72% of US Adults Support Violent-Game Ban For Minors

SpuriousLogic writes with an excerpt from GameSpot: "The US Supreme Court won't start hearing arguments over California's law banning game sales to minors until November 2. However, the ruling in the court of popular opinion is already in, according to a new poll. This week, parent watchdog group Common Sense Media released the results of a survey it commissioned on children's access to violent games. Conducted by polling firm Zogby International, the survey asked 2,100 adults whether they would support a law that 'prohibits minors from purchasing ultra-violent or sexually violent video games without parental consent.' Of those surveyed, some 72 percent said they would approve such a law. Common Sense Media CEO and founder James Steyer, whose nonprofit organization is lobbying for game-restriction legislation in many states, hailed the poll's findings. 'We hope the [state] attorneys general will take a look at these poll results and that they'll side with families over protecting the profits of the video game industry.'"

Comments

Do they not already have restrictions?

[bertoelcon]

I have had to show an ID to get M rated games from stores here in Texas, does California not already do that?

Re:Do they not already have restrictions?

[jgtg32a]

Corporate policy not an actual law.

Re:Do they not already have restrictions?

[Lord Byron II]

There's a difference between store policy and the law. Despite what I've been told by numerous cashiers, there are (AFAIK) no laws against selling to minors:

-M-rated video games
-CDs with the Parental Advisory sticker
-tickets to R-rated movies

Re:Do they not already have restrictions?

[AltairDusk]

In my experience all of the chain stores will refuse to sell an M rated game to a minor as store policy. I was even asked for ID at one of the local GameStops (and I normally don't get carded at the bar so it's not that I look like a kid).

Re:Do they not already have restrictions?

[MichaelSmith]

Probably the bartender knows how to read a persons age while the borderline aspergers kid at the game shop has to check ID.

Re:Do they not already have restrictions?

[dkleinsc]

If I'm reading that correctly, that means that there are more de facto restrictions on minors purchasing virtual guns than there are on minors purchasing real guns.

Something is out of whack here.

Re:Do they not already have restrictions?

[PolygamousRanchKid]

I have had to show an ID to get M rated games from stores here in Texas

Texans seem to take age limits very seriously. I was often in Austin on business trips. On one, I bought a pack of cigarettes at a gas station for my GF, who tagged along on the trip. I was over 30 at the time, and the attendant asked me for ID. While I was a bit confused, I asked him if I didn't look old enough. He said that he was required to ask anyone, who looks younger that 26 for an ID, and that failure to do so would lose him his job. I laughed and told him that I lived in central Europe, and was only visiting Texas, so I didn't know. He quipped back, "You're living is Russia now!"

I was also carded buying cigars, for myself, and at a bar with work colleagues. I was the last to walk in, and when the bouncer carded me, those Texan colleagues let out shrieks and yowls of laughter, that would have waked the dead. The bouncer just looked at my ID, shrugged, and chuckled.

Re:Do they not already have restrictions?

[Anonymous Coward]

This isn't even a restriction in Texas. You had to show ID, because the store chose to make you show ID, not because the law required them to.

Re:Do they not already have restrictions?

[Anonymous Coward]

Yes, you did indeed read that wrong. Absolutely wrong.

Re:Do they not already have restrictions?

[Thanshin]

I have had to show an ID to get M rated games from stores here in Texas

Out of pure curiosity, do you need to show an ID to rent or buy a movie like... hmm... Something equivalent to left4dead or somesuch. Zombieland, for example.

Re:Do they not already have restrictions?

[varmittang]

Its probably a policy of "Card no matter what" now than someone not able to tell someone's age. My father, 60 year old balding with gray hair got carded recently. He couldn't even remember the last time he had to reach into his pocket to get his ID out to buy a beer.

Re:Do they not already have restrictions?

[Ephemeriis]

I have had to show an ID to get M rated games from stores here in Texas, does California not already do that?

The video game industry has imposed its own regulations in an attempt to avoid government-imposed regulations.

The ESRB sets ratings. Individual stores have their own policies on what rating they'll carry, and who they'll sell to. But none of it is actual law. You might get fired for selling an AO title to a minor, but you wouldn't get arrested (unless the rating was earned because of sexual content and you were charged with providing pornography to a minor).

Frankly, this seems a little silly to me. We already have laws that prohibit selling pornography to minors, you don't really need to specify exactly what medium the pornography occupies. If it's pornographic, it's illegal.

I suppose you could codify into law a regulation against selling ultra-violent stuff to kids... Or classify that under existing obscenity laws... I certainly feel that violent imagery is more harmful to minors than sexual imagery... But you'd have a hell of a time getting something like that passed - our society loves violence. If you classified violent content as obscenity, you'd have to censor half the shows on TV, and a hell of a lot more movies would be rated R or even X.

Ultimately, this just seems un-necessary. The industry already does a halfway-decent job of regulating itself. We already have laws covering the more extreme cases. And it's ultimately up to the parent to dictate what is or isn't available to a child.

Re:Do they not already have restrictions?

[SirGarlon]

There's a difference between store policy and the law. Despite what I've been told by numerous cashiers, there are (AFAIK) no laws against selling to minors:

As skeptical as I am about "industry self regulation," this is an instance where it appears to work fine. People who are concerned about availability of violent games (to minors) should be lobbying the retailers, not the government.

Re:Do they not already have restrictions?

[nomadic]

If I'm reading that correctly, that means that there are more de facto restrictions on minors purchasing virtual guns than there are on minors purchasing real guns.

Minors are prohibited by federal law from purchasing or possessing guns, so not sure how you read it that way.

Re:Do they not already have restrictions?

[Anonymous Coward]

It gets even worse. Texas is part of the bible belt and as a result, many, many counties are dry. Which means its illegal to sale alcohol to the general public. That means no beer at the grocery store and no booze shops or bars.

The solution? Many restaurants either sale or provide a "club" membership. The law allows for the sale and consumption of alcohol to private club members. Well, this means you can't purchase alcohol to drink at your own home, but you absolutely can get shit faced drunk at a restaurant where you'll then drive home.

So out one side of Texas' mouth we have a very strong anti-drunk driving and anti-drinking community. Out the other side we have a system which all but ensures drunk driving.

Obviously those liquor stores right over the county line, which reside in wet counties, do brisk business too; as do the bars. Which further encourages drunk driving. Needless to say drunk driving has continued to be a serious problem in much of Texas and yet no one seems to be able to figure out why.

Re:Do they not already have restrictions?

[hedwards]

Or more likely the bartender is violating the law. Around here they aren't given a choice, they have to do it. Now they don't generally bother to do it if they've carded somebody in the past and know that they're of age, but they are legally required to do it up to a pretty absurd age.

Re:Do they not already have restrictions?

[Anonymous Coward]

Any normal retail store (i.e., Meijer, Target, Wal-mart, etc.) or gamestop I've ever been to in Michigan has required an ID to purchase M rated games. I had to show my ID so my younger brother could buy CoD MW2 (had parental consent). So what the heck would some stupid law like this achieve besides more bigoted laws?

Re:Do they not already have restrictions?

[commodore64_love]

Nonsense. It's easier to lobby a single entity than to lobby ~100,000 different stores. And before you go off about "my right to buy a violent game or porn video", I'm sorry but non-adults don't have rights. They are wards of their parents who make the decision of what to buy or not buy.

Re:Do they not already have restrictions?

[bill_mcgonigle]

Minors are prohibited by federal law from purchasing or possessing guns, so not sure how you read it that way.

Purchasing, yes (Federal), possessing, no. Some States do

Re:Do they not already have restrictions?

[Anonymous Coward]

Protecting jobs IS protecting families.

A dramatic reduction in market size results in dramatic layoffs.

You want to dig the economy even deeper into this pit? By all means, protect the children.

Sheesh.

Re:Do they not already have restrictions?

[bill_mcgonigle]

Something is out of whack here

What, that at one moment you are not allowed to buy a game where people are mowed down with machine guns but the very next moment you're allowed to sign up to do that in real life? Happy 18th birthday, young man.

Re:Do they not already have restrictions?

[rabbit994]

To buy a gun you need 2 forms of ID, then fill out of a government form certifying your not a felon, drunkard, drug dealer or wife beater. Gun store then calls the ATF and performs a background check on you. Then if all that passes, you can take your gun home.

This is in Virginia, in some states you need to go before the police, and get them to do a background check which can involve interviews with neighbors, friends and family and Police to determine you have a NEED to get a gun. After all that, you still might have a waiting period (even if you own guns already) and still get all the fun at gun store.

Yea, buying video games is much harder....

Re:Do they not already have restrictions?

[Svartalf]

Brilliant question... Why do you need a law? You don't need the government to play nanny for your kids- you, as a parent, should be responsible for their upbringing and making bans won't do a single thing to keep the ones that're going to get it from getting access to violent games.

Much like minors getting ahold of alcohol or cigarettes. Yes, we need to largely prevent their access to those things- but without parental guidance and oversight, they'll still get the stuff anyhow.

Re:Do they not already have restrictions?

[edmicman]

So shouldn't their parents be involved and know what their children are buying rather than depending on the government to babysit and do the parenting for them?

Re:Do they not already have restrictions?

[Svartalf]

That's slowly changing (thank the Lord...seriously...)- many of the towns and counties are wising up to the reality that the "dry" position was being silly and it was actually contributing to the problem they were trying to prevent. The nearest Liquor stores in the Flower Mound and Lewisville areas was in Highland Village and in Lake Dallas, just all of about 10-15 minutes' drive to the North of those respective towns. All that they were accomplishing was encouraging drinking and driving and they were doing themselves out of sales, etc. Now, it was entertaining to watch the fundies (which work off of feelings instead of thoughts...) whip themselves into a froth over the move to wet in those towns- never mind that the Holy Bible clearly indicates that drink is proper and good if taken in moderation.

Re:Do they not already have restrictions?

[geekoid]

The Gun Control Act of 1968 specifically made it illegal for minors to possess firearms.

http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/uscode18/usc_sec_18_00000922----000-.html

[(v) , (w) Repealed. Pub. L. 103–322, title XI, 110105(2), Sept. 13, 1994, 108 Stat. 2000.]
(x)
(1) It shall be unlawful for a person to sell, deliver, or otherwise transfer to a person who the transferor knows or has reasonable cause to believe is a juvenile—
(A) a handgun; or
(B) ammunition that is suitable for use only in a handgun.
(2) It shall be unlawful for any person who is a juvenile to knowingly possess—
(A) a handgun; or
(B) ammunition that is suitable for use only in a handgun.
(3) This subsection does not apply to—
(A) a temporary transfer of a handgun or ammunition to a juvenile or to the possession or use of a handgun or ammunition by a juvenile if the handgun and ammunition are possessed and used by the juvenile—

Re:Do they not already have restrictions?

[Svartalf]

It probably ought to be classified under the existing obscenity laws- we don't really need more legislation, we need LESS . More to the point, you should be able to classify it under those existing laws without any ability to challenge the same- and the penalties there are good enough to keep people from doing it.

Re:Do they not already have restrictions?

[Chowderbags]

you're forced to sign up to possibly have no choice in doing that in real life

FTFY.

Re:Do they not already have restrictions?

[dkleinsc]

Except if you go to a gun show. The feds have done numerous busts at shows where they buy guns that they shouldn't have been able to buy, and documented the techniques used to allow the purchase.

And of course with both video games and guns, there's nothing preventing private under-the-table sales.

Re:Do they not already have restrictions?

[jekewa]

Agreed. I remember as a kid wanting all kinds of stuff that I didn't get because my parents said "no." Sure, I could have gotten (at least some of) it anyway, but there would have been serious consequences for going behind their backs.

Re:Do they not already have restrictions?

[ooshna]

If that was the case there never would have been a V-chip.

Re:Do they not already have restrictions?

[HaZardman27]

What you just posted only refers to handguns. I believe you have to be 21 to purchase or possess a handgun, but rifles are fair game for minors.

Re:Do they not already have restrictions?

[cawpin]

PLEASE STOP SPREADING FUD!!

That is completely and utter bullshit. There have been a FEW, counted on one hand, cases of dealers selling firearms illegally. Most of the cases that were brought up in "studies" were thrown out do to illegal tactics used by the ATF. Mayor Bloomberg in New York was also breaking the law with his cronies going over state lines to try and illegally purchase firearms. He said they were able to purchase guns at 3 neighboring states. The only problem was, they had to break the law to do so. They provided false information to the dealer. The FBI and ATF both told him to cease operation of these "stings" or he would go to prison.

Buying a firearm at a gun show is no different than buying one at a store. You have to fill out the same paperwork and go through the same background check.

Re:Do they not already have restrictions?

[IndustrialComplex]

This subsection does not apply to--
(A) a temporary transfer of a handgun or ammunition to a juvenile or to the possession or use of a handgun or ammunition by a juvenile if the handgun and ammunition are possessed and used by the juvenile--

That's an important part too. All it does is nullify possession of handguns without adult supervision/consent.

Re:Do they not already have restrictions?

[DavidTC]

People who are concerned about availability of violent games (to minors) should be lobbying the retailers, not the government.

People who are concerned about availability of violent games (to minors) should probably checked out by mental health professionals, as they are somewhat delusional.

This is a goddamn non-problem. We already have ratings on games, and kids can't buy them because stores won't sell them.

Re:Do they not already have restrictions?

[cawpin]

To buy a gun you need 2 forms of ID

Not federally, that is a state restriction.

in some states you need to go before the police, and get them to do a background check which can involve interviews with neighbors, friends and family and Police to determine you have a NEED to get a gun. After all that, you still might have a waiting period (even if you own guns already) and still get all the fun at gun store.

I'm not sure where you got the "interview neighbors" bit, maybe communist New York? I've never heard of even them doing that.

Re:Do they not already have restrictions?

[Pawnn]

Is it just me, or is section 3 saying that its legal for a child to have a handgun if he's using it, but not otherwise? That sounds rather curious...

Re:Do they not already have restrictions?

[cawpin]

The law you quoted deals with transfers os sale to unrelated persons and also only for handguns.

A minor can POSSESS a firearm if given it by a parent or other responsible adult (like a friend of a parent). That's what (3)(A) refers to. Also, it is mostly left up to states in "after purchase" situations. Federally, you must be 18 to buy a long gun and 21 to buy a handgun.

Re:Do they not already have restrictions?

[interkin3tic]

You don't need the government to play nanny for your kids- you, as a parent, should be responsible for their upbringing and making bans won't do a single thing to keep the ones that're going to get it from getting access to violent games.

I would also suggest that censoring games, keeping your kids from seeing any violence until they're whatever age, is not exactly my definition of "good parenting." It's harder than that, since you have to communicate with your kid to tell them what it means, and put it in context, know if they are ready even though they might be younger or older than the 16/18 whatever cutoff.

I've known 12 year olds who can handle violence in videogames better than my 20 something downstairs neighbor who has anger management issues

(to be fair, maybe he doesn't have anger management issues, he might just be a racist and have a very bad microphone on his xbox)

Re:Do they not already have restrictions?

[lgw]

Fortunatly the military has no use for a draft, and says so often. For some reason Charlie Rangel (D) keeps proposing one, but his ethics are so bad even by the standards of congress that he no longer matters.

Re:Do they not already have restrictions?

[SirGarlon]

Nonsense. It's easier to lobby a single entity than to lobby ~100,000 different stores.

Yes, it's easier to demand the government outlaw behavior that you don't like than to persuade people to change. To actually get results, I submit it's more effective to actually talk to the 10 or 12 corporations who own the chains of stores.

Re:Do they not already have restrictions?

[dmorris68]

The Gun Control Act of 1968 specifically made it illegal for minors to possess firearms.

Seriously? You didn't actually fully read and comprehend what you quoted? Oh yeah, this is Slashdot...

1. This statute concerns handguns. Handguns are not the only firearm type, and this section of code does not address longarms, which minors are allowed to permanently possess, once purchased and provided by an adult who is eligible to purchase them.
2. Had you finished your quote of paragraph (3)(A) and further, you would note that minors are allowed to "temporarily" possess and use handguns under certain conditions, such as target practice, hunting, instructional courses, and their job, ranching, farming. Also with a written note from their parent that they carry with them at all times.

Re:Do they not already have restrictions?

[Eskarel]

There are indeed no laws, but game retailers have been sensible enough to know that any government regulation in this area is just going to make life more difficult(see Australia, the lack of an R rating and what that does to games everywhere). Therefor the ESRB was created and, at least when I was a kid, it was fairly difficult to buy M rated games as a minor.

Unless retailers have gotten slack again and stopped enforcing their own rules, there's really no need to implement a law. If they have, it might be. Kids don't need M or R rated games.

Re:Do they not already have restrictions?

[Anonymous Coward]

Yes. And the best way to do that is to make sure the parents buy the game in the first place. It's enforced parenting.

Re:Do they not already have restrictions?

[o2binbuzios]

As the parent of teens and pre-teens, I've wrestled with some of this myself.

Like most of the /. crowd, I'm savy enough to do some web research and figure out what the games are about. I've drawn our line at 'crime-theme' games like GTA and Mafia, but we have several versions of COD and I've played Halo with them at an internet cafe... my high-schooler clearly has the cash and unsupervised time to walk into a store and buy a game without my knowing and could pick up a 'forbidden' game.

I'd rather know that there is some level of firewall, similar to the movies, that would prevent easy access to games without my supervision. For parents who are working too many hours, or don't have the free time / web research to makes those calls...this would be even more valuable.

The fines should be minimal however - so that finding a 16 year old with a mustache to play gotcha with retailers would not be a profit center for lawyers.

Re:Do they not already have restrictions?

[TheRaven64]

That's the point of the ban. It doesn't stop the parents from buying the game for the child, but it does prevent the child from buying it without the parent's knowledge. If the parents thinks that the game is appropriate for the child, then they can buy the game. If they don't, then the child can't just go out and buy the game the next time the parents backs are turned.

Of course, as I recall, this kind of thing just encouraged children to pirate the games when I was growing up...

Re:Do they not already have restrictions?

[Quirkz]

I can't really bring myself to be too upset by this. The movie ratings system isn't perfect, but it certainly doesn't bother me much, and this sounds similar, on the surface at least. Everyone agrees the parents ought to be ultimately responsible. This (sounds like, if I'm reading it right) a shift from an automatic whitelist with the option of parents to blacklist, to an automatic blacklist, with the option for parents to whitelist. Not sure that's a huge difference, except for the parents who prefer more control.

Sure, kids can get around those things, but if the fact that people break rules is a reason not to have rules, then we wouldn't have any rules at all.

Now I do question the wording of the poll, and I question whether the group involved here would put forth reasonable ratings. And, were I a parent, I'd likely whitelist a lot games for my kids if I knew they could handle it, but I wouldn't really be ticked if my kids needed my active participation to pick up some of the more violent games.

Re:Do they not already have restrictions?

[Antisyzygy]

Agreed. If a parent catches their kid with a video game they don't want them to have, then they need to handle it. Getting the law involved is a joke.

Re:Do they not already have restrictions?

[Antisyzygy]

Pretty sure you have to be 18 to purchase a rifle. Depending on the state, I think any kid who has passed hunters safety courses can own a rifle, but cannot buy it for themselves.

Re:Do they not already have restrictions?

[autocracy]

The apparent intent is that if you go to a shooting range, you can hand the kid your handgun, then take it back after he's done firing.

Re:Do they not already have restrictions?

[BJ_Covert_Action]

I'm sorry but non-adults don't have rights.

Well that's a shitty view to take of things. I thought all men were created equal and were endowed by their creator (whatever that is) with certain unalienable rights. I didn't think all men were created equal and were endowed by their society with certain unalienable rights once they reached a certain age.

I know when I was 16 that if someone had tried to suppress my rights to speak my mind, defend myself, or reserve my privacy both of my parents would have been up in arms about it. Then again, my parents raised me with enough respect and trust that they probably felt I wouldn't abuse those rights to an egregious extent. Quite frankly, I find the fact that you think non-adults don't have any rights to be one of the most offensive and blatantly bigoted things I've ever seen modded up on slashdot. Remember, the current dividing line between adult and non-adult is an arbitrary one that varies from society to society. What's to stop society from drawing other arbitrary lines to determine who does and doesn't have rights? Jackass.

Re:Do they not already have restrictions?

[Anonymous Coward]

i owned my first gun when i was 8 it was a 16 gauge shotgun, made squirrel pot pie

Re:Do they not already have restrictions?

[Anonymous Coward]

The government is not saying toddlers are forbidden from playing violent games, they are just making sure that the parent is involved in the purchase right? In that sense they are not babysitting, they are making sure the parents do their job. Or did I get something wrong here?

Re:Do they not already have restrictions?

[davester666]

Now, many parents would prefer that somebody else be forced to tell their child "No" so they don't have to enforce 'serious consequences' for their child.

Re:Do they not already have restrictions?

[spamking]

I would also suggest that censoring games, keeping your kids from seeing any violence until they're whatever age, is not exactly my definition of "good parenting."

How so? There are certain things in life that kids under a certain age just should not be exposed to. Period. As a parent it is up to me to make that decision for my daughters. Not Uncle Sam's.

It's harder than that, since you have to communicate with your kid to tell them what it means, and put it in context, know if they are ready even though they might be younger or older than the 16/18 whatever cutoff.

This I can agree with . . . each situation is different. Some kids mature faster than others.

I've known 12 year olds who can handle violence in videogames better than my 20 something downstairs neighbor who has anger management issues

(to be fair, maybe he doesn't have anger management issues, he might just be a racist and have a very bad microphone on his xbox)

But that 12 year-old may be who turns into that 20 year-old some day . . . and does have anger issues due to early exposure to stuff.

Re:Do they not already have restrictions?

[Ambvai]

How about building your own gun? I think I could've pulled that off as a minor. Would've wanted to wear a flak vest while using it though.

Re:Do they not already have restrictions?

[Anonymous Coward]

I would rather keep the violent games and ban the minors.

Re:Do they not already have restrictions?

[drcheap]

I totally agree with that. But consider this...

