Slashdot Mirror
California Continues To Push For Violent Game Legislation
Back in February, the US Court of Appeals shot down a California law that banned the sale or rental of violent video games to minors. Shortly thereafter, State Senator Leland Yee petitioned the US Supreme Court to review the case. Now, along with California's Psychiatric and Psychological Associations, Yee has filed an amicus curiae brief with Court that elaborates on the reasoning behind the law. Within the brief (PDF) are some interesting quotes: "Parents can read a book, watch a movie or listen to a CD to discern if it is appropriate for their child. These violent video games, on the other hand, can contain up to 800 hours of footage with the most atrocious content often reserved for the highest levels and can be accessed only by advanced players after hours upon hours of progressive mastery. ... Notably, extended play has been observed to depress activity in the frontal cortex of the brain which controls executive thought and function, produces intentionality and the ability to plan sequences of action, and is the seat of self-reflection, discipline and self-control." The video game industry has filed its own amicus brief to dispute Yee's claims.
California has no other problems right now...
Oh right, I forgot the contemporary approach to politics. If you have real problems you don't solve them, you distract your people by making up problems where there are none.
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
California does not have the cash for a case that will likely end being shot down by the 1st amendment.
can be accessed only by advanced players after hours upon hours of progressive mastery
If a kid is smarter than his parents, maybe he should be put in charge of restricting his parent's media content (maybe reality TV, Deal or No Deal, 20/20 are all off limits).
Adidas To Bring Back Sneakernet
What does that even mean? 'Depressed activity in the frontal cortex of the brain'. Boohoo. What can we conclude from that? How long does this thing last, how does it affect a person?
Maybe it simply means someone has become good at the game and no longer needs to think about every single action while playing, like many sports (we'll probably never know since it's hard to scan the brain of someone playing tennis or juggling...). Maybe it means your brain has magically become more efficient and requires less activity to deliver the same quality. Maybe it even means we get dumber, less capable of self-reflection and planning, but only while playing the game.
The little fact about the brain is completely useless without more information. If 'they' had more information that would suggest these effects are permanent and damaging, they would have included this information, since it supports their point. Since they didn't, we can conclude that there is no reason to believe the changes in the brain are permanent or harmful in any way, but it sure sounds like something creepy and nasty to those who don't think it through.
If we start to make rules for the many based on the actions of a select few, we're destined for failure.
The fact that a couple of disturbed and mentally unhealthy kids got their adrenaline running by psyching themself with violent video games doesn't mean we should ban these games from all kids. Just like if I use a baseball bat to beat someone to death we shouldn't shut down every single litte-league in the country to stop the children from doing the same.
I think that some age control with games is good. In Finland we use PEGI age recommendations, and some games are also reviewed by the Board of Film Classification. The important classifications are 16+ and 18+. A retailer can refuse to sell a 16+ game to a person younger than 16 without a parents consent. 18+ games are prohibited by law to be sold to minors. If parents choose to buy a game and give it to their child, it's their choice, but a retailer, with no way of knowing the personality or mental maturity of a child, will not be permitted to sell an 18+ game to the child.
This system is by no means perfect, but it stops little impressionable kids from getting their hands on adults-only games, but permits parents to expose their children to such material, if they feel they're mature enough to handle it.
But in this case, California is pretty much bankrupt. It would be like if someone living paycheck-to-paycheck decided to tour the world. That isn't going to solve their financial problems its only going to make it worse (by spending a ton and not working), California wants to use this which would result in less taxes for them.
Taxation is legalized theft, no more, no less.