it.
3.5) Notice my focus of outrage. Groups of strangers are deciding the scale and rating "free speech" and I and most the public have ZERO influence. The purpose of publically run organizations is public accountability (which is why the US federal government is severely broken.) Organizations reflect their management -- thats biz 101 -- the ONLY system involved is the process for hiring and firing management, the rest is the long-term responsibility of those who run that system. For government/public run, the system is the voting/election process and the rest is the responsibility of the VOTERS who use that system. The US problem is not only the core system of promotion (voting/election) is in BAD shape but PRIMARILY the voters are to blame. Not voting IS a vote. People get the government they deserve. I don't mean to get too abstract, but that is how it works.
4) NO ENFORCEMENT except on producers for the use of a rating system. The POINT is that busy parents can enforce their custom rules on their kids-- its hard enough to enforce it but to have to preview everything beforehand takes too much time. Often decent films only have 1 or 2 scenes that are objectionable.
Personally, I don't care about "bad" words-- I wish everybody took the power away by using those words. "bad" words is simply childish in itself. Some rated R films are fine except for a few words and yet if my kid tried to see it alone they'd get rejected (its not like everybody doesn't know what those words are by their teens.)
Democracy Now! - uncensored, anti-establishment news
I have a very high regard or Gov. Spitzer of New York because he genuinely cares for the people of New York and infact the whole of America. He not only talks the talk, but he also fights the fight and willing to put his money where his mouth is. For this, I trust he knows what his doing and I support his new agenda to introduce a bill about violent video games. This will protect innocent children from being exposed to violence which may later shape their lives in the future into a criminal one. I am in support of this as long as the civil rights of these children are respected and not abrogated because we are concerned about exposing them to violence at early ages. Besides violent video games, these innocent children are exposed to violence at home when they witness the fighting between their moms and dads; when they listen to radios which broadcast violent and obscene programs using nauseating four letter words; when they watch violent TV cartoons, shows and movies which are dripping with murders, gore, rapes, lesbianism, homosexuality, incest, bestiality, deceptions, drug addiction themes, violent shooting and the use of foul, violent and obscene language and four letter words. They witness violence at schools and their neighborhoods (where many violent gangs operate) and also see it in magazines. So, when Gov Spitzer finishes with his violent video game fight, I hope he goes after these other sources of exposure to violence. The reason is that we're what we eat mentally. And since children are the greatest future assets of any society, if we don't care about their mental health and well being, then the society and its civilization will be destined to be doomed. Gov. Spitzer is a great guy and I predict he will be among the greatest US Presidents when he finally runs for that office in 2012. He may be the "Political Messiah" which America has been waiting for and who will clean up the mess in America and make it a respectable, competent and productive and lovable nation which it used to be. Ikey Benney http://maychic.com/directory-online-stores.htm
The creator of $100,000 monthly for life system. http://www.secret33.com/home-based-business-progr