When you were that child, what was your 'serious consequence' when you did something bad? Probably a demonstration of one of Newton's laws directly applied to your ass or some similar type of action that is now considered immoral or abusive to the child, and could have its own retroactive consequences. It's no wonder parents are afraid and don't bother with discipline anymore!

Not defending the parents though, just making a point. I still agree they are ultimately the responsible party.

Re:Do they not already have restrictions?

[skine]

I'm all for parents taking some of the responsibility.

However, government "babysitting" is necessary when parents can't be 100% involved in their children's lives.

Let's say for example, there is a gas station between a school and a residential area that stocks alcohol, tobacco and porn magazines. In order for a parent to be certain their 15 year old is not partaking, they can:

a) Trust that they have successfully taught their child that he should abstain from buying these products until he turns 18/21/18. (note that many will try such things, even with the best attempts by their parents)
b) The parents can walk/drive their child home from school every day.
c) They can call for a law setting age restrictions on these items.

Re:Do they not already have restrictions?

[VoiceInTheDesert]

What? M games are 17 and up aren't they? You can't join the military until you're 18....what am I missing here?

Re:Do they not already have restrictions?

[7Prime]

As a teen, I was always convinced that sexuality was something that the adult world wanted to horde for themselves. As an adult, I still feel this way. There's a strange "mine, not yours" attitude towards sexuality with minors. It's not "protection", there's really nothing to protect from. It stems from a desire by parents to keep their children innocent as long as possible. Reality? Innocence is an adult ideal thrust on children that really doesn't mean anything. There are African and Islander cultures in which children masturbate and have sex with eachother from a fairly early age, and grow up to be perfectly normal members of society, and they are still considered "innocent". This is all cultural, there is nothing biological about this.

Re:Do they not already have restrictions?

[MBGMorden]

From a Federal perspective (certain states may be more restrictive), it's legal to build your own gun so long as the resulting gun is of a type that it would be legal for you to own. So no home construction of fully auto rifles or anything. Also most things other than shotguns that don't have a rifled barrel are considered "destructive devices" rather than firearms, so they're illegal.

Re:Do they not already have restrictions?

[Anonymous Coward]

Kids don't need M or R rated games.

What was wrong with Halo 1?

Re:Do they not already have restrictions?

[MBGMorden]

As so many have noted, that law applies to handguns only. In rural states where hunting is popular almost all kids in the country own their own guns. Hell I owned a gun (20ga shotgun) at 8 years old. My parents bought it for me to hunt with. Perfectly legal in South Carolina.

There are a lot of exceptions. For instance a "straw purchase" (purchasing a gun for another person) is illegal, but there are exceptions made for buying a firearm as a gift. I can't take $500 from the guy standing outside to go in and buy a gun, but I can legally purchase a gun with the intent to give it to my brother as a Christmas gift for example.

Re:Do they not already have restrictions?

[Creepy]

I've said it before and I'll say it again - while I don't have a problem with restricting access, I have a fundamental problem with this law unfairly targeting video games and not all media. In mass killings, the top influences were movies and music, not video games (movies were something like 2x more influential than video games, as well). In secret shopper surveys, kids were more than twice as likely to be able to buy R and UR movies and explicit lyric CDs.

The movie ratings system is voluntary just like the video game industry. One of the reasons for the push for the law was because "the movie industry polices itself," but that is fundamentally flawed - that is theaters only - retail is still voluntary, just like for retail video games. If arcades were still around and popular, this would be more akin to stopping kids from access to certain arcade games but still letting them buy the game at the store (if the store allowed).

In the US, the video game rating system is actually stricter on sex/nudity than the movie industry - in fact, it is one of the most restrictive systems in the world, where frontal nudity is always an M and more than ~2 seconds of it is an AO. Violence is typically split into Teen vs M or AO by gore content.

most stores self police already (see secret shopper link above) - in 2008, 80% of kids trying to buy M and AO video games were stopped - in 2000, that number was 17%. In a study, only 8% of kids try to buy games without parental consent, so of the 8% trying to get away with it, only 20% do.

Retail stores sell unrated movies that have added sexual or violent content, but AFAIK, no video games are sold unrated from any major retailer.

Video games have 1" ratings labels that must be on the lower left hand corner of the box. Movies have inconsistent size, location, and box requirements. CDs I believe also require explicit lyrics to be on the front of the disk (all of mine are, but I only have a few).

So in conclusion, I don't have a problem with restricting sales to minors, but I have a huge problem with video games being the scapegoat. The problem is media in general and the continued perception of video games being like animation and for kids only, which the US seems to hang on to even though it is incorrect. I wonder how many of the same people with that perception went to see Avatar, which was basically one big cartoon marketed to adults...

Re:Do they not already have restrictions?

[HaZardman27]

Yeah, that's what I had messed up a bit: possession vs purchase.

Re:Do they not already have restrictions?

[Creepy]

Which is great except the gun show loophole pretty much allows anyone to walk in and buy a gun with cash, no questions asked. There is pending legislation to close it, but I have friends that have been buying guns at such shows since they were 16, including one that bought an assault rifle (not fully automatic - an AR-15 if I recall correctly). Admittedly they started pre-Brady law (1993), but gun shows are still lax from what I remember of the one I attended in the mid-1990s.

Re:Do they not already have restrictions?

[Anonymous Coward]

handgun !== firearm

handguns are a subset of firearms.

Re:Do they not already have restrictions?

[MightyYar]

you, as a parent, should be responsible for their upbringing and making bans won't do a single thing to keep the ones that're going to get it from getting access to violent games.

Agreed. Unfortunately, there are horrible parents, and their little dysfunctional kids infect our society. Bans might at least reduce the number of kids with apathetic parents who get a hold of violent games.

Re:Do they not already have restrictions?

[suutar]

I know when I was 16 that if someone had tried to suppress my rights to speak my mind, defend myself, or reserve my privacy both of my parents would have been up in arms about it.

Sounds like you had some awesome parents. Unfortunately, all three of those things are rather sharply restricted for minors, at least on school property, and (in the minds of many adults) most other places as well, if those rights conflict with how the adult wants the world to be.

Re:Do they not already have restrictions?

[zeroshade]

Nonsense. non-adults DO have rights. Some of these rights are restricted, but they DO have rights. For example, the government can't restrict the speech of a child any more than they can restrict the speech of an adult. Same with respecting the right to practice their own religion, etc, and all the other rights adults have. It is only when it comes to certain situations/nanny state examples that their rights become restricted. Such as the sale of alcohol, porn, etc. Some of these I agree with and some I don't. However a non-adult DOES have rights. Being a ward of their parents just gives the parents the legal right to have a say on their child's behalf in all legal matters, and make certain decisions on their child's behalf. Such as medical decisions.

I'm REALLY sick and tired of people assuming that just because you are not 'legally' an adult, you do not have any rights. It's completely backwards and wrong. Turning 18 does not immediately bestow some magical knowledge to a person making them "an adult". I've met immature adults who were exactly the type of people the restrictions were meant to protect, and I've met highly mature non-adults who knew enough to be behave responsibly when it came to drugs, alcohol, etc.

Re:Do they not already have restrictions?

[Anonymous Coward]

Rules are attempts to solve problems without addressing the fundamental causes. This is why they always fail.

Re:Do they not already have restrictions?

[Vancorps]

I don't know any people that think physical discipline is immoral as long as it's not done at the drop of a hat. When it is done excessively all it is is negative reenforcement. Few people would call it abusive, using a belt is certainly overkill. All the parents I've met view it as a last resort form of discipline and as the kids get older the kids behave better. My parents viewed it the same way. There are times when it is absolutely necessary but most of the time there are better choices.

Many parents are just lazy and don't want to go through the hassle of enforcement since it can interrupt so many plans and activities. They are absolutely the responsible party. If the parents are aware of the games their child plays then they aren't doing their jobs. I'm actually reminded of the Simpsons when Homer discovers that he is a bad father and doesn't know anything about Bart's life. It's pretty reflective of this view.

Of course I grew up playing violent video games and I don't feel I was harmed in the process so I'll naturally have a little bias. Kids aren't allowed to be kids anymore, they don't need to be protected from everything, it's crazy.

Re:Do they not already have restrictions?

[Anonymous Coward]

"Assault rifle" is a term used by idiots that means "scary gun."

You can have a gun of the same or more power than an "assault rifle" and have it not be considered one with small cosmetic differences.

An AR-15 is no more an assault rifle than any other .223 caliber rifle.

And of course it's not fully automatic; the number of full auto guns in the US is vanishingly small.

Also, there is no "gun show loophole." You may, at any time, buy a firearm from another private individual. If you buy from a commercial seller then you must pass a NICS check, gun show or not.

The term is misleading, intentionally so, because I could buy a gun from a friend without a check regardless of where we were physically located. However, my wife's felon ex-husband cannot, and anyone knowingly selling him a firearm is subject to up to ten years imprisonment per firearm.

Your friends buying guns under the age of 18, and the sellers, did break the law. Just because it's possible to do something illegal doesn't make that a loophole. A lot of illegal things are possible. It's still illegal to do them.

Re:Do they not already have restrictions?

[bill_mcgonigle]

The incorrect interpretation aside, that's a terrible law. It was done as a reaction to the Civil Rights Act of 1964. Chris Dodd's father, a Senator at the time, literally had the Nazi gun-control law translated to use as a template.

Re:Do they not already have restrictions?

[Antisyzygy]

My family owns several AR-15 assault rifles. They are pretty much as lethal as anything else if not automatic. I think that Gun shows should be subject to the same rules of sale. I don't know if you used assault rifles as an example as something that shouldn't be sold there or not, but if so I disagree.

Re:Do they not already have restrictions?

[bill_mcgonigle]

The title of the story says, "minors". Really, though, "1 moment", "1 year" doesn't really make much difference.

Re:Do they not already have restrictions?

[KDR_11k]

It's the right of the "speaker" to be able to talk to everybody who is willing to listen, not the right of the listener. Legalizing age limits violates the first amendment rights of the game maker. Don't like it, don't write stuff like that into your constitution.

Re:Do they not already have restrictions?

[ElectricTurtle]

Actually, he disingenuously omitted a HUGE section about where the code does not apply:

(3) This subsection does not apply to--
(A) a temporary transfer of a handgun or ammunition to a
juvenile or to the possession or use of a handgun or ammunition by a
juvenile if the handgun and ammunition are possessed and used by the
juvenile--
(i) in the course of employment, in the course of ranching
or farming related to activities at the residence of the
juvenile (or on property used for ranching or farming at which
the juvenile, with the permission of the property owner or
lessee, is performing activities related to the operation of the
farm or ranch), target practice, hunting, or a course of
instruction in the safe and lawful use of a handgun;
(ii) with the prior written consent of the juvenile's parent
or guardian who is not prohibited by Federal, State, or local
law from possessing a firearm, except--
(I) during transportation by the juvenile of an unloaded
handgun in a locked container directly from the place of
transfer to a place at which an activity described in clause
(i) is to take place and transportation by the juvenile of
that handgun, unloaded and in a locked container, directly
from the place at which such an activity took place to the
transferor; or
(II) with respect to ranching or farming activities as
described in clause (i), a juvenile may possess and use a
handgun or ammunition with the prior written approval of the
juvenile's parent or legal guardian and at the direction of
an adult who is not prohibited by Federal, State or local
law from possessing a firearm;

(iii) the juvenile has the prior written consent in the
juvenile's possession at all times when a handgun is in the
possession of the juvenile; and
(iv) in accordance with State and local law;

(B) a juvenile who is a member of the Armed Forces of the United
States or the National Guard who possesses or is armed with a
handgun in the line of duty;
(C) a transfer by inheritance of title (but not possession) of a
handgun or ammunition to a juvenile; or
(D) the possession of a handgun or ammunition by a juvenile
taken in defense of the juvenile or other persons against an
intruder into the residence of the juvenile or a residence in which
the juvenile is an invited guest.

Er, yeah, so the law actually says that if state or local law says it's ok, then it's ok. (A)(iv)

Re:Do they not already have restrictions?

[Pinky's Brain]

"Buying a firearm at a gun show is no different than buying one at a store. You have to fill out the same paperwork and go through the same background check."

Didn't the law to make this so die in committee?

Re:Do they not already have restrictions?

[Foo2rama]

Agreed, the industry and game retailers already do this, it is not law but an agreement. I actually have little problem with this if we just use the current rating system and make it legal. The problem is this will be reported as a scare piece, and just add fuel to the fire that a 8 year old can go in and buy a mature rated game. They cannot. The other thing that irks me is all the teens playing mature rated games. Dear parents this one is up to you to enforce, if you want to to use electronics as a digital nanny make sure your nanny is teaching them things that you approve of.


The internet has way way worse things on it... Hey Parents that are complaining, are you watching your kids internet usage???

Re:Do they not already have restrictions?

[Archwyrm]

One may join the US military at the age of 17 with parental consent.

Re:Do they not already have restrictions?

[commodore64_love]

>>>So shouldn't their parents be involved and know what their children are buying rather than depending on the government to babysit and do the parenting for them

That's a typical view I heard from my Libertarian colleagues, but per usual, it's not practical. Ideals and reality often don't fit the same space. i.e. Parents can't be everywhere so it's logical for government to forbid certain activities to young citizens. Like drinking. Or driving. Or R rated movies. Or PG-13 movies.

Also in the case of this law, children or teens can still buy the M-rated games if they have parental permission. So it's a good law.

Re:Do they not already have restrictions?

[Pinky's Brain]

With the existing constitution US law only truly obscene speech can be regulated. The fundies want to regulate mature content which would not be reasonably called obscene, they are not content with just keeping minors from playing Manhunter ... so they do need legislation, in fact they need a constitutional amendment.

Re:Do they not already have restrictions?

[commodore64_love]

>>>Yes, it's easier to demand the government outlaw behavior

As I mentioned before: Non-adults don't have rights. They are wards of their parents. I would normally agree with you that behaviors like smoking dope should not be outlawed, but only when we're discussing ADULTS not minors.
.

>>>I submit it's more effective to actually talk to the 10 or 12 corporations who own the chains of stores.

Man you're dumb. There are a lot of individually-owned stores in this continent. Parents can't lobby all ~100,000 of them.

Re:Do they not already have restrictions?

[Chowderbags]

It's only been 35 years since we last had a draft, and we still have to register. I'll believe that there's no use for a draft when they stop requiring the registration for one. As it is the military has no problem ignoring it's own contracts via stop loss, as well as using individual augmentees (12,000 of them) from the Air Force and Navy to fill in for Army roles, and using National Guard units for far longer than they were intended to be used for (and in much higher levels than they've ever been used). You can damn well bet that they'll see a dent in the number of active duty personnel that they want for years/decades, and if we get into a real war with someone who actually has a serviceable military (China, North Korea, Iran, etc), I doubt we could really face them in a knock down drag out fight, at least if we take the fight to them. We may have enough power in our aircraft carriers to blow any (and probably every) navy to scrap that would try to hit us, but we don't have the numbers to really hold ground like we did in WW2.

Re:Do they not already have restrictions?

[commodore64_love]

>>>I know when I was 16

And when I was 16 I was too inexperienced to have the rights of an adult, and did lots of dumb things, so it was wise for the government to restrict me. In fact biological research has now proved it - The reasoning center of the brain, which weighs consequences, is not yet developed in teenagers and often doesn't reach full maturity until the early 20s.

So it is logical to restrict the teenagers rights. Perhaps not as strictly as a child, but they should still not have the full rights of an adult - teens should remain wards of their parents.

Re:Do they not already have restrictions?

[commodore64_love]

>>>the government can't restrict the speech of a child

Then why do teenagers keep getting arrested for "sexting" on another? I think Jefferson said it best: "Rights are for the fully adult mind, not a plaything for children that do not yet comprehend their decisions or the consequences of same." The rights lie with the parents upto age 18.
.

>>>Same with respecting the right to practice their own religion

Wrong. I was just reading an article of a 6th grade girl that was forced, by a judge, to quit a Christian school and attend the government school in order to "gain more exposure to other religions like Judaism and Islam". i.e. The judge was taking-away her right of religious practice of a Christ-centered education.
.

>>>I'm REALLY sick and tired of people assuming that just because you are not 'legally' an adult, you do not have any rights.

I didn't say that. If you go back and read more carefully, I clearly listed specific rights not "all" rights. I listed drinking, driving, and a few other specific examples.

Re:Do they not already have restrictions?

[commodore64_love]

>>>Legalizing age limits violates the first amendment rights of the game maker.

The Constitution gives game makers a right of free speech and press. It does not give them a right to make a sale. State Governments are free to limit sales in any fashion they wish (10th amendment), including a complete ban of certain products (Utah doesn't allow the sale of Playboy in stores, although private mail order is okay).

Re:Do they not already have restrictions?

[Anonymous Coward]

Depending on the state, it might have been legal for them to purchase long guns at age 16 back then, although I know of no state that permitted this below 16, even back then.

An AR-15 is an assault rifle to the extent that a Mossberg 500 is an "assault shotgun" - meaning not at all, because neither is capable of automatic fire (and it's non-trivial to convert a civilian AR-15 to full auto). And "assault weapon" is a (poor) invented legal term specific to the relevant federal legislation, now thankfully expired. Contrary to popular belief (and common misinformation), it is not a military term, and the legislation itself did not actually address military assault rifles.

The "gun show loophole" is invented nonsense. Private sales should be treated no differently whether there are 500 other gun enthusiasts nearby or nobody else around. If it was illegal to sell to a 16 year old at a gun show, it was just as illegal for the same sale to occur in isolation out on some farm or in some basement. Also, commercial dealers at gun shows still have to comply with their legal requirements; they don't get a pass just because they're at a gun show.

Now, if you want private gun sales to be subject to the same restrictions as commercial sales, just say so rather than arguing for back-door legislation to that effect. I would strongly disagree with that stance, but at least it would be an honest one.

- T

Re:Do they not already have restrictions?

[MrLint]

Zero-thought policies are awesome

Re:Do they not already have restrictions?

[scot4875]

The movie ratings are applied voluntarily by an independent industry organization.

Game ratings are currently applied voluntarily by an independent industry organization. It is quite possibly the most comprehensive rating system available for any form of media.

This survey was about a government ban on the sale of violent video games to minors, similar to what we have with alcohol and tobacco.

Yes, there is a huge difference.

--Jeremy

Re:Do they not already have restrictions?

[lgw]

That's just it - we don't have any envisioned need to hold territory abroad except on the scale we do today. The army likes stop loss et al because it gets them trained professional soldiers - the draft doesn't. There's just no use for handing a bunch of guys rifles, and having them stand shoulder to shoulder and shoot - large conflicts have been successfully deterred by the threat of nuclear weapons for 50 years now, and as long as we keep a credible nuclear threat there should be no such conflicts.

Re:Do they not already have restrictions?

[SOOPRcow]

I'd just like to point out that the movie rating system isn't actually a law. It's just corporate policy. The video game thing they want to be a mandatory law which in many peoples opinion (and I think rightfully so) a violation of the first amendment's freedom of speech.

Re:Do they not already have restrictions?

[NoobixCube]

I'm pro-classification, anti-censorship. An adult customer should have the right to buy whatever they want, no matteer who's moral sensibilities it may offend (currently, in Australia, I don't have that right). Realistically, there are some games we don't want kids playing. Any parent who, for example, bought GTA4 for their eight year old desserves to have Child Services pay a visit, and GTA4 wasn't even really that bad. Australian ratings are federally enforced, unlike the "voluntary" ESRB ratings. G, for General Exhibition. PG, Parental Guidance. M15+, recommended for audiences 15 years and over (recommended, so a shop assistant still can't refuse to sell this to a ten year old), MA15+, restricted to audiences 15 and over, meaning shop assistants are legally required to (but often don't) request ID, in much the same way they do for alcohol and cigarettes. Unfortunately, that's where Australian ratings for games stop, meaning anything that does not fit within the bounds of an MA15+ rating is outright banned. More often than not, however, if a game is going to be banned, one of two things happens. Either the developer will make some token gesture and make a minor edit, and it gets shoehorned into the MA rating when it really should be rated R18+, or like in the case of Left 4 Dead 2, the developer refuses to cave, and says they just won't release it here, sometimes resulting in the OFLC (Office of Film and Literature Classification - do you see "Interactive Media" in their title? I think games may be beyond their legal bounds :P) caving and allowing the release anyway. So what we have here is either obscene censorship - I say so because no content, no matter how offensive, is as obscene as the act of censoring it, or things that probably shoundln't be in the hands of 15 year olds getting there.

I guess my overall point was that legal restriction of sales is certainly a good idea. The headline is a little inflamatory until you fully understand what the survey meant.

Re:Do they not already have restrictions?

[TheCarp]

So what if its easier?

Whenever a law is made, we are saying "the use of violence by armed thugs is authorized to enfiorce this". I see no legitimate reason to authorize the use of armed thugs to stop the sale of games to anyone... minor or otherewise. Nobody should be subject to arrest for it, nobody should be subject to arrest for not paying a fine for it, and no fine should be leveyed for it.

There is no evidence of harm (correlation is not causation). Even if there was, its clearly a parents job to police.

I support no such law for several reasons but mostly because throwing a bone to people on an irrational crusade is nothing I want my taxes supporting!

-steve

Re:Do they not already have restrictions?

[Anonymous Coward]

I suspect he meant buying one from a commercial dealer at a gun show, since that was the context. Private sales at gun shows are treated the same as private sales outside gun shows, just like commercial sales are treated the same.

Of course, there might be some state law similar to the proposed federal law, so he might have been assuming some state legislation was universal.

- T

Re:Do they not already have restrictions?

[Atryn]

Parents can't be everywhere so it's logical for government to forbid certain activities to young citizens. Like drinking. Or driving. Or R rated movies. Or PG-13 movies.

Except that your movie rating examples are not laws but simply industry standards.

Re:Do they not already have restrictions?

[nomadic]

Yep, slipped up on the handgun/other distinction, though my point would have been fine if I just removed "possessing." Even if there are loopholes for purchasing, it's not really correct to say there are more restrictions on minors purchasing virtual guns than real guns.

