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
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.
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.
Actually, no. Attack the consumers with a vengeance. Which consumers am I referring to? The parents who buy GTA San Andreas for their 10 year old son.
Make it illegal for retailers to provide the game to kids. That way, when the kid gets it from his inept, irresponsible, moronic parents, and actually *does* do something he saw in the game (probability dictates some retarded insane person is going to do it eventually, and you *know* what the media is going to focus on instead of them being retarded and/or insane), then the game companies and the publishers and the retailers can all say "look, the game says Adults Only, but that kids' parents got it for him, so they are obviously to blame." It will all be on mommy and daddy's shoulders then, and they won't have a leg to stand on.
That wont' stop the media from blaming video games entirely, of course, but it still weakens their argument.
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.
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.
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
As the saying goes, "you can't legislate stupidity." Parents are increasingly irresponsible and clueless when it comes to what their children say and do. We're having trouble with my 10-year-old stepson because he feels we're being unfair because we won't let him have games rated T-for-Teen, or have his own cell phone. He rails at us because we won't simply let him go where he wants, when he wants, and we won't continuously feed his bad habits. He constantly tells us how "other kids' parents don't do this," to which my standard reply is "I don't care what other parents do." And I don't, because I see how other parents let their children push them around, guilt them into buying them things, browbeat them when they don't get what they want. And these people cave in!
But again, that's what they decide to do. Parents will do stupid things and while you can make those things illegal, you can't make people not do them. Parents have to decide for themselves that buying these games for their children are a bad idea.
GetOuttaMySpace - The Anti-Social Network
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.
So, you don't think it could just be a store policy that prompted them to ask for your driver's license? Not all store policies are based on laws, you know. You really should be a bit more sure before you use a phrase like, "I know for a fact..."
I know for a fact this is not true. For a writeup of this, see:
http://arstechnica.com/news.ars/post/20070223-891
Video game restrictions, unless if it has something to do with pornography, are voluntary, just like movie restrictions are. Now, mind you, you have to look hard to find someone willing to violate these restrictions, which is why many people mistake this for a law.
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
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
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."
"Well, there's Death-Sex-Blood-and-Death, that's not got much Death in it".