Slashdot Mirror


Congressman Wants Health Warnings On Video Games

An anonymous reader writes "California Rep. Joe Baca has proposed a bill which would mandate placing health warning labels on any video game rated T (13+) or higher by the ESRB. The Video Game Health Labeling Act of 2009 would require a cigarette pack-like label that reads, 'WARNING: Excessive exposure to violent video games and other violent media has been linked to aggressive behavior.'"

18 of 421 comments (clear)

  1. face. palm. by macsox · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Just when I thought maybe elected officials could earn some modicum of respect. Well done, Joe.

  2. Label the kids? by retech · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Warning: Poor parenting leads to disaffected members of society.

    1. Re:Label the kids? by Opportunist · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Dead on. Mod that up, it sums up pretty much the whole problem we have at hand.

      Is it only me, or is pretty much the only entity who could be held responsible for kids turning out badly are by default above any doubt and out of obligation? Maybe it's time to start spinning ourselves. We need a nice catch phrase. How about "What happened to parenting?"?

      Why isn't anyone even considering the possibility? Why did nobody ever look at the parents of kids going completely insane and blowing their brains out (and/or some other brains)? Is there some unwritten law that you must not blame parents for bad parenting when their kids turn out antisocial?

      Why, I ask?

      --
      We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
  3. Hmm... by zwekiel · · Score: 5, Insightful

    That warning might make sense, if if it were true that video games actually caused aggressive behaviour. As it stands, there has been no conclusive proof that video games actually do cause aggressive behaviour, and thus this label is actually just a deceptive, nanny state tactic.

    1. Re:Hmm... by Anthony_Cargile · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Playstation Home has worse content/comments (thanks to the human players) then some GTA stories. Yeah, the ESRB can say "online experience may change", but case in point - its not rated T, yet contains bad content. Just proof that the labels, censorship, and this BS bill really can't stop every little thing kids get exposed to, but come on - can you really expect kids to not be drawn to something so censored from their lives? Hell I know I did everything I could to find a playboy back in the day...

    2. Re:Hmm... by Anonymous+Brave+Guy · · Score: 5, Insightful

      It's also not as if putting labels on cigarette packets saying "smoking this is going to harm your health" encourages people to start smoking. Kids, on the other hand, are pretty much guaranteed to want products with "no, kids, it's not for you" on the label a lot more than if the label were blank. The "Parental advisory: explicit lyrics" sticker on UK CDs is pretty much a standard marketing tool for the record labels, and has been since about three seconds after some fool invented it.

      --
      If you disagree, post your argument. (-1, Overrated) isn't your personal censorship tool for views you don't like.
    3. Re:Hmm... by MikeBabcock · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Did anyone ever wonder why all those kids going on a shooting spree did it at their school? Never at, say, a mall, where the potential amount of victims is usually way higher? Why didn't anyone ever ponder that?

      Discussing such things is almost as taboo as talking about how the 9/11 terrorists weren't "cowards" as Bush suggests.

      Its quite obvious that social dynamics at school were much more to blame for the various school shootings than video gaming. However, as a wise man once said, the winners write the history books and in this case, the shooters are dead, and the survivors get to be ignorant of the reasons for the violence (often by choice).

      --
      - Michael T. Babcock (Yes, I blog)
    4. Re:Hmm... by Opportunist · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Then why doesn't anyone say it? It is blatantly obvious. And even if correlation != causation, it would at the very least put those that claim video games are somehow linked to the shootings into the position that they have to explain how linking games to the shooting is valid while linking school problems to them is not. All kids on a killing spree had violent games on their PCs? If this is a valid reason to blame video games, then blaming schools is at least as valid because all killing sprees happened at a school.

      You cannot tell with any reasonable proof that they played some game before they went on their killing spree. But it's undenyable where they did it. Now, what is possibly stronger connected to it than the place where it is done? Is it simply rampage? Then why this invariable choice of target? What could be their goal? Fame? Hell, there's a LOT more surveillance cameras in other public places that contain a lot of potential random targets. A mall. A bank. A bus station. A sports arena.

      It's also not a school. In every case that I know of, it was their school, the school that they went to or were expelled of. Anyone still wants to tell me this is by no means any indicator that this target was chosen deliberately?

      I don't give a flying fuck about taboo, it's high time to call a spade a spade. Quit looking for a scapegoat and start working on the problem, or we get more rampages, more killings, more dead kids.

      And while I hate playing that card: That next kid killed could be yours. Think about that.

      I know it's not "comfortable" to think that maybe it's not "someone else" that we can shift the blame to but that we might have to look at ourselves for the problem, and thus the solution. Such a position isn't really endearing a politician to potential voters. It's much more pleasant to hear that he found a scapegoat and he's now going to do some "serious business" and "do something" for your kids.