Re:Do they not already have restrictions?

[Anonymous Coward]

I can't really bring myself to be too upset by this. The movie ratings system isn't perfect, but it certainly doesn't bother me much, and this sounds similar, on the surface at least.

The movie rating system stops good movies being left how they were intended... watch 'This Film is Not Yet Rated'

Re:Do they not already have restrictions?

[Hadlock]

When was the last time you saw a PG-13 movie on a date... that you actually enjoyed? Action movies that are rated PG-13 are typically pretty terrible. I realize there are a lot of adults that play video games, but there are even more 12-18 year olds who buy them. So if this sort of thing passes, companies are going to start watering down their games to be able to sell them in California, because a MA rating is going to be the kiss of death for blockbuster sales. I haven't bought a game at retail (digital downloads only) recently, but I'm going to guess that the Call of Duty, Battlefield, Valve and iD software franchises are all rated M or MA.

Re:Do they not already have restrictions?

[monkyyy]

no its just wrong -__- dont make government babysitting kids ever ok, parents rise kids not politics............ A is clearly the right choice in every case into till proven other wise

Re:Do they not already have restrictions?

[Transaction7]

Too much of our First Amendment jurisprudence dealing with commercial speech, advertising, and entertainment, has departed completely from the original intent of the Framers. When the Court included commercial nude lap dancing in the same protection as core political speech in 1981, things really started to go awry. Interestingly, most of these cases benefit not the poor disenfranchised little guy who might need protection but the wealthy and influential. One has to wonder how much that has to do with the Supreme Court granting First Amendment protection to “virtual” child pornography, for example. Whatever other protection the Constitution provides, or ought or ought not to provide, for sexual activity, for example, it simply isn’t “speech” or “press,’ nor is it a modern version thereof, hardly being a modern invention or innovation, so it does not fit within the text, intent, or framework of First Amendment jurisprudence, any more than the rights guaranteed by the Second Amendment do. The logical place to put most sexual liberty would be under the Fourth Amendment, but you can’t fit a right of publicity or very public activities under that. Driving on a public street and running a red light is not protected by either amendment, either, contrary to some people who know better but argue that red light cameras which capture open activity on the public roads are somehow unconstitutional. If something that wouldn’t lead you or me to do something destructive, tortuous, or criminal, even if we listened to or watched it, reasonably arguably might be likely to cause, lead, or encourage a small minority of minors or other particularly susceptible people, not readily identifiable in advance, to do so, and these are commercial and don’t really have anything to do with ideas except exploitation of base tendencies and incitement, it would be entirely proper to uphold a law regulating this conduct that 72% of the people in our democracy within a republic favor. This has no positive value. Now one real practical legal and Constitutional problem with trying to reduce the amount of such pollution by legislation was aptly summed up by the late Justice Potter Stewart in his famous comment, “I may not be able to define it [pornography, in words], but I know it when I see it.” Why, however, do we require impossible perfection in the drafting of such laws when they might affect the profits of a very profitable industry targeting minors? Of course, unless you believe that not only all members of Congress but their legal staffs are ignorant idiots, you have to ask yourself why, so often, the bills touted as solving all the world’s ills always seem to wind up having either gaping loopholes or obvious defects the courts have already ruled rendered other laws, and would render any new ones, unconstitutional, unenforceable, and void. When I was in law school, our famous Dean liked to quote Will Rogers: “Whenever Congress tells a joke, it’s a law, and whenever they pass a law, it’s a joke.”

Re:Do they not already have restrictions?

[xtracto]

I'm sorry but non-adults don't have rights.

Wow, the USA must be a pretty scary place to be a kid!

Re:Do they not already have restrictions?

[TheVelvetFlamebait]

You need a law because parents can't (and shouldn't) provide parental guidance and oversight 24 hours a day. Without a law, a child could spend his pocket money on cigarettes and not tell his parents if he wanted to. With a law, a child can't just buy cigarettes on whim; they actually have to jump through some hoops, and run a serious risk of being caught.

Laws like these help not only certain bad parents, but also very good parents. It doesn't hurt to make the breaking of parents' trust physically difficult.

Re:Do they not already have restrictions?

[SmarterThanMe]

"They provided false information to the dealer."

Not that I know anything about this particular case, but this sentence...

Are you seriously suggesting that Police should always be truthful in their dealings? So they should tell drug traffickers that they're not interested in buying drugs for themselves, but may want to use it in a court case?

Seriously?

Re:Do they not already have restrictions?

[ElectricTurtle]

Actually, section 3 is about twice as long as the whole bit he quoted, and includes many, many scenarios wherein the law does not apply, including written parental consent and explicit primacy of state and local law. Naturally he omitted this because it undermined his point. When it comes to gun rights, don't believe people until you've done the research yourself. There are a lot of agenda-driven FUD spewers and liars out there.

Re:Do they not already have restrictions?

[ElectricTurtle]

You're obtuse. Selling/buying drugs is a crime-in-itself, selling/buying guns is not. So when a cop entices a dealer to sell drugs, he is getting that dealer to knowingly and intentionally commit a crime. If a cop provides false information to a gun dealer which would meet all the legal requirements for a lawful sale and then says 'ha! I lied to you! You aren't actually selling legally like you thought you were!' The is no demonstrable knowledge or intent on the side of the dealer to commit a crime, quite the opposite, the dealer only sold because he believed to the best of his knowledge that the legal requirements were met. These are quite different scenarios. I am not a lawyer and the previous should not be construed as legal advice.

Re:Do they not already have restrictions?

[Golddess]

Parents can't be everywhere so it's logical for government to forbid certain activities to young citizens. Like [...] driving.

That's something I've always had a problem with. Driving is a skill that you must prove you have before you're allowed on the roads anyway, so why additionally restrict it based on age? Hell, I'd prolly be ok if all they changed was "learners permit can be obtained at any age" and left the age restriction on an actual license alone.

Re:Do they not already have restrictions?

[Golddess]

Nonsense. It's easier to lobby a single entity than to lobby ~100,000 different stores. And before you go off about "my right to buy a violent game or porn video", I'm sorry but non-adults don't have rights. They are wards of their parents who make the decision of what to buy or not buy.

Actually, you didn't. Not in the parent post (I do see the post where you mentioned specific rights though).

Re:Do they not already have restrictions?

[zeroshade]

To address your points:

Then why do teenagers keep getting arrested for "sexting" on another? I think Jefferson said it best: "Rights are for the fully adult mind, not a plaything for children that do not yet comprehend their decisions or the consequences of same." The rights lie with the parents upto age 18.

There is currently an entire debate dealing with this. Some believe that it is right to arrest them some believe it is not. However if you pay any attention to what is going on, they are being arrested on charges of "distributing child pornography" when they send nude pictures of themselves. They are not being arrested for any words they place in the messages. Notice that the issue has nothing to do with the fact that the person sending the "sext" is underage, and everything to do with the fact that the subject of the picture is underage. An adult would be held to the same standard with the same restrictions.

Wrong. I was just reading an article of a 6th grade girl that was forced, by a judge, to quit a Christian school and attend the government school in order to "gain more exposure to other religions like Judaism and Islam". i.e. The judge was taking-away her right of religious practice of a Christ-centered education.

You read an article of one instance? Did the article mention the family appealing the decision? If they aren't, why not? Just because a single judge makes a decision does not mean they are correct and within their rights under the law. The girl should appeal, because the judge has no authority to take away her right of religious practice and thus should have respected her rights.

I didn't say that. If you go back and read more carefully, I clearly listed specific rights not "all" rights. I listed drinking, driving, and a few other specific examples.

As the parent pointed out, you did in fact state that non-adults have no rights.

Re:Do they not already have restrictions?

[pandaman9000]

Funny and insightful all at once!

Re:Do they not already have restrictions?

[commodore64_love]

Right. If a 6 year old wants to buy alcohol as he's walking home from school, the government should not make it illegal to do so

/end sarcasm.

You're a stupid twit.

Re:Do they not already have restrictions?

[commodore64_love]

The parents appealed but the court rejected it. So the government is infringing upon a young teenager's religious expression by forcing her to quit the Christian school

Re:Do they not already have restrictions?

[Coren22]

http://bible.org/seriespage/first-sign-jesus-turns-water-wine-john-21-11

3 When the wine ran out, Jesus’ mother said to him, “They have no wine left.” 4 Jesus replied, “Woman, why are you saying this to me? My time has not yet come.” 5 His mother told the servants, “Whatever he tells you, do it.”

Hell Jesus even made wine. Beer came from monks as it was the only way to safe water. Yeah, Al is big in the bible.

Re:Do they not already have restrictions?

[VoiceInTheDesert]

I guess I assumed "minors," in this case, referred to those under the age rating of the game. You are probably right, just not how I read it.

Re:Do they not already have restrictions?

[VoiceInTheDesert]

Which puts it on par with, not before the age rating of the games. I guess I just don't see the inconsistancy. Under 17 kids can't see R rated movies without consent either. Not saying its necessarily the "right" law, but I think its consistant at least.

Re:Do they not already have restrictions?

[zeroshade]

I would like the link to the article. It seems to be something interesting.

It is wrong for the court to do this, and I hope that the parents are able to find some way to overturn this. It is ridiculous.

Re:Do they not already have restrictions?

[Anonymous Coward]

I don't know any people that think physical discipline is immoral as long as it's not done at the drop of a hat.

I agree with you except on this point. Physical discipline should not just be avoided; it is never acceptable. See Wikipedia article on the anti-corporal punishment movement and the book For Your Own Good: Hidden Cruelty in Child-Rearing and the Roots of Violence . Of course, those sources should be taken with a grain of salt as they are clearly strong supporters of one position... but they are people who have carefully considered physical discipline of children and would find "immoral" a bit weak to describe it.

That said, it sounds like you are in favor of better methods of parenting anyway.

Re:Do they not already have restrictions?

[monkyyy]

drugs and alcohol are different from video games -__- and if a 6 year want alcohol theres a little more then average problems going on, that preventing them wont fix

Re:Do they not already have restrictions?

[BJ_Covert_Action]

So it is logical to restrict the teenagers rights.

First off, you didn't say restrict teenagers rights the first time around. You said non-adults don't have rights, at all. Those are two very different things and your position needs to be clarified on that matter.

Secondly, it is not 'logical' to restrict teenagers rights based on the study you mentioned. In fact, there is little to no logic in your post (honestly, that's not a stab, what assumptions are you making, what axioms are you speaking from, and what inductive or deductive conclusions are you drawing from the causal relationships between said axioms). Logic and, "makes sense because modern science agrees" are not the same thing and never should be equated.

Furthermore, I will argue with that idea that just because teenagers brains are not fully developed, they should have restricted rights. First off, that study you mentioned (and I did read it) discussed the immature nature of certain centers of the brain, not the entire brain in general. For instance, it discussed control of emotions being less prevalent in younger brains. Well that's all well and good, but that does not mean that teenagers are more likely to make worse decisions than adults. Sometimes, often times (especially when dealing with basic human rights) emotions very much need to be present to make a good decision. Note that this argument does not make the assumption that a purely logical or objective decision necessarily qualifies as best. Younger folk having more active emotional centers in their brains may mean they are more empathetic (the study didn't touch on this topic). In order to make a good decision, empathy towards others needs may be a more important factor that pure logic or reason. It simply depends on the situation in question.

The problem with your argument is that you, like so many other folks in our society, assume that logic and reason is the end-all-be-all of good. Well it's not. Saying that logic encompasses the entire spectrum of good is just plain silly. (Think about it, what makes a good piece of music or a good painting good? Is it because it was logically developed? How so, if that's the case?).

Quite frankly, just because certain centers of teenage brains are less developed, there is no empirical reason to assume that a teenage brain will consistently, or more often, make
worse decisions than an adult. So I consider your argument to basically dwindle down to little more than a personally held bias that you consider to be fact because it is one widely held by most of modern society. You, and most other adults (myself included) assume that your 'mature' decisions are actually better decisions for the world or society as a whole. That does not follow any available scientific evidence that I know of. That is purely derived from the assumption that, as time passes, we humans become better. Well that doesn't always make sense. Think about it, as adults age, do your muscles become more elastic? Do your bones become stronger? No. So why would you assume that, as you age, your more mature brain is making better decisions than the immature one you used to have? Is your body metabolizing food better than it used to? Now, I want to make it clear that I am not stating that teenagers unequivocally make better decisions because they are more youthful. I just want to point out that the assumption that older, more mature brains equals better is based off of the fact that older, more mature people made the studies and they are making the assumption that they have grown wiser with time. To my knowledge, this has not been scientifically demonstrated thus far. Hell, younger folk seem to be a bit more compassionate, less egotistic, and less jaded in general from what I can tell. For all we know, that's the optimum state of the human brain. We are just assuming it's not because we place a high value on young adults in our society.

For the record, I did all manner of dumb things as a kid. So have

Re:Do they not already have restrictions?

[Golddess]

Wait, the parents appealed but were rejected? Then this isn't any good as "proof" of lack of minors rights, because the court is infringing upon the parents' rights here.

Re:Do they not already have restrictions?

[Eskarel]

Well whenever they came up with a new level they'd repeat it with only minor changes 10 or 12 times until you wanted to throw the console through a window, so I guess it encouraged violence.

The ratings system also tends to err on the side of caution, which is probably appropriate under the circumstances. I'm not saying I wouldn't let my son play M rated games when he's significantly older, just that I'd like to have some degree of say in it. Ratings may not be super important for really young kids since they're probably going to have a hard time getting to the shops without an adult anyway, but there's that stretch in the mid teens where they're somewhat able to look after themselves, but not necessarily ready for certain kinds of games. I like rating systems because it means that my kid has to con an adult into buying it for him, which gives me a chance to stop it before he buys it.

Not that I can't take it away from him afterwards, or that I won't have to keep an eye out for downloaded stuff, but it might theoretically allow my kid to save $90-100(what games cost here) on a game I'm not ever going to let him play.

Why people distrust pollsters

[Sonny Yatsen]

This is why a lot of people distrusts pollsters. How people answer is dependent on how the question is written. The question that Zogby sent out here was whether people supported laws that "prohibits minors from purchasing ultraviolent or sexually violent video games without parental consent." Of course they're going to say they support the law - Zogby purposefully loaded the question against the opposing option! Do you think a lot of people are going to say that they support something that was just described to them as "ultraviolent" and "sexually violent"?

Imagine if Zogby asked a different question bent towards the other direction to the same 2000 people it polled for the first question - for example: "Do you think parents should be responsible for preventing their children from accessing video games containing violent content?" I would bet you that those same 72% are going to say "yes" to that as well.

Re:Why people distrust pollsters

[Jaysyn]

I'm just shocked that a whole 28% of those polled saw thru the loaded question.

Re:Why people distrust pollsters

[jgtg32a]

I saw the loaded question and still agree

Re:Why people distrust pollsters

[Anonymous Coward]

They also don't define what a "Minor" is ... most people think some 6 year old without realizing that this could also mean a 16 year old ... nor do they define what "ultraviolent or sexually violent" content is. For all we know, these clowns could consider "ultraviolent" as any act that ends the life of another ... meaning I was breaking the law playing Wolfenstein when I was 10! Geesh.

Re:Why people distrust pollsters

[Ironhandx]

Yes, thats insane. Considering they asked the poll in the worst possible way and they would use any resulting legislation to ban absolutely everything right down to Final Fantasy style violence. I have to say, while I'm not a FF nut and don't play the MMO or anything, my late childhood experience would have been fairly different, and in my opinion worse, if it were not for FF and other games of its kind.

Re:Why people distrust pollsters

[ArcherB]

"Do you think parents should be responsible for preventing their children from accessing video games containing violent content?" I would bet you that those same 72% are going to say "yes" to that as well.

I agree! What better way to make the parents responsible than to make the parents buy the game.

Re:Why people distrust pollsters

[wiredog]

And how do you expect parents to exercise that responsibility if their kids have their own money from, say, paper routes or lawn mowing? Not let little Johnny out unattended until he's 18? Not let him do anything on the computer without being watched like a hawk until he's 18?

Re:Why people distrust pollsters

[jcombel]

for example: "Do you think parents should be responsible for preventing their children from accessing video games containing violent content?" I would bet you that those same 72% are going to say "yes" to that as well.

 
hello! ever raised a child? it would be impossible for parents alone to control that. with children, it takes a village, etc etc. in today's world, the village includes activists and law makers.

Re:Why people distrust pollsters

[Defenestrar]

War (legal ultraviolence) is a lot different from rape (illegal sexual violence). It's bad enough to combine separate questions (loaded enough), but the article doesn't even summarize the fundamental aspects of a statistical study!

There's also the fact that 2,100 people is a very small number to base any sort of national (or even state) law and policy on. What are the survey demographics? What are the statistically significant differences of opinion based on group? What is the study's power to detect (a significant difference 80% of the time)? Was the survey terminology defined to the participants, or if not - were there survey questions to obtain the participants' definitions of the terms?

X% of adults agree to outlaw pictures of "kittens, hamsters, and child porn" 100-X% of adults have been put on the child molestation watch list.

Now I'm going to have to look up the original survey because of bad survey reporting. It's possible that the survey was done well and the reporter dumbed it down, but it's also entirely possible that the survey ignored experimental design and statistical considerations - but in that case the reporter should have publicly ripped the survey to shreds. If a reporter can't understand statistical analysis they have no business reporting survey results!

Re:Why people distrust pollsters

[Jaysyn]

How about we make it illegal to show kids rated R movies first. Or even better, how about the government quits trying to tell parents what media is or is not appropriate for their children. This is just comic books all over again.

Re:Why people distrust pollsters

[AltairDusk]

I have little hope that will help anything considering I've seen a woman in EB with her 8 year old (my estimation) in tow complaining to the clerk how violent and horrible some of the games they sell are. 15 minutes later (after 10 minutes of pestering from her son) she was buying the kid Grand Theft Auto.

Re:Why people distrust pollsters

[Pojut]

Agreed. The only people who should be able to ban violent video games for minors are parents.

Re:Why people distrust pollsters

[Winckle]

If little Johnny has video game consoles, use the age filters built into those systems. If he games on a Windows Vista/7 PC, use the same system.

Re:Why people distrust pollsters

[nschubach]

Seriously, "popular" opinion cannot be obtained by polling 2100 of 300 million people. I'm sorry, but that's about 0.0007% of the populous. I can gather up 2100 people who would give different numbers.

Re:Why people distrust pollsters

[Sonny Yatsen]

hello! ever raised a child? it would be impossible for parents alone to control that. with children, it takes a village, etc etc. in today's world, the village includes activists and law makers.

My point was that if you change the loaded question to say the opposite, the same people would probably agree to that as well. Nothing you said invalidates my point.

Re:Why people distrust pollsters

[ElectricTurtle]

Just give your kids limited access accounts on whatever computers they use such that they cannot install programs without a parent's credentials. All the big name games are so in love with the Windows registry that there is no way to run them without the permissions to install them. (Giving kids limited accounts is a good idea in any case, especially if they're dumb enough to execute random files from the intarwebs.)

Re:Why people distrust pollsters

[maxume]

Yeah, right, the question did not contain the words 'parental consent', so clearly, the law is intended to tell parents what to do, not to place limits on who stores sell the games to.

Re:Why people distrust pollsters

[kurokame]

It's also trivial to bake the sample. Sure, you surveyed 2100 people. But were they an accurate model of the population as a whole, or did you select for a group which gives you a very narrow sample with well-known psychographics then use loaded questions to give you exactly the data you want to get the statistics you've been paid to deliver? Statistics are only as honest as the methodology is transparent.

Re:Why people distrust pollsters

[Anonymous Coward]

Or maybe, just maybe, little Johnny isn't going to turn into a car-jacking whore-slapping thug just because he plays GTA.

Re:Why people distrust pollsters

[ElectricTurtle]

I am raising a child, and no, it doesn't take a village. I know that damn well as I'm thousands of miles from all of my family and it's a pain in the ass to not have anybody who would watch them for free. Making it illegal to purchase certain games without parental consent solves nothing. Kids will just play those games over at their friends' houses whose parents do buy them for their kids. If you don't do actual parenting and investigate the environments and people that your kids are hanging around, things you might rather not happen can do so easily.

I for one don't believe that kids need to be insulated from much of anything. Maturity happens from experience, and understanding cannot occur without knowledge.

Re:Why people distrust pollsters

[Jaysyn]

Little Johnny can warez the portable version of Postal 2 in about 2 hours if he was so inclined & had a broadband Internet connection. It ignores everything you just mentioned above.

Re:Why people distrust pollsters

[ArcherB]

How about we make it illegal to show kids rated R movies first. Or even better, how about the government quits trying to tell parents what media is or is not appropriate for their children. This is just comic books all over again

Actually, this would be government forcing parents to be responsible for what their kids see. This is making it so that the kids can't buy this stuff without an adult (hopefully a parent). No one is saying kids can't own these games. They just want to make sure the parents are aware of it.

Re:Why people distrust pollsters

[Jaysyn]

Especially if you are polling at a church or retirement home.

Re:Why people distrust pollsters

[Pojut]

It also includes things like content restriction settings and parental controls built into every gaming console.

You know...the restrictions and controls that parent groups bitched about wanting to include in gaming consoles.

Re:Why people distrust pollsters

[somersault]

But what about all those horrifically violent flash/soon-to-be-WebGL games around? OMGZ WON'T SOMEBODY PLEASE THINK OF THE CHILDREN?!!!

Re:Why people distrust pollsters

[Defenestrar]

And how many parents use their children for tech support?

Re:Why people distrust pollsters

[Dog-Cow]

I haven't played an MMO in the past decade that I couldn't run by copying from another computer. DAoC, EQII, Aion, WoW.

Re:Why people distrust pollsters

[Anonymous Coward]

my late childhood experience would have been fairly different, and in my opinion worse, if it were not for FF and other games of its kind.

yuo mean like, getting laid? thanks for the quote, posting on something awful to make fun of you.

Re:Why people distrust pollsters

[ArcherB]

I have little hope that will help anything considering I've seen a woman in EB with her 8 year old (my estimation) in tow complaining to the clerk how violent and horrible some of the games they sell are. 15 minutes later (after 10 minutes of pestering from her son) she was buying the kid Grand Theft Auto.

It's not up to you to agree or disagree with it. That's the parent's right to make the decision and since she bought it for her kid knowing what was in it, it's now her responsibility. When her kid pulls his car over to kick prostitutes, she is going to have a hard time taking the game maker to court since she knowingly bought the game. It might even help further if a big label was on the cover of the game that says something to the affect of "Hey, mom! This game has whore kicking!"

Re:Why people distrust pollsters

[Jaysyn]

Ok, the law gets passed because it's somewhat reasonable on it's face & basically the exact same system we have now, but with force of law behind it. How long would the loophole that you pointed out last before it got amended by one of the Christo-fascists currently in or soon to be in power.

Re:Why people distrust pollsters

[ElectricTurtle]

Yeah, everybody is just clamoring to play seven year old games. What's next, Quake? Doom? Wolfenstein 3D?! Kids today want to play current games, they're not going to be looking for half dozen+ years old abandonware.

Re:Why people distrust pollsters

[Anonymous Coward]

How about letting them do what they want with their hard-earned cash?

Re:Why people distrust pollsters

[AmonTheMetalhead]

Hell, just mentioning the word 'sexually' to some people is enough to get'm against anything

Re:Why people distrust pollsters

[Thanshin]

"Do you think parents should be responsible for preventing their children from accessing video games containing violent content?" I would bet you that those same 72% are going to say "yes" to that as well.

Are you crazy? The mere mention of "parent's should be responsible for preventing... " will unleash immense rage and screams of "It's impossible!" "I can't know eerything my kid does!" "Anarchy! Anarchy! The end is nigh! Repent!!!"

Ok, maybe a bit less extreme, but many will get defensive at the slightest mention of parent responsability.

Re:Why people distrust pollsters

[AmonTheMetalhead]

Those were kids pretending to be their parents

Re:Why people distrust pollsters

[srussia]

with children, it takes a village, etc etc. in today's world, the village includes activists and law makers.

ya, before there used to be only one idiot per village... good times!

Re:Why people distrust pollsters

[AmonTheMetalhead]

Proper upbringing & a little trust go a long way....

Re:Why people distrust pollsters

[DJRumpy]

Exactly. The first few lines tell you everything you need to know about 'loaded questions' for a poll:

From TFA:

This week, parent watchdog group Common Sense Media released the results of a survey it commissioned on children's access to violent games.

Of course the poll results returned what Common Sense Media wanted. They commissioned it. If the polling groups want return business, they aim to please the folks who pay their bills. This would have had more impact if it was an independent poll.

That said, I actually find that I agree with the general idea. No so much with the sexual content, but with the violent content. Violence in the U.S. is out of control, with youth today showing no respect for life, and peer pressure to do violence all to easy to find. Hell, I haven't been in school for 25 years, and the images I see on the news and represented in pop-culture today is shocking to me. I can't imagine sending a child off to such a place. It reminds me of those prison films where you send off your child and you get back a thug.

I would prefer more controls that prevent exposure to young children to violent media, but I actually think they need to lighten up on the sexual content. They turn something as natural as breathing into something forbidden and dirty, which I've never thought was healthy.

Re:Why people distrust pollsters

[Thanshin]

War (legal ultraviolence)

War isn't ultraviolence.

For ultraviolence you need:
- A blood/corpse ratio of about 25l:1
- teabagging
- weapons larger than humanly possible to carry.
- Men with a musculature that would put Mr. Olimpia to shame.
- Women with breasts larger than humanly possible to carry.
- Zombies.
- A strip club.
- ... ...

Great, now I miss Duke Nukem.

Re:Why people distrust pollsters

[Jaysyn]

Nitpick much?

Postal 2 is pretty much the exact kind of game they are wanting to restrict with this law. You can replace it with Fallout 3 / Fallout: New Vegas & my point is still valid.

Re:Why people distrust pollsters

[hsbaker]

Agreed. When I was a kid, it was somewhat difficult to get things I "shouldn't" have without my parents finding out. It mostly involved enlisting the help of someone old enough to buy the cigarettes/beer/porn.

That is not the case today. Kids can easily get digital products from the comfort of their bedroom, with little chance of alerting mom & dad taht something suspicious is going on (no need to explain the new 22yo 'friend'). If the law requires you to be 18 to purchase explicit magazines, then why not explicit digital products?

The goal is not to do the job for parents, but to help the parents do their job.

Re:Why people distrust pollsters

[ElectricTurtle]

Although I haven't tried and do not have the time/resources/inclination to verify it one way or the other, I highly doubt that Fallout 3 is playable without being wholly installed w/ modifications made to the registry. Most cracked software is designed just to get around CD detection, not registry integration.

Re:Why people distrust pollsters

[Defenestrar]

Oh sorry. My apologies to those involved in Normandy and Antietam for overestimating what they went through.

Re:Why people distrust pollsters

[DJRumpy]

And if the parents are just bad parents, or not engaged with their children's development, should they still be trusted with the keys, so to speak? All too often, you end up with parents who simply aren't engaged in their children's lives, and as a result, children with no respect for authority, behavioral problems, resentment, and an overblown sense of entitlement.

Of course in my opinion, I think we already have way too much of that already. Your argument on it's face seems reasonable, but then again, it assumes that the parents are doing their job and raising good children. Just turn on the TV and it proves that theory wrong. Today's children all seem to think that money will be thrown at them, they will either become a rap star, a winner on American Idol, or 'internet famous', and never have to work again. They go beyond practical jokes and verge on cruel and inhuman far too often, and often just for the shock value. These sorts of things tell me their parents went horribly wrong in modifying that sort of behavior, which means the parents need help in controlling that behavior. Acid attacks, drive by's, hate crimes. I don't think these things happen in a vacuum.

If this were to put parents back into the loop as to what their children were buying, then I think it's a good thing.

Agreed. The only people who should be able to ban violent video games for minors are parents.

Re:Why people distrust pollsters

[Ironhandx]

Huh, funny how you would jump to that conclusion considering this: http://www.wired.com/gamelife/2007/02/female_gamers_h/

Also it was a connection over a video game that got me laid to begin with. Without video games I likely would have spent all of my time on maths or programming and not gotten laid for a much longer period of time.

Re:Why people distrust pollsters

[ElectricTurtle]

I take it you don't have kids. As a parent if your kid is smarter than you in a given area, you tell them what you want, watch them implement it, and then watch for signs that they may have put a back door in for themselves (and if so tell them to disable it and watch them do that). Any resistance is to be met with reduction of privileges, as is the case with any exertion of parental authoritah.

That said, personally I think if the kids are smarter than their parents they should be able to run whatever they want. Anything else is naught much more than ageism. I for one don't believe that kids need to be insulated from much of anything. Maturity happens from experience, and understanding cannot occur without knowledge.

Re:Why people distrust pollsters

[Anonymous Coward]

If the parents didn't raise their hellspawn by putting them in front of the tv to begin with the parents would be able to have a conversation with their spawn about it.
My guess is that if the kid is responsible enough to earn it's own money then ultraviolent games are not going to be a problem.

Re:Why people distrust pollsters

[Schadrach]

Of course, the law should require you to be 18 to purchase explicit digital product as much as it does magazines, but only so long as we're talking the same definitions. The problem is that something like Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 2 is in the realm they want to declare explicit and illegal to sell to minors, while the same kind of content as a movie, TV show, comic book, novel, or even magazine (somehow) would not be "explicit" in a manner as to be categorized with the likes of Hustler as far as sale to minors.

There's no reason that laws making it illegal to sell certain categories of content to minors shouldn't be medium-agnostic. That isn't this however, this is a desire to make certain addition kinds of content also "explicit", but only when presented in the form of a video game.

This is literally the "Comic books/rock music/whatever are evil and somehow innately different than all other media" fight all over again but with the next type of media.

Re:Why people distrust pollsters

[Dorkmaster Flek]

You're missing the point. No other medium is legally restricted like this. California is arguing that games are different from TV, movies, comic books, and everything else by saying that they're actually harmful and need to be regulated by the government like alcohol and cigarettes. If the government starts mandating what games are and aren't okay, developers will have less incentive to actually produce games that adults want to play.

Re:Why people distrust pollsters

[Tanktalus]

2100 people is not a small sample at all. Try taking a course in statistics. All it takes to get to 95%-19-times-out-of-20 confidence is, if I recall my university engineering-statistics class, somewhere around 1100. Getting to 2100 may provide a 97% confidence, even when representing millions, assuming that's 2100 valid respondents.

That still gives rise to manipulation through bad questions. I'm not looking to debate the question. Just the number.

Re:Why people distrust pollsters

[Jaysyn]

I found a link to it on Fenopy. I hadn't seen it before but I was sure it was possible since there is a portable version of Oblivion as well.

Also, since you still want to pick nits, you can change my example to GTA 3 Portable instead. :P

Re:Why people distrust pollsters

[Anonymous Coward]

Or maybe, just maybe, little Johnny isn't going to turn into a car-jacking whore-slapping thug just because he plays GTA.

So naive. It doesn't have to go that far to be a real problem: how about being significantly more likely to get into a real fight or to bully? GTA is a fantasy about living without consequences, and that's exactly the problem. It seems that every time I kid around or say something ironic to my wife in front of my 3-year-old daughter, said daughter takes it literally or repeats it. I can't even do the wrong kind of horse play, as she would just repeat it with other kids, perhaps unjokingly, and then you've suddenly got a "kid who hits", and be spurned by other parents or teachers, etc., and have to fix this problem. My daughter has not learned, and will not for a long time, how to distinguish fake from real. I have to filter my words and behavior, but it isn't enough. It would be a huge benefit if the rest of society did this with each other's kids: we live in a context, not on an island where we can control the environment. While it is formally true that parents are wholly responsible for their kids' behavior, realistically that means we're holding parents responsible for forces and variables that they cannot fully control, which can only lead to tragedy. Everything is a struggle for parents and we need help, and so did your parents (if you were lucky) when you grew up. Reducing influences that, superficially at least, promote violence, would be a great help.

Re:Why people distrust pollsters

[MindKata]

@DJRumpy: "And if the parents are just bad parents, or not engaged with their children's development, should they still be trusted with the keys, so to speak "

Just because some in society are bad parents we shouldn't all have to suffer every more controls in life, just because they are useless. You are suggesting a course in life that leads to ever greater state control over everyone. That isn't the solution. We need as a society to target the problem makers, not blind blanket rules and laws that force everyone into ever more totalitarian controls over their lives. There is an answer but you clearly don't see the real problem, so the rest of this post is for you as well.

@Sonny Yatsen, this news is as you say utterly biased by the group funding this meaningless poll. A good example of the opposite view of video games would be to ask the same parents a reworded question such as: "Do you think parents should be responsible for allowing their children to learn in a safe environment about the competitive nature of life which helps them to develop their problem solving skills, protected from the real dangers of life" ... at which point that poll would give the totally opposite answer to this meaningless poll.

But then the group behind this poll, the so called "watchdog group Common Sense Media" are basing their whole point on an irrationally biased point of view, so I don't hold out much hope of seeing much Critical Thinking from them, when they prepare their polls.

I am however dismayed at how often this myth of violent games is endlessly perpetuated by groups like them, that seem incapable of solving the real problem, because they seem ignorant of the real problem. They cannot seem to see that, people are violent to other people, because they actually choose to be violent to other people. Yes some people really do choose to inflict violence on another person and they are doing it, not because they saw that violence in any media, they simply are doing it, because they enjoy the power their violence gives them over other people.

We don't need these useless self important misguided watchdog groups. What we need as a society is simply better education about the more extreme and harmful personality disorders to give everyone some much needed protection in life.

For example, Narcissistic Personality Disorder (NPD) is due to a need to gain and maintain power over other people and they want to hold people down in life so they feel powerful. Its why they have a "pervasive pattern of grandiosity", because they want to be seen as better, more powerful, beyond everyone else and they do all they can to maintain that. Anyone dares to tell them otherwise, even just to put them in their place, so to speak, and they will bitterly hate it, but how they react depends on what specific type of Narcissist they are. There are actually two types of a NPD, where one type is the Aggressive Narcissist who we all know and recognise as the typical bully kind of person. These are the violent people in society who want others to know they are more powerful than them and groups like this watchdog are utterly useless in recognising them. (The other form of NPD is a Passive-Aggressive form of Narcissist, who will hate you for opposing them or risking over shadowing them with better ideas at work etc.., but they are not violent, they instead seek to undermine you with endless duplicity but they are passively hiding their real intentions. They will seek to obstruct any chance you succeed over them, and they are very good at procrastination if its not their idea, so they will let your ideas fail, so they can point blame at you, but to your face they act like a normal person. (They have a hidden pervasive pattern of negative attitudes towards any idea which isn't their own).

NPD's behaviour gives them a competitive advantage in life, which allows them to gain power over others and they end up undermining everyone else until they end up dominating in society. (Which sadly e

Re:Why people distrust pollsters

[Anonymous Coward]

Further still, it was a poll commissioned by a watchdog group heavily invested in getting the sort of overwhelming result they needed to push policy initiatives, and hailed by the chairman of said agenda-pushing group.

Follow the money.

P.S. I'm not sure why this is on Slashdot, outside of a "rally the troops" kind of submission.

P.P.S. Heh, my anonymous coward CAPTCHA is "deceive".

Re:Why people distrust pollsters

[Anonymous Coward]

not if my firewall, the one that only allows the mac of my whitelist proxy server out, has any say in the matter.

That is of course unless little Johnny knows the 32 bit mac address that will let him out AND figures out how to change the mac on his pc. The second part is easy, the first is tougher.

He can't even arp it because the connection to the dsl router isn't visible on his subnet.

I've already had talks with my neighbors about their open wireless access points, the population density of sex offenders in the area, and the effects of FBI kiddie porn investigations on people's lives, so that vector was handled with good old fashioned FUD and a kind offer of help to secure their networks on my part.

Johnny could still get it from one of his friends but if I catch him playing it, I will remove the central processing unit and memory from his motherboard and put it in my safe for a month.

Little Johnny sees what I allow him to see, controlled by the only security paradigm that works, default deny. This is probably the one benefit to being an IT professional, outside of the paycheck. I can lock a network down proper and since it's mine, I can do it the right way.

Re:Why people distrust pollsters

[hedwards]

Perhaps the law shouldn't require you to be 18 to purchase explicit magazines. Around here kids at age 13 gain age of majority over health decisions and at age 16 are considered adults for the purpose of sex, perhaps there's something fundamentally wrong that they're not allowed to buy explicit magazines. Granted I can see an argument against letting them have hardcore porn or BDSM publications, but for playboy?

Re:Why people distrust pollsters

[zeroshade]

If this were to put parents back into the loop as to what their children were buying, then I think it's a good thing.

But this would take parents out of the loop completely. Parents would just be content to let their children go to the store on their own, confident in the idea that "they can't buy the game, it's against the law." Rather than actually taking an interest in what their children are doing in this case. Which then leads to the fact that little Timmy's Mom just bought GTA3 for him, Jhonny won't tell his mom that part, he'll just ask if he can go hang out with Timmy. Thus the parents are taken out of the equation because of a false sense of security. Meanwhile video games as a medium suffers.

Re:Why people distrust pollsters

[Anonymous Coward]

If you keep talking like that, you'll end up raising gore loving pedophiles.

Won't someone please think of the dead babies.

Re:Why people distrust pollsters

[thejam]

Making it illegal to purchase certain games without parental consent solves nothing. Kids will just play those games over at their friends' houses whose parents do buy them for their kids. If you don't do actual parenting and investigate the environments and people that your kids are hanging around, things you might rather not happen can do so easily. I for one don't believe that kids need to be insulated from much of anything. Maturity happens from experience, and understanding cannot occur without knowledge.

I suppose you also hold people responsible for falling down open manholes unmarked by pylons: why mark them since you could have just "investigated" it yourself before you fell in? The world is too bloody big to do everything by yourself. You need help and support, & have to be able to trust in things & people that you don't have the time/energy/resources to investigate/fix yourself. When you hire people to take care of your kid, how can you be certain they're doing right by your kid? You have trust. But trust requires some mutual understanding of acceptability. Whether a formal law is required to limit violence isn't the point: your reasoning about parenting would suggest that even the voluntary ID checks for M-rated games are pointless. Whether it's enforced by law or de facto by stores themselves, I'm pretty bloody satisfied that I can trust a that there are some bounds on content that are easily accessed by my kid in the years to come. These bounds are NOT perfect and can be worked around, but even kids have only so much time/$/ability, so at least it has the effect of reducing exposure, if not eliminating it. You understand, that this argument here, itself, is us being "part of a village" taking care of our kids. The very communication itself, I mean.

Re:Why people distrust pollsters

[tehcyder]

Agreed. The only people who should be able to ban violent video games for minors are parents.

So what about kids whose parents don't care? The ones without proper parental control are those who need protecting most.

Re:Why people distrust pollsters

[KarrdeSW]

I can gather up 2100 people who would give different numbers.

I'm sure you could, but assuming that the study gathered up 2100 people in a rigorously random fashion and you did too, I'd find that unlikely. Margin of error is a function of sample size, not population. A sample of 2100 describes a population of 300 million just as well as 300 thousand. You only need to factor in population size when your population is actually small enough that your sample will make up a significant portion of it.

Now, admittedly, we're severely lacking in detail on how the sample was gathered. So you may still be right. However, I would say that 72% of anybody would probably answer that loaded question in the affirmative so as to keep from looking like a sociopath.

Re:Why people distrust pollsters

[tehcyder]

The problem is that something like Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 2 is in the realm they want to declare explicit and illegal to sell to minors, while the same kind of content as a movie, TV show, comic book, novel, or even magazine (somehow) would not be "explicit"

Bullshit, films are rated for violence, TV shows generally let you know too. I wouldn't want my eight year old to play COD:MW2 any more than I would want her to watch Hostel.

Re:Why people distrust pollsters

[StuartHankins]

I usually consider myself very much against the government telling me how to do anything. However, I think in this case I'd agree with preventing a minor from purchasing the product. That allows a minor who really wants an adult product to have a parent purchase it for them -- it's not "illegal" to own, it just stops kids from purchasing potentially harmful things. It goes along with the policy of not allowing children to purchase beer, cigarettes, adult magazines or toys, certain weapons, etc.

Why would I change my mind for this when I consider myself a libertarian? I think the harm these games can do to the children is irreparable -- not that it happens in every case. I'm old enough now to see how different my kids behave when compared with other kids who were reared on lots of sugar and violent TV / games. Some of the other kids frankly scare me.

Re:Why people distrust pollsters

[tehcyder]

I for one don't believe that kids need to be insulated from much of anything. Maturity happens from experience, and understanding cannot occur without knowledge.

Only up to a point, or else you might as well say that your kid should live in fucking Somalia for a few years to get first hand knowledge of war, disease, mutilation, rape and terror.

Re:Why people distrust pollsters

[Anonymous Coward]

It won't make parents more responsible no matter what law you pass kids are still going to have a way to get a game and play it and if people have such a problem with it then why not just not get them a game system? This whole "law" seems completely useless

Re:Why people distrust pollsters

[Jaysyn]

That's because you only hear about the problem children in the news & paper. Why? Bad news sells. Think about that for a second.

Re:Why people distrust pollsters

[LWATCDR]

But that doesn't argue that the law shouldn't be in place?
You kid could go over to his friends house and his parents could give him heroin was well.
Or Alcohol.
Or let him smoke.
Hell there are parents out there that will pimp your kid out for sex as well.
That is where you are right about parents need to pay attention.

So far it has been said that the chains are supposed to do this already. So why the fury? You are of course correct about how it will not be a sure thing but then the laws on buying tobacco and alcohol are also not a sure thing. Do you want those repealed as well? BTW someone on Slashdot will for sure along with statutory rape laws.

The truth is that the people that will be not benefit from the laws are those that want to sell anything to anyone just to make money. That and kids that want to buy games that their parents don't want them to buy.

Re:Why people distrust pollsters

[mlk]

UK already has such a situation. Admittedly our Religious-fascists are only 1/10 as scary as yours but even so as of yet two games have been "BANNED!!!" (Carmageddon & Manhunt2), both games when through the review process and were unbanned. I don't think you have much to worry about.

Re:Why people distrust pollsters

[ElectricTurtle]

Open manholes? Really? Apples to oranges, and a terrible strawman. So, since you're (poorly) attempting to articulate an opposing view, let's return to the specified scenario. Would you argue against investigating the people and environments to which your children are normally exposed? I rather think not.

The difference between de jure and de facto boundaries is incredibly important. Where a control is only a de facto implementation by a society or corporation, it allows for change and competing ideas much more easily. When a control is de jure it is necessarily a legal precedent that will generate case law, even if the law is repealed (a rarity) that case law may still be referenced in future decisions, and if the law stands and is enforced it can easily become a slippery slope justification for worse legislation.

You understand, that this argument here, itself, is us being "part of a village" taking care of our kids. The very communication itself, I mean.

I am dismissing, with cause, the advice being rendered. While I may be incidentally part of this hypothetical 'village', the participation in this case heretofore is ultimately unidirectional in effect.

Oh, and the people that I hire to watch my kid I trust as far as I can throw the background check that I did on them. Put that due diligence in your pipe and smoke it.

Re:Why people distrust pollsters

[geekoid]

More correctly:
People don't like polls whose results do not confirm their bias.

Re:Why people distrust pollsters

[Svartalf]

Polls are so inaccurate in most cases. Most people don't get that unless you have a HUGE sample set that represents properly the population you're claiming you're sampling- you don't even have a whiff of the real picture.

Much like statistics, there's lies, damned lies, and polls.

Re:Why people distrust pollsters

[ElectricTurtle]

I think that the exclusion of criminal behavior is normally assumed.