      But that's dangerous, people. Because it does not protect our kids. Essentially, it does, at best, nothing. At worst these games may be an outlet for potential gunmen that keeps them from snapping and going on a rampage. I'm not saying it is so, I say it may be so, I don't know. I only know one thing for sure: Using games as a scapegoat is not going to protect our kids. It may give us that fuzzy warm feeling we're doing something. But we're not. The problem remains, unaddressed and unsolved.

      --
      We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
  4. Yeah? Well... by Jeremi · · Score: 4, Insightful

    I'm lobbying to get a mandatory message printed on all cell phones, that reads: "WARNING: cell phone usage has been linked to the collapse of honeybee populations".

    --


    I don't care if it's 90,000 hectares. That lake was not my doing.
  5. Warning labels by quacking+duck · · Score: 4, Insightful

    WARNING: Excessive exposure to warning labels and messages may make you less likely to pay attention to them, and prevent use of brain from exercising common sense and personal responsibility.

  6. Re:No by Corpuscavernosa · · Score: 4, Insightful

    "WARNING: Excessive exposure to Congress and other politicians has been linked to all types of ill shit, including but not limited to: sexual harassment, infidelity, wanton abuse of taxpayers' money, and just being an all-around douche."

    --
    We figured out a long time ago that it's easier to elect seven judges than to elect 132 legislators.
  7. Re:Warning: Power Corrupts by billstewart · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Warning: Absolute Power Corrupts Absolutely

    Warning: Power attracts the corruptable.

    --

    Bill Stewart
    New Fast-Compression-only CPR http://preview.tinyurl.com/dy575ks
  8. And other violent media by Scorchio · · Score: 4, Insightful

    ...and other violent media...

    Yep, so you go ahead and try to get the same message printed on all movies, too, and we'll see just how long you're representing California.

  9. Re:face. palm. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    I say let them do it.

    They did it with music (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parental_Advisory) and the sales sky rocketed.

    "This would sharpen you up and make you ready for a bit of the old ultra-violence"

  10. It never occurs to these idiots... by macraig · · Score: 4, Insightful

    ... that the relationship might be reversed, and that it's developmentally aggressive tendencies that DRAW PEOPLE TOWARD the violent games in the first place? The games aren't CAUSING the aggressiveness, they're a REFLECTION of it.

  11. 2nd warning label following the initial by Hojima · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Following the little warning, it should read, Warning: this link has been established with biased experiments and insufficient data, as well as lack of scientific analysis. Experiments have pointed both ways (yet we have cherry picked this one) and to this day, many dolts firmly believe that correlation implies causation. You can however have faith in the fact that if your children are young enough, they may be as stupid as the chain of idiots who have wasted your tax money on this crap. This entails that, like lemmings, without proper guidance/responsibility, they will most likely attempt (and fail) to pick up a hooker and shoot her in the face to avoid paying the fees, following an uninterrupted session of GTA. If they get closer to success than desired, no matter how hilarious it may be, it is YOUR responsibility, not the source of this media.

    1. Re:2nd warning label following the initial by torkus · · Score: 4, Insightful

      The real irony is that the violent cartoons our parents (read the 40-60 year old generation that are our world's decision makers today) watched as kids didn't seem to corrupt them too badly. They turned out 'all right' by their own standards apparently. Heck, I'm still quite a few years from 40 and still played cops and robbers, watched "violent" roadrunner cartoons, and pretended to "shoot" people with my finger in elementary school. All things that supposedly that are "harmful" yet i'm a productive member of society, don't do drugs, have a steady job, good education...and so on.

      Or maybe they're turning all the kids today into pussies.

      --
      You can get rich if you own a politician, but you have to be rich to buy one in the first place.
  12. Re:face. palm. by Hurricane78 · · Score: 4, Insightful

    The problem is, that cigarettes (not pure tobacco. cigarettes!) are more addictive than heroin. That's no joke. Look it up. Most people think it's just a light drug, because of the weak effects it has, compared to other drugs. But it's just that cigarettes have an extremely bad addictiveness/effect ration, because of the 600+ substances that intentionally got added to the tobacco, to make it impossible for you to stop.

    I say there's no right more fundamental, that the right to do with your own body as you please. But the second most important rule of a society is, to do no harm to others. And that's exactly what making tobacco so addictive, while keeping quiet is. It's tricking you into dependence on their product. So we should forbid that exact behavior. And punish the one who decided it in exactly one of two ways (in that order): A) Expel them, and disallow them any direct or indirect relationship to this country, while explaining very clearly what is non-acceptable behavior in this society. That way he has to deliberately continue despite knowing that we don't want it, to reach... B) If that does not help: Get your agents to shoot them.

    Plain, simple, fair.

    Unfortunately the government, and companies like that, are largely the same thing nowadays. So the government are the people that should be punished by (A), or (B) if really necessary.

    --
    Any sufficiently advanced intelligence is indistinguishable from stupidity.