Re:Why people distrust pollsters

[geekoid]

I would of asked her if she knew it was a violent game.

Not that you should of, I just like politely pointing out hypocrisy.

Re:Why people distrust pollsters

[Anonymous Coward]

Or he *gasp* visits friends.

My parents were far more strict (especially video games) than any of my friends' parents. That's why I never had them over, I took my NES, SNES, or arcade money to their house. I pumped probably a couple grand into Street Fighter II alone; my dad saw the game one time and said if he ever caught me playing it there would be dire consequences...

Moral of the story: If an otherwise good kid can get around what he perceives to be unreasonable parental restriction, he will. Most parents agree that laws that limit their kids' ability to circumvent discipline can (read that again: "can") be a good thing. In this case, I think this law empowers interested parents, and the disinterested parents are now more inconvenienced, which may be enough to close some of the disciplinary loopholes. (None of my friends' parents would have let them play those games, but they weren't as active in monitoring us).

Re:Why people distrust pollsters

[DJRumpy]

I find it curious how you accept that fact that not all parents are good parents, then go on to suggest that such a solution wouldn't help the situation. You equate it as totalitarian, when it would simply force parents to purchase it for them.

If such proposed legislation simply put parents in the loop, where is the issue? As a parent, wouldn't you prefer to know what your children are buying and take comfort in the fact that it would be more difficult to get such material without your consent as a child's parent? Do you think controls on liquor and cigarets are totalitarian, or acceptable?

You seem to think that it must be black or white with either complete freedom, or iron fisted control. The reality is that there are all sorts of solutions that work in the middle.

On a personal note, you can present all the studies in the world, when a simple look back on the last 50 years of history shows real world examples of exposure to violence in media. TV, movies, music. Hell, it's celebrated in reality shows. If a child doesn't have proper guidance, and their only role models are the local gang, or characters from TV, drunk and disorderly trash from Jersey, you have to accept that 'monkey see monkey do' from a behavioral perspective will eventually come into play. They are drawn to it like months to a flame, and the popularity of such in popular culture is an end result IMO.

Re:Why people distrust pollsters

[geekoid]

"I am raising a child, and no, it doesn't take a village"

Actually it does..but not literally. If you want your child to have a healthy mental state and decent social skills.
How the kids your children interact with is a strong influence on your child. To have healthy social skills a person needs to understand a wide set of behaviorist. Something people can not learn without others.

I don't raise the 30 other kids in my child's class, nor do I raise the hundreds of other child in the school. Having a common base line set of behaviours is needed, and to get one it takes the community.

To think YOU are the only influenca on your child is wrong, and it's harmful to your child, and its a disservice to you and your child's peers.

". Making it illegal to purchase certain games without parental consent solves nothing. "
Is your child stupid? boring or retarded?

None? well guess what, that child will try to sneak a game you don't want them to play. This makes is harder. It's just a tool.

"Maturity happens from experience, "
some experience are harmful and can impact your child negatively for the rest of their lives.

you are either:
A) Lying about raising a child
B) your child is still very young
C) Raising you child in isolation.

Re:Why people distrust pollsters

[DJRumpy]

Just like a 12 year old can walk into a liquor store and pick up a 5th of gin? I don't think so...

No one said this would remove all responsibility from a parent, and certainly current parents don't just assume their kids can't smoke, do drugs, etc. It will make it more difficult for them however, which achieves something that is better than no control at all.

Re:Why people distrust pollsters

[Chowderbags]

There's also the fact that 2,100 people is a very small number to base any sort of national (or even state) law and policy on. What are the survey demographics? What are the statistically significant differences of opinion based on group? What is the study's power to detect (a significant difference 80% of the time)? Was the survey terminology defined to the participants, or if not - were there survey questions to obtain the participants' definitions of the terms?

The biggest question: Has anyone in the survey played any video games in the last, say, 20 years?

And yeah, "ultraviolence" is a difficult term to define. Is Team Fortress 2 "ultraviolent"? It's got people shooting each other, blowing each other up, etc, etc, but personally I see the violence as being in a similar category as old Loony Toons cartoons. Contrast with the Soldier of Fortune series, which is all about gore. One of these is probably perfectly fine to give to a 10 year old (interaction with other players being a wildcard, but meh), but the other I doubt I'd feel comfortable giving to someone who doesn't have some level of maturity.

Re:Why people distrust pollsters

[ElectricTurtle]

I am arguing that the law shouldn't be in place. Further, the age to drink and smoke is much lower in every other country in the world with little to no correlatible ill effect. I would support the lowering, even the elimination of age restrictions on such things so long as parental authority is not undermined to set the standard of behavior for their children. And if your kids are hanging with heroin addicts/pushers or pimps, you have problems that no law is likely to solve, save for when CPS makes your kids wards of the state.

I also disagree with statutory rape laws insofar as precocious kids sexually experimenting consensually with those their own age should not result in criminal charges. Further I think it is deplorable that teenagers are getting sex offender records for "distributing child porn" for sending lewd pictures of themselves to each other. There should be protection of children from sexual advances of people significantly older for the simple reason that there is too much potential to exploit authority and naivete where significant age differences are involved.

I think you are mistaking me for a different kind of parent.

Re:Why people distrust pollsters

[tepples]

Kids today want to play current games

Tell that to my single-digit-year-old cousin who's a fan of Super Mario Bros. for NES. And tell that to anyone who owns a Nintendo DS Lite, with graphics less detailed than on a decade-old PC.

Re:Why people distrust pollsters

[Anonymous Coward]

I wish we could mod more than +5 sometimes. Kids don't need to be "insulated", but protected and taught how to deal with things and understand them in a safe environment.

- a parent that agrees with you

Re:Why people distrust pollsters

[Kpau]

I was actually part of that poll. I, of course, wrote in the margins loudly that the question was loaded and necessarily opposed the idea of such a law. And yes, I have kids. It would be interesting if the poll was directed at parents who are actually gamers themselves rather than the "mundanes".

Re:Why people distrust pollsters

[tepples]

Then how does a child pay for the MMO if all of the child's lawn care clients pay cash and the MMO only takes credit or debit cards?

Re:Why people distrust pollsters

[ElectricTurtle]

So interaction with people is required to develop social skills? Holy shit! I've been doing it all wrong!

Ugh, please. What we're talking about here ultimately is authority. Authority is delegated from the parents' at the parents' discretion. The insidious core of the 'it takes a village' mindset is that others have some kind of implicit authority over one's children by age or position (here I am talking about the authority to 'raise' which implies education, instruction, etc. not explicitly delegated e.g. you send your kids to a school your are delegating the authority to educate them).

... that child will try to sneak a game you don't want them to play. This makes is harder. It's just a tool.

That's what I said, law or no they will sneak access. My point is that it doesn't make it harder (in any statistically significant sense), but it would still be an (unnecessary) legal reality. Laws are not merely tools. They are imposition of the full power of the state into what would otherwise be private affairs. There needs to be demonstrable benefit before things like that are put in place, as they are very hard to roll back and very easy to expand.

some experience are harmful and can impact your child negatively for the rest of their lives.

As I already said to tehcyder: 'I think that the exclusion of criminal behavior is normally assumed.' Anything less than that is called life. If your kids can't deal with otherwise legal scenarios without being scarred for life, you're doing something wrong.

Re:Why people distrust pollsters

[dwinks616]

And when little Johnny grows up to be a overly-sheltered pussy, then what? Guess what, when the kid turns 18 you cannot legally do a damn thing to restrict what they see. It's far better to have things introduced to them gradually, under your control, and guide them and educate them about such things. But if you want to try to shelter your kid and have them end up fucked up in the head when they turn 18, that's your choice I guess.

Re:Why people distrust pollsters

[morcego]

I also wonder how many people didn't want to be bothered by them, or simply refused to ask.

I mean, if someone approached me saying: "Hello, I'm from Parent Watchdog Group this and that, do you mind if I ask you a few questions ?", I would tell them to go to hell.

Anyone who stops to talk to them is biased already.

Re:Why people distrust pollsters

[ElectricTurtle]

The plural of anecdote is not data. I was speaking generally, and unless you can point to proof of a general appreciation among minors for abandonware, you are not invalidating my point. DS games are also current, and fails to meet criteria for invalidating my point.

Re:Why people distrust pollsters

[DavidTC]

Really? You've firewalled your computers DVD drive?

Or does your child have no friend who can burn a DVD for him?

Re:Why people distrust pollsters

[MindKata]

Its not about what parents purchase for their children, its about biased results from pollsters who are paid to be biased by utterly misguided watchdog groups forcing their self important views of greater control onto everyone else and so lobbying to increase controls on everyone!

Also I see it as a continuum of control, where we slide as a society into ever more state control over time, often driven by these lobby groups (who play into the hands of the control the NPDs in society want which is ever more power over everyone).

We should be specifically targeting the problems yet these watchdog groups totally fail to even see the real problems. They attempt utterly wrong straight associations between violence in media to violence against others. That is totally false.

"Hell, it's celebrated in reality shows."

The formula for a reality show, is take a room full of Histrionic Personality Disorders (HPD, i.e. attention seekers), and then throw in a few Narcissistic Personality Disorders (NPD) to mess with the HPD's. Both HPD and NPD are cluster B disorders and their behaviours centre around their insecurities, namely need for attention in HPDs, in a room with NPD's who need power over others. Therefore is it any wonder we have endless reality shows that are filled with people who lack empathy for others whilst they are more preoccupied by their own insecurities. The reality shows thrive on exploiting these behaviours and we have other media people who in their work seek attention through their work (see the pattern of seeking attention again, i.e. predominately Histrionic) and so these people hold these reality show attention seekers up as role models of good ways to be like them! ... the media channels over time have become infested with Histrionic and Narcissist people who are attracted to the attention media gives combined with the power to influence buying choices and political choices of people.

The cluster B disorders are dominating society and they put down anyone who is not like them. The attention seekers put down others so they can gain more attention by humiliating others and as I noted, the NPDs also put down others, to in their case, feel more in control over others.

Yet all this behaviour is driven by their Personality Disorders and not violence in any media, i.e. video games!

Re:Why people distrust pollsters

[ElectricTurtle]

Ew... I said 'your are'... that's what I get for typing too fast with a head cold on Robitussin.

Re:Why people distrust pollsters

[Svartalf]

Uh, no... It's not forcing anything except making the stores be legally unable to sell the stuff instead of by their own decision.

It's no different than it is now, except that now you've got a law to selectively enforce on the books- just like every other law there is. Hell, they're selectively enforcing much more important laws right now with immigration right at the moment.

Re:Why people distrust pollsters

[AlamedaStone]

I have to go with MindKata on this one, although NPD is hardly the beginning and end of mental illness in modern US society. There is non-trivial correlation between the abysmal state of the individual's ability to acquire and maintain effective mental health care and poor parenting and coping skills.

If we really want to take a serious look at (some of...) the underlying causes of violence and willful ignorance in this country, the trail begins with health insurance companies. In the current system, immediate diagnosis followed by prescription is heavily rewarded, and real psychotherapeutic work is almost entirely unsupported. This system also reinforces a "take a pill, magic cure" style of thinking, both propping up the pharmaceutical industry and allowing people to receive "treatment" without the hard, self-reflective work that is most useful to people with some of the most devastating (and pervasive) illnesses.

Of course, another part of the story is the stigma associated with mental health, reinforced by the stark political caricatures of latte-drinkin San Fran and redneck bible thumper.

Not entirely off-topic, I saw McCain's daughter on Stew-beef last week, and she seems to be ramping up a political career based on bringing the moderate Republicans back to the table. As a queer, latte drinking liberal, I think we all benefit if the moderates start having conversations again, and I strongly encourage people to vote moderate - even if it's across party lines. (Hell, my mom just voted Rep on that basis, and to my horror I congratulated her).

When I sit back and look at it all, I'm amazed at how it all links together, and just how much we are actually empowered to effect change.

Re:Why people distrust pollsters

[Anonymous Coward]

I believe you confuse "responsible" with "obsessive control freak". Controlling every aspect of the kid's live doesn't help it develop as a better person, it just makes it more secretive and less likely to trust it's parents. If your children buy things behind your back, video games are the least you should wory about. And if they don't, why do you need to buy it for them in the first place?

Re:Why people distrust pollsters

[Anonymous Coward]

While I agree that ultimately it is the parents responsibility. I also know from experience of being at an EB Games and seeing a kid who couldn't have been older then 8 take a copy of Grand Theft Auto 3 to the counter and try to have his grandmother purchase it for him. The employee didn't bat an eye at this. I was a bit shocked. I asked the grandmother if she knew what the ratings on the packages meant. I gave her a quick explanation (pissing the little kid off. he threw a tantrum),t she thanked me and told the kid too pick something else out. I then berated the employee for this kind of crap 3 other parents in the store proceeded to look at the games their kids were buying to look at the rating. None of them had any idea bout it.

Seriously, I have no problem when guardians of children decide they can watch R rated movies and play M rated games. It is clearly their choice, and ultimately should be. However, it should be an informed choice.

I think the real issue here is kids get allowances. They spend this money on things they want. They cannot go to a Theater and see an R rated movie without a parent buying a ticket for them. Likewise they cannot buy or rent R Rated movies from a store without a parent there or without a comment on the account specifically stating the child can. Why should games be any different. I mean seriously there are games out there that no child under 10 should play. I am talking about the snuff style games out there. Anyone who says different is delusional.

The Problem is more about education about the games and what kind of content they contain. But even an informed parent cannot stop a child spending their allowance to go buy a game like this and hide it under the bed. So having an extra bit of protection for parents out their is a good thing.

Re:Why people distrust pollsters

[Anonymous Coward]

And the topic is about making such things illegal. Oh the irony of your idiocy.

Re:Why people distrust pollsters

[LWATCDR]

Actually I think you understanding of the law is a not what it should be.
"I also disagree with statutory rape laws insofar as precocious kids sexually experimenting consensually with those their own age should not result in criminal charges. Further I think it is deplorable that teenagers are getting sex offender records for "distributing child porn" for sending lewd pictures of themselves to each other."
Statutory rape laws are an adult having sex with anyone under 18 with the exception made if there is two years or less difference in age.
AKA an 18 year old with a 16 year old is okay.
It has nothing to do with sexting.
That comes under child pornography laws.
I do agree that they those should probably follow the same rules as statutory rape. If caught doing so a teen should at worst get a nice fine and a slap on the wrist for being dumb. They should not get a record as a sex offender that will follow them forever.

You are making such a firm statement about laws but yet you do not seem to understand them.

Also you fail to show how a law restricting sale of violent video games is wrong.
Your claim that they will not provide 100% protection isn't a valid reason. No law does including laws on murder and rape but I doubt that anyone thinks those should be repealed.

Strong opinions with a lack of knowledge is just not a good thin when it comes to laws.

Let's be honest. The real people that do not want these laws are the big media companies. They want to sell and make money and they really don't care how they do it. Sex and violence sell. The game companies do not care about freedom of expression or art. They care about money.
They love the current system where games are listed as M for mature. Mature? they are for the most part aimed at males below the age of 30!
Not the most mature demographic on the planet.
They are not mature at all. Hey I am over 40 and I do play some of those titles myself. They are good adolescent fun but they are not mature.

Re:Why people distrust pollsters

[AlamedaStone]

Agreed. The only people who should be able to ban violent video games for minors are parents.

So what about kids whose parents don't care? The ones without proper parental control are those who need protecting most.

For kids with negligent parents, video games are pretty low on the priority list of problems. I mean, yes, yes, poor parenting can be subjective, but children being locked in the basement and starved isn't exactly Saturday morning cartoons.

Until there's a pill for bad parents, intervention has to start in the community. Government intervention services need to be last on a long list of steps to child safety. Rereading this, it sounds like "think of the children", which I detest. It's really a call to individuals to take responsibility for a community and not just their own brood. In a way, we are all responsible for bad parenting. "Not my problem" isn't working.

Re:Why people distrust pollsters

[DavidTC]

Yes, but it's not 3 year olds who want to play GTA. It would be pretty impressive if a 3 year old could play GTA, but, regardless, they don't run down to Gamestop and buy the game, or pirate it online.

When people are talking about 'minors' getting access to violent video games, they're talking about ten and above, really.

Incidentally, studies have show it's not a problem 'distinguishing fantasy from reality'. Even very very young children, despite common knowledge, can tell real things from imaginary things, and know what is happening on TV isn't real.

The problem is that knowing it's not real doesn't mean they won't take social clues from it. They don't know the difference between an adult telling them 'Don't hit' and a TV show showing people hitting...they're both, strictly speaking, 'pretend'. They don't know the difference between hypothetical instructions and fictional stories.

However, they probably can't tell real life playacting, which humans distinguish by deliberate overacting, from reality.

Re:Why people distrust pollsters

[Anonymous Coward]

Actually, this would be government forcing parents to be responsible for what their kids see.

Actually, this would be government holding parents responsible for what their kids see. (And charging them extortant fees when the kid is caught sneaking a copy of GTA behind the parents back.)

Re:Why people distrust pollsters

[AltairDusk]

It's not up to you to agree or disagree with it. That's the parent's right to make the decision and since she bought it for her kid knowing what was in it, it's now her responsibility. When her kid pulls his car over to kick prostitutes, she is going to have a hard time taking the game maker to court since she knowingly bought the game. It might even help further if a big label was on the cover of the game that says something to the affect of "Hey, mom! This game has whore kicking!"

Oh I agree, I was more surprised by the hypocrisy of complaining about violent games then turning around and buying her son the exact sort of game she was just complaining about.

Re:Why people distrust pollsters

[guyminuslife]

You forget, tight white clothing and top hats.

And preferably a giant sculpture of a penis.

Re:Why people distrust pollsters

[Anonymous Coward]

Violence in the U.S. is out of control, with youth today showing no respect for life, and peer pressure to do violence all to easy to find

What are you basing that on? It hasn't been my experience.

Re:Why people distrust pollsters

[Anonymous Coward]

Yeah if only there weren't sugary foods and video games back when Charles Whitman was climbing that tower he never would have..... wait a moment...

Well in fairness I suppose it was a huge brain tumor that set him off... I'll tell ya what lets make a bill making it illegal for children to have brain tumors, then we'll have this discussion about whether games turn children to Chutes and Ladders related violence.

Re:Why people distrust pollsters

[Anonymous Coward]

Why would I change my mind for this when I consider myself a libertarian?

Change your mind or stop mislabeling yourself. "Oh, let's ban minors from being considered as people and not let them possess money. No more buying ANYTHING without parental approval because just about anything can cause irreparable harm. And we'll call ourselves libertarians just to poison the word."

Re:Why people distrust pollsters

[Anonymous Coward]

The parents you're describing should be banned from having any more kids. Violent entertainment shouldn't be banned for everyone else because of these dickheads. Especially when they're targeting one type, video games, and not doing a god damn thing about movies after all the years they've been around. Not to mention other forms of violent entertainment that are common and have no restriction at all (books) or just an advisory sticker (albums).

Re:Why people distrust pollsters

[DJRumpy]

Pay particular attention to the chart. Why such a high statistic in violence in the US? It shows the homicide rate for males 15-24 years of age in the U.S. We essentially blow the curve with nearly 5 times the homicide rate in this group as compared to the next closest nation:

http://www.netwellness.org/healthtopics/domesticv/graph.gif

http://www.humaniteinenglish.com/article542.html

http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/law/july-dec99/violence_12-16.html

This last one is one that I find most troubling from the CDC:

omicide and suicide are responsible for approximately one fourth of deaths among persons aged 10--24 years in the United States.

http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/mm5329a1.htm

Re:Why people distrust pollsters

[DJRumpy]

And that is the problem with rhetoric. They aren't talking about 'banning' anything. They are talking about putting controls on it so that a parent must decide to purchase a game for their child.

The parents you're describing should be banned from having any more kids. Violent entertainment shouldn't be banned for everyone else because of these dickheads.

Re:Why people distrust pollsters

[Anonymous Coward]

So why the fury?

Because once the government gets involved, some 70 year old republican ninny is going to declare that Pac-Man offends his religious sensibilities while some 70 year old democratic ninny whines about Ms. Pac-Man's tits, and they'll both agree that they need more government to protect us all. When those two bunches decide to work together, may God help us all!

Re:Why people distrust pollsters

[ElectricTurtle]

You are making such a firm statement about laws but yet you do not seem to understand them.

Pot, meet kettle. The exceptions you are speaking of are collectively known as 'Romeo and Juliet' laws and vary from state to state (and are far from standard or common, I can find less than a dozen states with such laws). There are states where any sexual contact below the age of consent is illegal. This is especially true for homosexual contact (look up the case of Matthew Limon who was given a 17 year sentence for consensual sex where 15 months would have been given if the case had been heterosexual and thereby covered under the local 'Romeo and Juliet' law). Do some research before you start throwing out accusations of a lack of understanding.

Nor was arguing from a position of (lack of) perfect efficacy. I was arguing that there would be little to no efficacy. And a comparison to violent crime is false on its face. Violent crimes are illegal because they are always harmful. Violent games would be restricted as a means to an idea of enacting somebody's concept of a positive social change or the empowerment of the lazy and irresponsible to delegate one more thing to the ever watchful, omnibenevolent state. Completely different motivations, goals, and degrees of importance.

Strong opinions with a lack of knowledge is just not a good thin [sic] when it comes to laws.

Been looking the mirror have we?

The real people that do not want these laws are the big media companies.

So I'm not a real person? A bit dehumanizing don't you think? And you'll pardon me if I don't think a debate about the semantics of the word 'mature' is worth my time.

Re:Why people distrust pollsters

[LWATCDR]

Homosexual laws an a whole different kettle of fish and you are correct there.
If most states do not have the two year rule than you are also correct. I do feel they should be included.
But
Statutory rape laws have nothing to do with sexting.
Which is what you went off on.

Thing is that you not liking a law is no reason to not pass it.
There has to be a legal reason to not pass it if the majority of people want it.
In this case I can see none.
Since this is restricting access to material that the people feel is harmful to minors to minors.
There is an abundance of legal rulings in favor of that.
It has no negative effect on adult consumers. It doesn't restrict their access.

The only negative effect it will have is on those that want to sell this material to minors.
That is why you do not see folks like Walmart and Gamestop raising a fuss.
The already enforce this as company policy.
They will have to be more diligent but this will have no real effect on their sells.
The Game makers don't want it because they will not make as many sales.

Why you are so worried about it? I can only think that you feel that this is some attack on liberty but you are probably in the minority of the population.

Re:Why people distrust pollsters

[Zerth]

If the parents are bad parents, the children should be taken because bad parents will buy it for the children anyway.

We should focus on the problem, not taking freedom of choice from everyone who will act properly already.

Re:Why people distrust pollsters

[zeroshade]

It might even help further if a big label was on the cover of the game that says something to the affect[sic] of "Hey, mom! This game has whore kicking!"

Riiiight.....and movies should have a giant label that says "Hey, mom! This movie has beheading!", books should have giant labels that say "Hey, mom! This book has bad words in it!"

Give me a break. The back of the box says that there is violence, sexual themes, etc., if she doesn't know that the game might contain something violent then she's not paying attention at all.

If movies, books, comics, paintings, etc. don't need to have giant warning labels then games don't either.

Re:Why people distrust pollsters

[houghi]

I would agree with forbidding selling violent games to minors. They should not stop at video games, but all things, like chess. A lot of murdering an killing going on right there. Roadrunner? Way to violent to show. And do not even start me about the most violent book I have heard of: the bible.

The best thing you can do is protect children in a bubble and then let them loose when they turn 18. I know a girl who grew up like that. She became the greatest slut in school. See, everybody wins.

Re:Why people distrust pollsters

[ElectricTurtle]

Jesus you really like line breaks don't you? It's like reading free verse.

Just because I decided to mention two related things (which I didn't conflate, I specifically called out 'sexting' as 'distributing child porn' not 'statutory rape', that conflation is in your own head for whatever reason) which are different charges does not mean they can have 'nothing to do with' each other. This just in: teens who send naughty pictures to each other are probably going to get it on if they haven't already. Sorry to disabuse you.

As for laws, I can have an opinion, based on efficacy, against a given law. That is my prerogative. Obviously in a democracy if the majority wants something and it is Constitutional, my personal opinion is going to have no binding effect. I can't believe I'm explaining something this obvious. You say you're over 40? Are you senile? Anyway, the "passability" of a law is not an inherent justification of that law. A majority of people can be wrong.

Just because this would affect minors and not adults doesn't make it any less important. I hate that attitude, 'oh well, it doesn't affect me so whatever lol!' It is a restriction that is unnecessary and a continuation of the lazy delegation of parental duties to the state. As such is ultimately detrimental to the quality of the family, the example set by parents for their children, and the integrity of the nation as a whole. It's this 'who cares, it doesn't affect me so if it passes it must be fine' attitude that has led to unjust, bigoted laws like Defense of Marriage Acts.

Re:Why people distrust pollsters

[Zerth]

... big label was on the cover of the game that says something to the affect of "Hey, mom! This game has whore kicking!"

So it would be like music, everybody buying just the boxes with that "Seal of Quality". :)

Re:Why people distrust pollsters

[Blakey Rat]

It goes along with the policy of not allowing children to purchase beer, cigarettes, adult magazines or toys, certain weapons, etc.

Policy. Not law.

Store policy.

Stores can already refuse to sell the product to anybody they want to, that doesn't change. What these people are trying to do is pass a *law* that says the *government* must enforce the restriction... this is more strict than the movie industry, the comics industry, the printing industry. (Hell, the printing industry doesn't have jack right now-- any 10-year-old can walk into a bookstore and buy American Psycho.)

Point being, I have no problem with any kind of voluntary policy covering violent video games. These already exist. These are already sufficient, as the voluntary policies covering R-rated movies are sufficient. There's no reason the video game industry should have a law where no other industry does.

Re:Why people distrust pollsters

[MobyDisk]

...allows a minor who really wants an adult product...

Ahhh... but you are not thinking like a libertarian. The libertarian asks this question: "Who decides what is an adult product, and what is not?" And therein lies the problem with these kinds of laws.

Re:Why people distrust pollsters

[Zerth]

I've seen a bootable memory stick XP, I assume there will be a win7 if there isn't already.

You'll have to check your BIOS on a regular basis to see if it has been reset to allow booting from USB.

And after that, you'll have to keep your kid from dumpster diving old computer parts and building his own.

Re:Why people distrust pollsters

[zeroshade]

Just like a 12 year old can walk into a movie theater and see an R rated movie? Oh right, they can't. Right now, a 12 year old cannot just walk into a Gamestop and buy GTAIV. Why? Because of self-regulation. Gamestop store policy, they will not sell it to them. The exact same thing that stops a 12 year old from seeing an R rated movie. Also, any minor can get access to liquor fairly easily if they want to/have the right friends.

Also, comparing video games to liquor is completely inaccurate. Considering that liquor is a drug and video games are an artistic medium. The argument is that there is no proof that video games are harmful in any way, only opinions.

Anyways, to prove my original point. What if the parents of the kid down the road buy gin? What if they are stupid parents and don't have a problem with their kid having some of this gin? What if he shares it with your kid? Oh my, that regulation that prohibits the sale of liquor to minors just took you, the parent, completely out of the equation because all your kid has to do is ask to hang out with the guy down the street. Not mention anything about the gin, and viola, they get access to it. No control at all. The only way this could be stopped is if you actually pay attention to your kid, who they associate with and where they go. Which of course has nothing to do with the regulations.

Not to mention the fact that, since games are very different than liquor or some controlled substance, unlike the above scenario there's a much higher chance that the parents would have bought their kid a "ultraviolent" video game than allow them to have gin. So in this situation, the regulation that you want so much would have done absolutely nothing.

What is the solution? Parental controls on consoles and computers is one. But that doesn't solve the problem about going to a friend's house if their parents don't use parental controls. Well then you'd have to prevent them going over to their friend's house. Hmm...that doesn't seem to work as well either because then they'd just subvert your authority by either lying or both going to some other friend's house. It's not like liquor or some other drug where you can test for it/other factors make it easy to notice it is happening. Perhaps the only solution is to TALK to your children, discuss this with them. Realize that there is actually nothing inherently wrong with video games, violent or otherwise. Maybe do some parenting and raise your kids correctly and you won't worry at all about them playing violent games because you can TRUST them? Government regulations won't give you any of this. All this restriction would do is give the children who are rebellious another thing to be rebellious about, give parents a new reason to have arguments with the parents of their children's friends, and waste police manpower in pursuing store clerks. There is no substitution for parenting. Try to trust your kids, it can make a huge difference in their life.

Wait...sorry. I forgot. Parenting is much much too difficult nowadays. We have to think of the children and protect them from everything....you should never put any amount of trust in them. They can be corrupted by the smallest little thing, make sure they are isolated from everything, or else....

</rant> That felt good. =p

Re:Why people distrust pollsters

[phantomfive]

Check out the number of people here on Slashdot who have written in support of the proposed law, and have gotten modded up! And this is among the slashdot crowd, which typically opposes idiots who say violent video games affect you.

Given the support on even Slashdot, it wouldn't surprise me if in the real world a large percentage would agree to this law, no matter how the question is asked.

Re:Why people distrust pollsters

[Anonymous Coward]

I grew up eating lots of sugar and watching plenty of violent movies/TV, playing violent games, playing D&D, etc. I turned out just fine. What I had were parents who trusted me to make good decisions and who were actually there. The problem isn't these products, and you can find many more studies that show this than ones that do. The problem is parents who do not pay attention to their children. And yes, there is a difference between trusting your children and not paying attention.

Then look at what the majority of violent attackers committed their crimes for: anger about the government, depressed over a girl/boy, bullied by classmates, gangs, etc. You don't see people committing mass murder because video games made them feel it was okay.

Re:Why people distrust pollsters

[Fumus]

And we all know such a law will work. As far as I know, selling porn, alcohol and cigarettes to minors is also illegal. Does that prevent kids form watching porn, drinking and smoking?
Especially since kids can download porn and games for free, it is not going to change much in how many children play violent games.

Re:Why people distrust pollsters

[IndustrialComplex]

Little Johnny can warez the portable version of Postal 2 in about 2 hours if he was so inclined & had a broadband Internet connection. It ignores everything you just mentioned above.

I tell Little Johnny no. If Little Johnny ignores me his Little Johnny ass is going to be outside trimming the hedge instead of doing fun Little Johnny things.

It's not going to immediately hurt him, so punishment after the fact is perfectly adequate to address the situation and builds respect and trust between the parent and child.

Re:Why people distrust pollsters

[Anonymous Coward]

You seem to have forgotten the favorite meme most often associated with FSM-type stories. Correlation is not causation. Just because the kids "were reared on lots of sugar and violent TV / games" does not prove that either of those two were the cause. I'd suspect the style of parenting that leads to allowing kids access to those is what would make the kids "scary", not the violent television or violent games.

Re:Why people distrust pollsters

[Jaysyn]

And this is exactly what is supposed to happen. Why do we need more laws & on an art no less?

Re:Why people distrust pollsters

[DJRumpy]

Considering it's illegal to give alcohol to a minor, most parents would never give a child liquor. By the same reasoning, if they gave this Rated M the force of law rather than the honor system, the situations you describe would become far less likely.

The comparison to alcohol is accurate, you're simply confusing the comparison I made. I'm comparing the fact that alcohol is a controlled access substance, meaning a minor can't just walk into a store and buy it. The same is true if they passed legislation for games. The end result would be EXACTLY the same, requiring an adult to purchase them and for the same reason (to keep it out of the hands of minors), hence the comparison is valid.

If a child were to get around the issue illegally, then that is a parental issue that no law can resolve. In your world view, no law would be useful if they can't be 100% infallible, which of course will never happen. Laws curb irresponsible behavior, but they can never stop it. In other words, laws against auto-theft might make you avoid stealing a car due to the consequences, but they can never prevent you from doing so.

That is up to the individual to choose whether to break it or not and whether the action is worth the risk. If there are no consequences of concern to the individual, of course they will break it. If you make the consequences worrisome enough, they are far more likely to comply. It is the basis of behavioral teaching for all children. Slap their hand hard enough, and they won't do something 'bad' again. Ignore them and they will continue to do so.

Such a law would also give incentive and consequences to parents and 'friends' who would break such a law to help a buddy out. Any such law could easily be setup as a 'PG' law, meaning parents could give their children such if they deemed it appropriate.

Re:Why people distrust pollsters

[socrplayr813]

Major retailers already have policies against selling these types of games to minors. The real problem is that parents buy them for their kids without even looking at the box. All of these types of games have a giant 'M' (or similar rating) on the front, telling the parent/child/whoever that the game is for MATURE people only. Major retailers like Gamespot, Walmart, etc., will not sell to a minor. If the parent still buys it for their kid, it's their problem.

I think my tax money can go somewhere more useful now, like funding schools, or science, or ANYTHING OTHER THAN THIS POLITICAL BULLSHIT.

Re:Why people distrust pollsters

[mqduck]

I'm averse to the whole "it should be up to the parents" argument every time something like this comes up. If it were up to me, I'd pass a law saying that you get the right at 15 to play violent games even if your parents don't want you to.

Re:Why people distrust pollsters

[scot4875]

I wouldn't expect GP to recognize hypocrisy; he's consistently clamoring about the evils of government control and how everything it does restricts our freedoms... But now, for some reason, *this* would be a reasonable exception, and should be under control of the government.

--Jeremy

Re:Why people distrust pollsters

[Schadrach]

Games have ratings as well. The difference is we're not making it illegal to show Hostel, and fining the theater if a kid manages to see it.

What they're trying to push is to treat something like CoD: MW2 in the same category as something like pornography, rather than like TV or movies with similar content.

Re:Why people distrust pollsters

[LambdaWolf]

Do you think a lot of people are going to say that they support something that was just described to them as "ultraviolent" and "sexually violent"?

I'm especially interested in this term "ultraviolent". What is supposed to distinguish ultraviolence from regular violence anyway? It seems pretty obvious that people are subliminally extrapolating from the word ultraviolet and don't realize how dumb they sound.

Ultraviolence: violence that is even violenter than the violentest violence that can by seen by the human eye.

Re:Why people distrust pollsters

[StuartHankins]

So you would rather pay later, when the damage is already done? You're going to pay either way, and usually it's cheaper to pay for preventative measures.

If you've seen the current generation, and spent any time with them, surely you have to agree that these games are part of the problem. Dehumanizing killing, I've seen elementary school kids playing some of these games. It starts to affect them at an early age.

I'm hoping a law will prompt the parents to think more before purchasing it for their kids.

Re:Why people distrust pollsters

[Anonymous Coward]

Man, you're just like every other person who buys into the line of "THINK OF THE CHILDREN". No, you should think of the poor excuses of parents that can't manage to deal with their own lazy selves and can't put the time and effort in to raising their own children.

Re:Why people distrust pollsters

[monkyyy]

i`d probably be one of those kids :D higurashi is the best show ever and a bit less then 2 litters of soda a day.... but anyway limiting is the first step to outlawing, parents need to keep track of their kids w/o goverment help

Re:Why people distrust pollsters

[Haedrian]

"Do you think that minors should be prohibited from buying games which allow you to tase people, urinate on them, douse them in petrol, set them alight, dismember them and then kick the head around - without parental consent"?

Re:Why people distrust pollsters

[Defenestrar]

Yes - you're talking about the power to detect a significant difference. However, the power to detect is based entirely on the assumption of a normal data set. They did not address this in the article or on Zogby's blog. Also, if they did a CA area code survey, or registered voter of county X, or whatever it is unlikely that they picked random samples representative to the US population as a whole. So much of statistics is based on assumptions - if which they are invalid the "significant results" are equally invalid. You can chalk up the lack of such important information to bad reporting in the article, but Zogby's blog should know better.

Re:Why people distrust pollsters

[zeroshade]

Considering it's illegal to give alcohol to a minor, most parents would never give a child liquor. By the same reasoning, if they gave this Rated M the force of law rather than the honor system, the situations you describe would become far less likely.

The comparison to alcohol is accurate, you're simply confusing the comparison I made. I'm comparing the fact that alcohol is a controlled access substance, meaning a minor can't just walk into a store and buy it. The same is true if they passed legislation for games. The end result would be EXACTLY the same, requiring an adult to purchase them and for the same reason (to keep it out of the hands of minors), hence the comparison is valid.

But you right there proved the comparison is not valid. It is illegal for a parent to give the alcohol to a minor. It would not be illegal for a parent to buy the M rated game for a minor. That makes things a key difference. Currently, any game store requires the parent to purchase M rated games anyways thus this legislation would have absolutely no effect. Because it's not illegal to give the child the game, there is nothing that would stop the parent from giving their child the game as there would be with giving the child liquor. It is not accurate.

In your world view, no law would be useful if they can't be 100% infallible, which of course will never happen. Laws curb irresponsible behavior, but they can never stop it. In other words, laws against auto-theft might make you avoid stealing a car due to the consequences, but they can never prevent you from doing so.

I can see where you would get that idea, and I apologize because that was not my intention. I believe that there should be no law telling you the proper or improper way to raise your own child. That consumption of media is not inherently harmful, and if you believe that it would harm your child you need to discuss it with them. I don't believe that no law is useful if it can't be 100% infallible. I believe that if a law is utterly useless on its face, it is not useful. Giving the force of law to the ESRB makes the situation worse, not better. It will encourage children to keep what they play hidden from their parents rather than get them involved. Essentially, the exact opposite of the purpose. (Mind you, I'm someone who agrees the drinking age should be lowered to 18. Aside from other reasons, I think it's ridiculous that you can go off to war, but can't have a beer with your pals.)

That is up to the individual to choose whether to break it or not and whether the action is worth the risk. If there are no consequences of concern to the individual, of course they will break it. If you make the consequences worrisome enough, they are far more likely to comply. It is the basis of behavioral teaching for all children. Slap their hand hard enough, and they won't do something 'bad' again. Ignore them and they will continue to do so.

So why can't the parent do the parenting? Why do we need to have a law to do it for them?

Such a law would also give incentive and consequences to parents and 'friends' who would break such a law to help a buddy out. Any such law could easily be setup as a 'PG' law, meaning parents could give their children such if they deemed it appropriate.

I would love to see you advocate this in the case of movies and books too. Might show you how ridiculous it is. You have an 20 year old and a 16 year old sibling. They want to go see an R rated movie. The law says that the 16 year old can't see the movie, even with the 20 year old sibling. Or even better, say they had a significant other who was 17. They can't go see the movie because the 17 year old isn't their parent? Or maybe we shouldn't allow children to buy copies of the bible because it has scenes of gore, violence, and discussions of rape?

Aside from my original argument that the idea of the government passing a law to parent children instead of the parents is ridiculous. The idea that video games should be treated like a controlled substance while movies, books, and other media is not, just sickens me.

Re:Why people distrust pollsters

[ildon]

As long as the adult is able to purchase the game no problem, then that question is irrelevant. It doesn't really restrict the freedoms of the adult, just might add a little hassle (they have to be present to purchase it instead of sending the kid into the store on his own while you browse clothes at Sears), and we as a society have already established that minors cannot be trusted with full freedoms on their own, so no harm in restricting theirs further.

Re:Why people distrust pollsters

[socrplayr813]

A thousand times no. I coach kids' soccer and know a number of teachers who teach from age 5 all the way up. I work with my kids all the time and hear many more stories from the teachers. Nearly all of the stories about bad children start with a parent who was not paying attention or did not care enough to be involved in their child's life. Anecdotal, yes, but it's more than you've typed.

And anyway, how exactly are you making the connection between games and children? That's a hefty claim with no evidence. These kids all drink water and breathe oxygen on a regular basis. Who's to say those aren't the cause of whatever behaviors you're talking about? (Not saying evidence doesn't exist, but how about you provide some. The burden of proof is on you because you're the one that wants to waste legislator time and taxpayer money for a new law.)

Regardless, the bottom line is that we don't need a law to protect kids from games. It's the job of the parents to determine what is appropriate for their kids. If they're not capable or willing, then something else is seriously wrong with society. Games are a convenient scapegoat, just like TV, movies, and music before them. It's CONTEXT that makes a thing bad. Parents are supposed to provide that.

Definition of parenting from Wikipedia:
Parenting is the process of promoting and supporting the physical, emotional, social, and intellectual development of a child from infancy to adulthood. Parenting refers to the activity of raising a child rather than the biological relationship.

Irresponsible parents should not be trying to use my tax money to have somebody else put words on paper to have yet another guy protect their kid. Protect your own damn kid if you think it's necessary. I'm not the one that had the kid and it's not my problem.

Since I know you'll try this next, let me clarify:
I'm not saying 6 year olds should be playing GTA or similar, but parents are the ones who need to police this, not the government. Retailers already voluntarily follow the rating system in place for games. They WILL NOT sell a mature title to a minor. Let me say that again. RETAILERS ALREADY REFUSE TO SELL TO MINORS. Making it a law doesn't change anything. Educate the damn parents. Sterilize them, I don't care. Stop wasting my money flailing around, legislating things that already work as intended.

Yes, I rambled a bit and I'm sorry if my post is not very eloquent, but this crap has gone on long enough. Get off your fat asses, parents, and do some actual parenting.

Re:Why people distrust pollsters

[MobyDisk]

I'm not sure if you are joking, so I'll reply just in case. If you were, a good *whoosh* is sufficient. :-)

As long as the adult is able to purchase the game no problem, then that question is irrelevant.

Okay, so lets take two cases:

Case 1: The answer is "nothing is an adult product" which means children can buy any game they want, and the law is pointless.

Case 2: The answer is "all games are adult procuts" which means children can buy no games, adults must buy them.

You are saying that both of these cases are the same.

we as a society have already established that minors cannot be trusted with full freedoms on their own, so no harm in restricting theirs further.

Wait, so if we restrict the rights of some group somewhat, that means we can restrict it further? So... it is not okay for adults to commit murder. So there is no harm in restricting it further. So... adults cannot speak or read. That's okay? The argument that one restriction is okay cannot mean that all restrictions are thus okay.

Re:Why people distrust pollsters

[JThundley]

You're avoiding the question. You say you agree with preventing a minor from purchasing violent video games, but do you think that a LAW needs to be passed? Do you think that the industry is doing a good enough job in keeping these games out of the hands of children the same way the movie industry is keeping minors out of R and NC-17 rated movies?

Re:Why people distrust pollsters

[StuartHankins]

Hmm I thought I was direct enough. Very well then, I will make it clear to you: make this law. Obviously the current system is not working. Until I can wave my fingers and make people smarter, we will need laws to protect the dumbest from themselves. Or we can send them to an island or whatever.

If I could ensure that these violent kids would affect no one but themselves I would be fine with leaving things as-is. But their behaviors affect others, sometimes horrifically, and if we keep going down the road we are on, the future is not pretty.

The efforts of the entertainment industry are pathetic -- each tries to outshock the other. They have learned that violence sells especially to those with lowered sensibilities. As a whole our society is losing what enlightenment we had and is devolving at a rapid pace.

Re:Why people distrust pollsters

[JThundley]

What world are you living in? You're saying that current system is not working, which means that children are buying violent video games and causing excessive amounts of crime and violence because of this. Crime has been around since at least the 70's, I doubt that today's video games are the cause of all society's ills.

Captcha: dogmas

I RTFA and no poll data

[HBI]

Is this an "all" or "registered voter" poll? What areas? But I won't find that out from this article.

Besides which, Zogby has been sucking hind tit in polling for at least the last decade. Blown calls of '04 and '08, badly blown ones on Election Day, come to mind.

I wouldn't trust him if he told me the sky was blue, without checking.

The other day...

[O('_')O_Bush]

I got carded when buying Modern Warfare 2 for PS3 at Target. I'm 22, and look the part, but the system still wouldn't let me purchase the game without scanning the barcode on my license.

Seems like there already are measures in place to keep minors from getting M rated games, so what is the issue here?

Re:The other day...

[tophermeyer]

Those measures are put in place mainly by retailers.

Like the MPAA, the ESRB encourages retailers to set aged based restrictions to games with more mature ratings. Their goal is to make sure that laws don't need to be passed, and retailers are being responsible in who they sell violent/sexual games to.

Unfortunately it is really hard for the ESRB to get retailers to play along. They have very little power over the industry other than to withhold a content rating, they have no ability to stop distribution to any retailer that doesn't play nice. That is why some people are claiming we need laws.

Re:The other day...

[Anonymous Coward]

These things are randomly assigned by the system for certain products. I don't see the point myself, but that's what's being implements all over the place. I had the same experience with games (also at Target) and beer, despite graying hair and a lot of stubble. You and I think it's daft, women love it though, they they're being asked because they look so young.

Re:The other day...

[Anonymous Coward]

The issue is that there are other places to buy games besides Target.

Re:The other day...

[Anonymous Coward]

Unfortunately it is really hard for the ESRB to get retailers to play along. They have very little power over the industry other than to withhold a content rating, they have no ability to stop distribution to any retailer that doesn't play nice.

So what is the issue? The government needs to assert its authority here because ________.
"because there isn't a law ..." - awesome tactic, make laws because there aren't any
"too many kids are buying these games" - and... this is bad because?

Seriously, what is the real issue. We don't make laws just for the fuck of it.

Re:The other day...

[Anonymous Coward]

I got carded when buying Modern Warfare 2 for PS3 at Target. I'm 22, and look the part, but the system still wouldn't let me purchase the game without scanning the barcode on my license.

Seems like there already are measures in place to keep minors from getting M rated games, so what is the issue here?

That's just a ploy so they can collect your information for marketing purposes. There is no genuine concern about whether minors get games or not.

Re:The other day...

[jdcope]

Its not the retailers job to babysit the damn kids either.

Re:The other day...

[Shadow99_1]

The 'goal' these people claim with laws like this is the same as what actually does exist now. In fact the ESRB has had better success getting retailers to play along then states have had banning the sale of cigarettes to minors! I can't believe so many people are complaining about a system that works!

It's been years since kids could just wander up to a counter and purchase a game with 'mature content' (which btw, I want more games with truly 'adult' content, most are dumbed down because they can't get rated and ever get into stores with real 'adult' content). Their odds of getting 'mature' CD's and Videos is even higher than games! Stop bitching over games and adding laws we don't need!

Re:The other day...

[Anonymous Coward]

I agree with you. The problem is that the proposed bill completely undermines the ESRB system by imposing another, separate content rating on every game, which is determined entirely by the Developer/Publisher. Such a rating cannot be free of bias, and thus the system is inherently flawed.

Just passing a law that enforces ESRB ratings would be adequate. No selling M-rated games to people under 17, now punishable by law. Many stores already do this voluntarily, but this would make it mandatory. I wish such a law were not needed (like with the MPAA's ratings) but for some reason game stores are less likely to enforce their ratings than video stores are, AFAIK. Still, if all these parents clamoring for government intervention would just realize that games are already rated by an independent association much like movies are, they could police their sons' and daughters' games to their hearts' content.

Of course, that's assuming that those survey numbers are even accurate, which may not be the case...

As long as the parents can be parents

[bluefoxlucid]

The law doesn't ban the sale of such games, just bans kids from buying XXX-rated stuff? Okay, that's cool. As long as you can make and sell XXX-rated shit I'm good. If mommy buys you GTA4, your mommy's an idiot and deserves to be shot in the head when she takes away your copy of Halo 3.

Re:As long as the parents can be parents

[symbolset]

I'm guessing your kids don't have Internet. If they did they could download Postal II demo. They can also use it to browse lots of xxx rated stuff, and of course that's what the internet is for.

Re:As long as the parents can be parents

[bluefoxlucid]

So we should ban things like Postal 2 and pornography because it's physically impossible to stop 100% of teenagers from acquiring them?

No, that's not right. The idea that it's even healthy to absolutely win this power struggle (as in, the parents actually manage 100% enforcement) against teenagers is deeply flawed in itself anyway.

Even the /. Headline gets it wrong

[Lord Byron II]

The trouble with these types of surveys is that the always ask a very specific question and then the media generalizes it. In this case, they asked about "ultraviolent or sexually violent" games and if those games should require parental consent to buy them.

The Slashdot headline broadens the games to simply "violent" and broadens the purchasing restriction to an outright "ban".

I suggest we give the same people a new survey, but ask about "a government ban on mature-themed video games" and see how many people are still for it.

Re:Even the /. Headline gets it wrong

[Sonny Yatsen]

I think the Slashdot headline is misleading because it's hard to fit the nuances into the number of characters allowed.

Re:Even the /. Headline gets it wrong

[Lord Byron II]

Sure, but we shouldn't put headlines that say something that the poll doesn't just to fit in a space. Make the space larger, or leave a detail out, but don't change the story to fit the space.

I would have preferred:

"Majority support ultraviolent game restrictions"

That would have fit and is factually accurate.

Re:Even the /. Headline gets it wrong

[ArcherB]

I suggest we give the same people a new survey, but ask about "a government ban on mature-themed video games" and see how many people are still for it.

The only good reason to "ban" violent video games is because kids might play it. If kids can't buy the game without a parent, you take away that excuse to ban the game from the do-gooders.

Meanwhile...

[Arancaytar]

Other polls show that more than 95% of US children are opposed to the ban. :P

Re:Meanwhile...

[shutdown -p now]

Other polls show that more than 95% of US children are opposed to the ban. ...

And vowed to "... fucken rape and kill with a chainsaw the fags who came up with that stupid shit!!!1!!". ~

Re:Meanwhile...

[mqduck]

children's rights > parents' rights.

Their question wording is leading.

[Anonymous Coward]

I do survey research a lot in my work (I'm an academic in the social sciences) and the wording here is really suspect. When you phrase the question as "ultraviolent or sexually violent" or sexually violent" virtually all respondents are going to support a ban. I'm actually kind of surprised Zogby let that question out without considerable revision. Had it been worded as "violent or sexually explicit" I would imagine the percentages would be much lower.

Disingenuous.

[bigtomrodney]

And what's "ultraviolent" exactly? It's these kind of weasel-words that make these surveys dishonest. A reasonable person would probably support an age limit on games at the extreme end of the violence scale but with this vague description you can be guaranteed that if any action will be taken it'll just be on "anything with violence". What looks like a semi-reasonable idea will become an over-reaching all-encompassing bad on anything violent for anyone under 18.

What we really need is for this to be firmly the responsibility of the parent as it should have been all along. I remember a few years ago queuing for GTA:San Andreas after driving all over the city to try and get a copy on the release date. There was a fairly slovenly looking woman in the queue in front of me who asked my friend and I "Is this violent?". I replied "This is an outstanding game a revolution in gaming. It is quite violent; it involves drug-dealing, prostitution, murder and any violent rampage you can imagine any time you want. Are you buying this for someone young?". She answered "Yeah, it's my son. He's nine years old. I have to get it for him because he'll drive me mad if I don't". Now this is precisely the half-assed parent who doesn't care until their child gets into trouble and then gets to blame the game for all of the troubles. Instead of banning games we should be trying to figure out a way to have parents actually do some parenting. My own mother didn't mind me watching violent films when I was about ten or eleven years old because I had good grades, stayed out of trouble and didn't try to re-enact everything I saw on the big screen. The result of good parenting if I may be so bold. How about effective or not we put the onus back to the parents to decide what's appropriate.

Re:Disingenuous.

[Defenestrar]

Zogby's website has a little more information, but not as much as we'd like:

UPDATE: Common Sense Media provided us with a breakdown of the poll's methodology and narrative summary, and thus we pass it on to you. Commissioned by CSM and conducted by Zogby International, the online survey collected the opinions of 2100 adults, with "slight weights" added to region, party, age, race, gender and education "to more accurately reflect the population." The margin of error is +/- 2.2 percentage points and the questions are as follows:

1. Would you support or oppose a law that prohibits minors from purchasing videogames that depict killing, maiming or sexually assaulting an image of a human being? (Support: Adults 72 percent, parents 72 percent; Oppose: Adults 22 percent, parents 24 percent)

2. How concerned are you about the impact of ultra-violent videogames on your child? (Very/Somewhat Concerned: Adults 61 percent, parents 65 percent; Somewhat Unconcerned/Not at all concerned: Adults 28 percent, parents 31 percent)

3. How would you rate the videogame industry when it comes to protecting kids from accessing violent videogames? (Excellent/Good: Adults 12 percent, parents 13 percent; Fair/poor: Adults 76 percent, parents 75 percent)

Re:Disingenuous.

[Zerth]

I like how they stick "Fair/poor" together in question 3.

Question 1, as it is worded, isn't too ambiguous. But I bet they asked the questions in reverse order.

Tricky.

[Anonymous Coward]

This poll is bollocks. I certainly don't wish children to buy sexually violent games but could care less about ultraviolent games.

Even that said "ultra" is certainly subjective.

Re:Tricky.

[Anonymous Coward]

I'm pretty sure ultraman knew exactly what his title required of him.

Re:Tricky.

[ElectricTurtle]

So violence is ok so long as it isn't sexual? Double standard much? How is killing better than rough lay?

Re:Tricky.

[Defenestrar]

I would suggest that there are depictions of killing in a legal manner while there are no depictions of sexual violence in a legal manner. So there's no double standard there. Violence occurs far more often in a child's experience (broken bones, car accidents, etc...) than sexual violence and thus they are earlier prepared for the first.

Case 1: video game telling a WWII story. If accurate it will be (legal) ultraviolent, but also educational in a way that may inspire children to be interested in history and respect the sacrifices made by our fathers and grandfathers. I'd be ok with my child understanding these concepts at a somewhat young age (I suspect she'll be ready by at least 12).

Case 2: video game with a graphic rape scene. If accurately depicted it will be (illegal) sexual violence, educational about the horror of being powerless, and may cause the child to have compassion for those scarred by such violence if it is accurately understood. However, I do not think a child is capable of understanding the nitty gritty details until he or she comes to at least a moderate understanding of their own sexuality - and as such I don't think depictions of sexual violence are appropriate for children. If a parent thinks that a sexually violent video game is the best way to communicate about this issue, then it would still be within their prerogative to purchase the "game" as an educational aid. I for one plan on addressing issues of sexuality and rape with my daughter in a different manner and several different times in her upbringing at a level she is able to understand.

Re:Tricky.

[ElectricTurtle]

Apparently you have a very narrow view of 'sexual violence'. Ever heard of BDSM? Some people do actually like and mutually consent to 'violent' sexual behavior, and this is unassailably morally superior to any kind of involuntary violence (and no, while reenacting historical battles may be enriching in some dimensions, it is not a voluntary event where one soldier asks the other if he would kindly please kill him).

It should be left to parents, not the state, to determine when and how their children are exposed and educated to these matters. I realize of course that the way this poll was worded the parents are still given an option, but I consider this a slippery slope. It's a law that would be unnecessary in cases where parents are already acting responsibly, and a law which is moot if the parents are irresponsible, but it still acts as a precedent for more draconian legislation down the road while achieving no positive effects in the immediate term.

Re:Tricky.

[fyngyrz]

If you have an accurate WWII story that includes the rape of Nanking, the conditions at Auschwitz, Japanese keeping of "comfort women", or the Nazi experiments on Jews, you'll find that your imaginary distinction of war as violence that excludes the sexual goes pop like the foolishness it actually is. Not to mention current Islamic practices, any of the crusades, etc.

Headline fail

[Anonymous Coward]

Requiring parental consent is not a "ban." Typical slashdot headline hype.

Hooray for wastes of the taxpayers money!

[antifoidulus]

Enforcing rules such as this are always a joke. What ends up happening is that the state ends up hiring a whole bunch of cops who do nothing all day but roam around the area going to various stores and trying to get the overworked clerk to sell them one of these games. And if the clerk gets caught the corporations usually end up not having to pay a dime(thats why they hire lobbyists), it's the poor overworked kid who made an honest mistake while performing a job that is a lot more stressful than most people realize. So now instead of paying for school he winds up having to pay a huge fine, may have his name printed in the paper etc. And yet pretty much any kid that wants these games will still be able to get their hands on them.

Ugh, Americans really need to give up this law and order fantasy where they think they can modify people's behavior just by creating laws(attn pro-lifers and anti-drug crusaders, this means you)

Re:Hooray for wastes of the taxpayers money!

[bberens]

So last weekend I went to see the new Resident Evil flick and I was amazed/appalled at how many parents brought their 5-10 year old children to see that movie. That is a wicked violent movie with lots of gross imagery. While I did spend a few minutes during the previews questioning the parenting ability of those people at no time did I think to myself "Boy, we really need to create a new regulatory power which would stop this." That would be stupid. Freedom means people are going to do things you think are retarded. *shrug*

Re:Hooray for wastes of the taxpayers money!

[Anonymous Coward]

It will never happen. We have a loooonnnng history of molding people, foreign nations, etc. in our image, for some definition of "our", typically at gunpoint. It's hopeless.

Re:Hooray for wastes of the taxpayers money!

[Rayonic]

Americans really need to give up this law and order fantasy where they think they can modify people's behavior just by creating laws(attn pro-lifers and anti-drug crusaders, this means you)

Just Americans? So this doesn't happen anywhere else, or do you just hold Americans to a higher standard? (Which would be kind of flattering.)

But nation-baiting aside, that's a pretty broad statement. I can think of a couple things I'd like to do but I don't because they're illegal. So I guess laws have modified my behavior.

Re:Hooray for wastes of the taxpayers money!

[antifoidulus]

The Economist did a really good piece on this. To sum it up, while all nations use laws to moralize to a certain degree, the Americans seem to be one of the few ones in the Western World so to speak, that do it to excess. It at Saudia Arabia....yet(give the Republicans time and it will be pretty damn soon).

Re:Hooray for wastes of the taxpayers money!

[tehcyder]

So last weekend I went to see the new Resident Evil flick and I was amazed/appalled at how many parents brought their 5-10 year old children to see that movie.

I know it might seem quaint and anti-libertarian, but in the UK we have a classification system that divides films U (universal, suitable for anyone),PG (parental guidance, i.e. may upset some sensitive kids), 12 ( have to be 12 years old to watch), 15 and 18 (work it out). Although this is not perfect, at least it stops moronic parents taking their 6 year old to a fucking horror film.

Re:Hooray for wastes of the taxpayers money!

[Chowderbags]

I think my biggest complaint when parents bring 5-10 year olds to violent movies is that the kids are always fucking obnoxious. I don't need their noise. Hell, I remember seeing Predators a few months ago and some parent brought their infant and 3 year old child, and the kids proceeded to make a fucking mess, were noisy and walking around. If the parent wants to see it, why can't they get a baby sitter? Yet another reason I prefer watching movies at home to going to the theater.

Re:Hooray for wastes of the taxpayers money!

[NiteShaed]

I'm confused now, are you in favor of the hypothetical law, or against it?

Here you say:
"I was amazed/appalled at how many parents brought their 5-10 year old children to see that movie."
Which is pretty much in the spirit of the law the poll asked about, which is, these children were given access to Resident Evil with their parent's consent (as opposed to a bunch of 5 - 10 year-olds showing up at the movie by themselves without their parent's permission).

But then you say this:
"While I did spend a few minutes during the previews questioning the parenting ability of those people at no time did I think to myself ""Boy, we really need to create a new regulatory power which would stop this." That would be stupid. Freedom means people are going to do things you think are retarded."
Who ever said that parents wouldn't be allowed to decide what their kids get access to? The law in question is all about parental consent, not law-enforcement over-riding what a parent decides to do....

Re:Hooray for wastes of the taxpayers money!

[Rudeboy777]

You're not understanding the general sentiment here that it is preferable for moronic parents to take their 6 year old to a fucking horror film than it is for the government to enforce parenting values through laws. The latter brings baggage we'd be better off without.

Re:Hooray for wastes of the taxpayers money!

[Quirkz]

Don't we already have a regulation for movies that's nearly identical to the one proposed here for the games? Kids can't go into that movie by themselves, they need parental accompaniment. As I read the proposal, the law would require kids to have parental accompaniment to buy the games, they couldn't on their own. Currently the kids could pick up those games on their own, with no parental oversight, but they can't go into the movie without parental oversight. Did I read something wrong?

Re:Hooray for wastes of the taxpayers money!

[Anonymous Coward]

Why don't we make the parents responsible if the law is broken? Keep some kind of punishment for the corporations, but add something for the parents as well. Seems to me that the kid/parent have no reason to follow this law because there is no consequences for breaking it.

Re:Hooray for wastes of the taxpayers money!

[BooRolla]

I guess that means you want to repeal murder laws since people will kill people regardless?

Re:Hooray for wastes of the taxpayers money!

[antifoidulus]

No, thats a strawman argument. Murder has a very clear victim and thus committing it is detrimental to society. The laws I am talking about, and specifically mentioned in my post(abortion, drugs, video games, prostitution etc.) have 0 victims. If I smoke a joint in my own house, the only person that I could even potentially be hurting is myself. However the moralizing of many right-wingers seem to think I'm doing something horrible and must be stopped.

Wait, Zogby, the "worst pollster in the world"?

[Rogerborg]

WARNING: actual numbers ahead, Zogby International employees must put on their Joo Janta 200 Super-Chromatic Fact Sensitive Sunglasses.

Why people even pretend these mouthwhores are any more than a you-pays-your-money-we-confirm-your-meme outfit is beyond me. I guess it makes for good press.

Isn't 72 % a bit low?

[migla]

How about "One in three wants children to have unsupervised access to ultra violence and sex!"

Re:Isn't 72 % a bit low?

[Anonymous Coward]

There we go. That's someone who knows how to write a headline!

Re:Isn't 72 % a bit low?

[geekmux]

How about "One in three wants children to have unsupervised access to ultra violence and sex!"

To put it more accurately, one in three parents out there could give a rats ass what their kids do/watch/see...

It's amazing how many standardized tests we require a passing grade on to grant someone a high school diploma, but in order to become a parent, we require absofuckinglutely nothing.

And it shows.

Re:Isn't 72 % a bit low?

[geekoid]

NO. one in three feel it's THEIR responsibility not regulation.

I also call them Naive.

Re:Isn't 72 % a bit low?

[guyminuslife]

Funny, I say the same thing about censorship advocates. Or they're ultra-cynical, depending.

Wait, wait,

[Iburnaga]

You already can't sell violent games to minors in most places. Minors aren't buying the games, their parents are.

Re:Wait, wait,

[DrScotsman]

Assuming by "places" you mean "countries", I agree.

This always bothers me. It seems to me that a fair bit of the west seem perfectly fine regulating what movies and games minors are allowed to buy, with the main exception being the US. In the countries with regulation, while there are complaints, the complaints are rarely to do with preventing sale to minors.

Let's concentrate on Australia for now, since it seems to be the one that comes up the most. Now whenever the OFLC is mentioned on Slashdot, every Australian cries about the same thing - about how if a game is deemed unsuitable for a 15 year old, then it is banned. But the solution that the comments call for is rarely for the OFLC to be disbanded. No, they call for the existence of an 18 rating, so that nothing has to be banned.

Similarly here in the UK - there is outcry whenever something is actually banned (e.g. Manhunt 2 temporarily), but no one seems to have any problem about things not being suitable for children. The sole exception to that rule was probably the Spiderman movie - parents were not happy about the 12 rating it got. However that's been fixed now, 12 has been replaced with 12A - basically the same as PG-13.

What's the issue with regulation done right?

Re:Wait, wait,

[The Moof]

No, he means places. In the US, most, if not all major retailers voluntarily abide by the ESRB's rating systems and card you when you buy a game. It's a self-regulated system that actually gets a lot of praise for being the most proactive of the major media types.

The debate is if it should be criminal to sell M-Rated games to minors.

all about wording the question

[Anonymous Coward]

I mean, "ultraviolent" sounds really bad doesn't it? Even worse (for Americans at least), "sexual" and "minor" in the same sentence. If the ultraviolent part didn't already cause an instinctive outrage then that would have.

The problem is bigger

[Voyager529]

I'm not entirely certain that requiring parental consent will do much more than it is now. At present, most video game retailers require ID to purchase M-Rated games, but requiring parental consent does not equate to requiring INFORMED parental consent. Plenty of minors I know who have copies of violent video games got them from their parents as gifts. I'd wager that the overwhelming majority of the parents who bought the games would reconsider if they sat down and actually played the game for 20 minutes. No chance of that happening though.

Re:The problem is bigger

[AltairDusk]

There's also that handy little rating they always seem to ignore. They don't even need to play the game, just take a minute to realize what that rating is telling them.

Re:The problem is bigger

[Voyager529]

Sometimes the ratings can be misleading, like this fine example from the Windows 7 Game Center back when Win7 was in beta:

http://i76.photobucket.com/albums/j14/voyager529/UT3_Fail.png

Re:The problem is bigger

[AltairDusk]

That is a huge mistake, my guess is on Microsoft's part (assuming it's not photoshopped). If the ESRB actually gave it that rating then that is a complete and utter failure of the system but for the most part they rate the games well.

Re:The problem is bigger

[Voyager529]

I took the screengrab personally - it's not a Photochop. The RTM version of Win7 fixed the error, but it was too funny during beta.

Re:The problem is bigger

[AltairDusk]

Ah, at least they fixed it. I used Win7 since beta but never really looked at the game center, seems I was missing out on some great amusement.

Re:The problem is bigger

[zeroshade]

Only misleading if they just glance at it. If they actually read the descriptors it's kinda obvious that "Early Childhood" was a mistake. Especially when the descriptors say blood, gore, violence, partial nudity, etc.

What is the big deal?

[Anonymous Coward]

Isn't this how other media works? I know at least where I live that a minor can't buy "explicit" music or R-rated movies without parental consent; why should video games be any different? It's not like they want to outright ban violent video games for minors; they just want to require parental consent. I don't see what the big deal is.

Re:What is the big deal?

[Anonymous Coward]

I don't know where you live, but that isn't the case anywhere in the US. Store policy might forbid selling to minors, but it's not actually illegal.

Yes Congresman

[SmallFurryCreature]

Sir Humphrey: "You know what happens: nice young lady comes up to you. Obviously you want to create a good impression, you don't want to look a fool, do you? So she starts asking you some questions: Mr. Woolley, are you worried about the number of young people without jobs?"
Bernard Woolley: "Yes"
Sir Humphrey: "Are you worried about the rise in crime among teenagers?"
Bernard Woolley: "Yes"
Sir Humphrey: "Do you think there is a lack of discipline in our Comprehensive schools?"
Bernard Woolley: "Yes"
Sir Humphrey: "Do you think young people welcome some authority and leadership in their lives?"
Bernard Woolley: "Yes"
Sir Humphrey: "Do you think they respond to a challenge?"
Bernard Woolley: "Yes"
Sir Humphrey: "Would you be in favour of reintroducing National Service?"
Bernard Woolley: "Oh...well, I suppose I might be."
Sir Humphrey: "Yes or no?"
Bernard Woolley: "Yes"
Sir Humphrey: "Of course you would, Bernard. After all you told you can't say no to that. So they don't mention the first five questions and they publish the last one."
Bernard Woolley: "Is that really what they do?"
Sir Humphrey: "Well, not the reputable ones no, but there aren't many of those. So alternatively the young lady can get the opposite result."
Bernard Woolley: "How?"
Sir Humphrey: "Mr. Woolley, are you worried about the danger of war?"
Bernard Woolley: "Yes"
Sir Humphrey: "Are you worried about the growth of armaments?"
Bernard Woolley: "Yes"
Sir Humphrey: "Do you think there is a danger in giving young people guns and teaching them how to kill?"
Bernard Woolley: "Yes"
Sir Humphrey: "Do you think it is wrong to force people to take up arms against their will?"
Bernard Woolley: "Yes"
Sir Humphrey: "Would you oppose the reintroduction of National Service?"
Bernard Woolley: "Yes"
Sir Humphrey: "There you are, you see Bernard. The perfect balanced sample."

http://www.yes-minister.com/ypmseas1a.htm

Yes (Prime) Minister

Watch it. Understand it. Remember it.

Re:Yes Congresman

[MichaelSmith]

Oh this takes me back:

Bernard Woolley: "Shall I file it?"
Jim Hacker: "File it? Shred it!"
Bernard Woolley: "Shred it??"
Jim Hacker: "Nobody must ever be able to find it again."
Bernard Woolley: "In that case, Minister, I think it is best I file it."

Re:Yes Congresman

[ElectricTurtle]

That series is priceless. Buy all the DVDs while you still can... I can't help but imagine that some day some fascists will ban them for being so baldly insightful about the true nature of political machinations.

Re:Yes Congresman

[Anonymous Coward]

Well, they haven't banned 1984 yet... though Amazon did revoke it.

Re:Yes Congresman

[demonbug]

That is an awesome show. In grad school a friend of mine from India had a copy (yes it was a burned copy, why do you ask?), loved it from the first episode. I've been meaning to pick it up, along with the earlier Yes, Minister (which I haven't seen yet). Prime Minister (can't speak to the earlier show) is one of those timeless shows that always seems to be relevant; I'm always surprised more people haven't heard of it. Right up there with Fawlty Towers as some of the best television to come out of the UK.

we make more criminals

[Anonymous Coward]

When we make laws that are already enforced as part of corporate policy. Hooray for over-legislation

Poor Guys...

[Anonymous Coward]

What'll those guys stuck in that Chilean mine do for the next 4 months?

Surveys are worse than statistics

[RichMan]

Did they just ask

Do you think violent and suggestive games should not be sold to vulnerable young children ?

Or did they also ask

Do you think parents should supervise children in the playground ?
Do you think parents should prevent children from watching some TV shows ?
Do you think parents should prevent children from playing some violent games ?
Do you think parents should supervise children who play online games ?

I would like to see how the second set of questions line up with the first.

almost 100% of humans opposed to killing/dying

[Anonymous Coward]

there's a handful however, that seem to think it's their vocation to destroy almost everything (in the name of ?'god'? if asked). they are some of the most dangerous/powerful folks on/to the planet. take heed.

google.com/search?hl=en&q=bush%2Bcheney%2Bwmd%2Bwolfowitz%2Bblair%2Brumsfeld%2Bobama

another interesting (in that there's no (0) discussion) ?weapon?

http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=weather+manipulation&aq=f&aqi=g10&aql=&oq=&gs_rfai=

meanwhile; (you'll be told how long & what to do?); the corepirate nazi illuminati is always hunting that patch of red on almost everyones' neck. if they cannot find yours (greed, fear ego etc...) then you can go starve. that's their (slippery/slimy) 'platform' now. see also: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antisocial_personality_disorder

never a better time to consult with/trust in our creators. the lights are coming up rapidly all over now. see you there?

greed, fear & ego (in any order) are unprecedented evile's primary weapons. those, along with deception & coercion, helps most of us remain (unwittingly?) dependent on its' life0cidal hired goons' agenda. most of our dwindling resources are being squandered on the 'wars', & continuation of the billionerrors stock markup FraUD/pyramid schemes. nobody ever mentions the real long term costs of those debacles in both life & any notion of prosperity for us, or our children. not to mention the abuse of the consciences of those of us who still have one, & the terminal damage to our atmosphere (see also: manufactured 'weather', hot etc...). see you on the other side of it? the lights are coming up all over now. the fairytail is winding down now. let your conscience be your guide. you can be more helpful than you might have imagined. we now have some choices. meanwhile; don't forget to get a little more oxygen on your brain, & look up in the sky from time to time, starting early in the day. there's lots going on up there.

"The current rate of extinction is around 10 to 100 times the usual background level, and has been elevated above the background level since the Pleistocene. The current extinction rate is more rapid than in any other extinction event in earth history, and 50% of species could be extinct by the end of this century. While the role of humans is unclear in the longer-term extinction pattern, it is clear that factors such as deforestation, habitat destruction, hunting, the introduction of non-native species, pollution and climate change have reduced biodiversity profoundly.' (wiki)

"I think the bottom line is, what kind of a world do you want to leave for your children," Andrew Smith, a professor in the Arizona State University School of Life Sciences, said in a telephone interview. "How impoverished we would be if we lost 25 percent of the world's mammals," said Smith, one of more than 100 co-authors of the report. "Within our lifetime hundreds of species could be lost as a result of our own actions, a frightening sign of what is happening to the ecosystems where they live," added Julia Marton-Lefevre, IUCN director general. "We must now set clear targets for the future to reverse this trend to ensure that our enduring legacy is not to wipe out many of our closest relatives."--

"The wealth of the universe is for me. Every thing is explicable and practical for me .... I am defeated all the time; yet to victory I am born." --emerson

no need to confuse 'religion' with being a spiritual being. our soul purpose here is to care for one another. failing that, we're simply passing through (excess baggage) being distracted/consumed by the guaranteed to fail illusionary trappings of man'kind'. & recently (about 10,000 years ago) it was determined that hoarding & excess by a few, resulted in negative consequences for all.

consult with/trust in your creators. providing more than enough of everything for everyone (without any distracting/spiritdead personal gain motives), whilst badtolling

The polling questions that (I imagine) were asked

[milkasing]

I guessing this is how the poll went-- Q: Do you play Halo on the xbox? Yes. Q: Have you been fragged repeatedly, pwned and called a ^^&(&T *, ()(*!@#$ , etc noob by a whiny preteen son of a &^TH? (Growl) Yes. Q:Would you support ritualistic disembowelment of minors who buy and play video games? (Nods enthusiastically) YES! YES! YES! Q: Whoops sorry, that might be illegal, would you instead support a ban on sale of violent games to minors? (Aww, shrug) I guess... are you sure ritualistic disembowelment is not an option?

Sexually violent?

[Anonymous Coward]

Where are people buying those supposedly sexually violent video games with rape they always seem to brandish when demanding those bans? Last I checked, games like that seemed to be the near exclusive province of japanese gamers with known offenders like the Biko series.

Ultra violent

[ChrisMaple]

Killing the hero (PacMan). Violent attacks by alligators (Frogger).

100%

[Anonymous Coward]

...of those 72%, 100% have never played violent video games.

Are f***ing kidding me?

[DoofusOfDeath]

I will rip those goddam adults' arms off! It will be a real-life Fatality! Where can I get a frickin' chainsaw and my BFG9000???

I'll leave them in worse shape than Romero left Daikatana!

If 72% of people really think that

[Anonymous Coward]

then it should be pretty simple for them to amend the constitution and invalidate the entire problem with said law. Just strike the first amendment and be done with it.

If they can't then tough, your 72% support from idiots who don't think about consequences is meaningless.

Since the law was passed then you would hope (though I'm not naive enough to actually think that's how it always works in practice) a majority of people supported it and so you would expect such a result.

The issue at hand is the constitutionality of said law, and a big part of the constitution only granting some powers to the government (and explicitely restricting some things) is to prevent it from doing some things that have popular support.

Of course the law may be rules just fine according to the consituttion by the Supreme Court, in which case again popular opintion is irrelevant since the law has already been passed.

Censorship tag? Really?

[Commander South]

This has nothing to do with censorship, that would be if they didn't let the games be made at all, that would be censorship. Enforcement of ratings, while perhaps annoying to minors, is an entirely different topic. To quote a certain Spaniard. "You keep using that word, I do not think it means what you think it means.."

Nothing wrong with this...

[bjwest]

I agree with banning the sale of violent games to minors - parents should have control over what their children see/play, but how long before it becomes illegal for parents to purchase them for their children?

Re:Nothing wrong with this...

[geekoid]

Never.

/facepalm

[SendBot]

How about a ban on violent behavior from adults in front of children? Or how about letting children opt out of religious organizations if they don't like being forced into one!!??

Why not?

[Anonymous Coward]

Getting rid of chirpies in COD matchmaking would be priceless.

It's all in the questioning....

[AmonTheMetalhead]

'prohibits minors from purchasing ultraviolent or sexually violent video games without parental consent.'

I have to wonder, remembering the hysteria that Janet Jackson's nipple caused at the super bowl, how much that one word there influenced the vote...

Re:It's all in the questioning....

[Combatso]

Yah.. this is precisely why surveys don't work.. they are, only a mareketing tool.... "Should we let children play games where they are exposed to dirty sex and gang rape without parental consent?"... Im suprised the results arent 100%

Please Define

[Kushy]

Conducted by polling firm Zogby International, the survey asked 2,100 adults whether they would support a law that 'prohibits minors from purchasing ultraviolent or sexually violent video games without parental consent.'

Please define the following:

Violent video games
Ultraviolent video games
Sexual video games
Sexually violent video games

I mean come on people when you lump a first person shooter in with games that allow you to rape people of course you are going to get the results you are seeking. That is the issue with polls like this.

Do you support equal rights for women and street gangs looting and pillaging your neighborhood?

A poll will have any question you want answered your way if you phrase it correctly.

 

Kids should get it the old fashioned way, TV

[Shivetya]

just like their parents.

Too much of the crap on TV is far worse than games, I doubt games can have a rape/child abuse/etc of the week type scenario and have it fly by.

Surveys and statistics

[robinvanleeuwen]

When i read that that kind of polls, surveys and statistics are given it
always reminds me of this video:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3gMcZic1d4U

"Common sense" Media

[airfoobar]

Give me a BREAK! How is it "common sense" to treat minors like idiots? Do the "adults" running that freakshow just want to feel superior to their kids? Do they seriously think that fake violence will corrupt their youth? Do they think those kids will not grow up if they keep them away from some kinds of stimuli?

There has never been a time when children were as shielded from violence as they are now, and violent video games are hardly the same as kids helping slaughter animals at dad's farm, or kids shooting enemy soldiers in the head.

Re:"Common sense" Media

[geekoid]

So, yes those thing are also violent but that doesn't make then good or healthy.

unstated Major Premise fallacy.

They are not treating minor likie idiots. They just created a tool for parents to utilize.

I don't want 13 year olds to be able to buy a gun, alcohol, or 'violent ' video game. But here is the problem..ready?

What defines violent? well, you can't really put 'levels' of violence into law. So you make it generic and then let the parent DECIDE.

That's all this is. It's not an attack in a child intelligence, it's not on oppression of freedom, and it's not keeping them away from stimuli.

The amount of violence a child at 2 can be exposed to and a child of 17 can be exposed to without significant determent later is radically different.

Yeah...

[digitig]

Get off the console, kid, I want a go!

This country has absolutely no balls anymore

[rclandrum]

I am absolutely sick of new laws and regulations that do nothing but attempt to protect us from the stupid crap we to which we want to subject ourselves. Endless traffic regulations. Anti-smoking laws. Laws about exactly what we can and cannot snort, drink, smoke, or otherwise consume. Laws about whether the things we wear are flammable. Laws about how many rat turds and insect parts can be in our canned veggies. Laws that try and protect kids from seeing naked people or understanding what any farm kid knows about procreation. Laws about how fast we can go on the road. Laws about how *slow* we can go on the road. Laws about which direction and in what kind of vehicles we can go on the road. Laws about how old and experienced you must be to even think about using the roads. Laws that attempt to control what a woman can and cannot do with her raped and violated body after an attacker has fertilized her. Laws that attempt to prevent our children from learning actual facts about history and evolution and instead want them to learn religious fantasies. Laws that regulate how much crap our industry can pump into the air while our competition manufactures us into oblivion. Laws making it incredibly easy for a single asshole senator to hold up passing laws that might actually be useful, simply because they don't like the color or political party of our elected president. Laws that allow any special interest to pump money into lobbying to buy whatever stupid laws they want.

We have emasculated ourselves. We are dying a slow death of our own making while China eats our lunch and laughs. You look at pictures of happy people working and smiling in factories in this country around 1899 and you think, why in the hell did we do this to ourselves?

Re:This country has absolutely no balls anymore

[FlyingGuy]

We have emasculated ourselves. We are dying a slow death of our own making while China eats our lunch and laughs. You look at pictures of happy people working and smiling in factories in this country around 1899 and you think, why in the hell did we do this to ourselves?

One word - Profit

Some other words... Outsourcing - Automation - Paternalism - Capitalism - Agile

A single Phrase - Global Markets

You know why those faces were smiling? Because those people had decent paying jobs with an out. That out was retirement. The out was the big thing. It meant that after you raised your kids, paid off your mortgage you could be secure that you could live out the rest of your life with the reasonable notion that you would have some security and grandkids.

All of that is pretty much gone unless you are in civil service and even that is slipping away because of the rising costs of everything from groceries to medical care. Pension plans are imploding as people are living longer and doing so require more services as the cost of living longer goes up and up.

The above coupled with some recent financial insanity and you have a pretty big problem and that effects everything and the smiling faces are no faces that no longer know if they are going to have a job next month or even next week. They don't know if the Wall Street insanity of screaming SELL because their company missed a target by a penny for not maximizing "shareholder value" to the nth degree is going to cause the company to just move the whole thing to a country where they can pay labor at pennies on the dollar compared to prevailing wages in the USA will leave them destitute because all of the other factories that require the same set of skills are doing the same thing. Couple that with massive automation which drives the head count at factories even lower and you have a whole class of people disenfranchised since not all 300 million in the USA can go to collage and become MBA's or Computer Scientists.

.

The long and short of it all is that at some point equilibrium will be found but the casualties left behind in that process will be ghastly. I was having a conversation with an economist not long ago and we were discussing how the recovery periods in economic events have always been relatively fast as compaired to the current problems were are having now and that is what really gave him pause since most people can weather the storm for a given amount of time, but that amount of time is getting far to long for the vast majority of people. The social safety net is being pushed to the breaking point and if something does not change soon the consequences could be devastating.

Word play: games have *simulated* violence

[noidentity]

"That person is violent." versus "That game is violent."

In the first, actual violence is occurring. People getting struck, etc. In the second, it's just flashing images on a TV screen depicting violence. Nobody gets physically struck. Yet both are called violent.

Re:Word play: games have *simulated* violence

[demonbug]

Obviously you've never played Wii Boxing.

We already have this

[AC-x]

Games in the UK are given BBFC ratings (U, PG,12,15,18) like films and just like films you can only purchase them if you are over that age.

Seems pretty fucking simple, what's the big deal? I'd much rather a game was restricted to 18+s only than banned outright.

Re:We already have this

[ledow]

Yeah, how hard is it? If you child has a game you don't want them to have, take it away from them or stop them buying it in the first place. If your child's friends have those games - that's up to *their* parents, or up to you to enforce your rules even when your child is staying over at a friends house.

Even with ratings, fining retailers, etc. you will still get kids who get their hands on these things (in my country, some kids are smoking at 12 despite it being 100% illegal, but it still happens). No amount of government intervention will stop your child doing something that YOU let slip past you.

Grow a pair and learn to say no to your children. They'll thank you for it in 20 years time.

Re:We already have this

[DrScotsman]

People don't magically gain all of their responsibility at some magical age like 18 or 21. In the UK, we don't keep tight leashes on 15 year old children (I could probably put a lower number there but I'm going to play it safe). We let them go outside without their parents and we let them stay in their rooms without checking on what they're doing every 10 minutes. However we do not think they are responsible enough to play certain violent video games. Preventing the sale of the violent video games to children gives a way to stop many children from playing the violent games without affecting their freedoms to do other things that they are in fact responsible enough to do. Affecting those freedoms will aversely affect them; they will benefit more from being introduced to some parts of life at a younger age.

Do you have a better idea?

Re:We already have this

[ledow]

In the UK, the sale is already "prevented" in that's it's illegal to sell games to consumers outside of their rated ages. Done. That's as much as you could ever actually do. That's been in places for years, like video ratings were in places for decades before that. That piece of legislation is fine but if it's never enforced (like in the UK) or doesn't exist (presumably how the US is at the moment), then it's worthless.

And even with the law? Still you don't *stop* anything. Nothing. Kids of parents that don't keep an eye, don't run a household with consequences, etc. still smoke, drink, have sex, play violent videogames, bully, steal, watch porn and whatever else. That's not to say the kids WILL be ruined because of that, but you can't go complaining that the govenrment didn't do enough. It's already illegal for children to do ALL those things. It's up to the parents to make sure they don't because, ultimately, the parent is at least partly legally responsible for any and all crimes committed by their children.

Almost by the definition of a crime, allowing a crime to take place hinders the freedoms of OTHERS in society instead of the person committing the crime.

Teach a parent that they can say no, confiscate items, withdraw pocket money and other privileges to anyone under the age of 18 and living in their house and you instantly solve this and millions of other problems. Introducing any more complex laws than "don't sell this stuff to kids" panders to the "I can't control my kid, he just says no to me" parents.

Personally, I was brought up in a household where my parents said no, refused to allow me to buy that stuff, would have *killed* me if I'd broken the law and actually bought me things that I thought I was mature enough to handle themselves (violent videos, games, alcohol etc.). I turned out pretty well, got all my qualifications, got a decent job that requires me to have never committed a crime, and I don't screw people over. Same for my brother. It's not even very hard. My dad was 17 when he had my brother, yet we were both "brought up properly" and never got into trouble.

My brother and I both work in schools, both taught lots of different youth clubs, both never had a problem handling dozens or hundreds of kids simultaneously sometimes for weeks away from their parents at a time. Kids doing things they shouldn't is the most pathetic, pandering excuse for someone who has no idea how to say No and be a parent.

Re:We already have this

[DrScotsman]

In the UK, the sale is already "prevented" in that's it's illegal to sell games to consumers outside of their rated ages. Done. That's as much as you could ever actually do. That's been in places for years,

I thought it was obvious I already knew that...?

That piece of legislation is fine but if it's never enforced (like in the UK)

Huh?

And even with the law? Still you don't *stop* anything. Nothing. Kids of parents that don't keep an eye, don't run a household with consequences, etc. still smoke, drink, have sex, play violent videogames, bully, steal, watch porn and whatever else.

More black and white viewpoints from you, that all kids are either angels or devils. There are plenty of children who will attempt to do many of those things and then just give up if they fail, meaning the existence of the law had an effect.

The rest of your post I'm not going to even individually comment on as it shows you pretty much ignored half of mine. For the parents to be able to take action over children having these items requires the parents to know their children have them, and I already explained that for the parents to know about them oversteps the boundaries of freedom that British teenage children generally have.

One more time: over here it is normal for children to go out on their own with friends at a young age, unsupervised. Thus it is only appropriate the duty of care for some things like sale of unsuitable goods temporarily shifts from the distant parents to the adults around them.

Re:We already have this

[AC-x]

Yes you're absolutely right, obviously age restrictions are pointless so we should do away with all of them, no minimum age for drinking, smoking, gambling, buying porn, buying guns etc. after all parents should have to watch their children 24/7 and be responsible for 100% of their children's actions.

Re:We already have this

[zeroshade]

I'd much rather a game was restricted to 18+s only than banned outright

That shouldn't be the issue. Banning outright should never even be a choice. Therefore the issue is to allow the current industry self-regulation that WORKS or create a new law that will put the force of law behind an industry self-regulation which won't make it work any better and will waste taxpayer money fining and arresting store clerks rather than other crimes that are more difficult to pursue but actually, ya know, are productive. The law restricting minors from buying "ultraviolent or sexual" games, will have no greater effect than the industry self-regulation has had.

Re:We already have this

[monkyyy]

" have sex....It's already illegal for children to do ALL those things" r u sure or was that a typo. other then that i agree with u fully its not the governments job or even that hard to have kids grow up with some morals and stay out of most trouble

Re:Censorship tag? Really?

[ElectricTurtle]

Really? You don't think economic pressures alter the content and destroy the artistic integrity of creative minds? Do you have any idea how much gets ripped out of movies and games to achieve 'desired ratings'? It may not be de jure censorship, but it is de facto censorship.

Reminds me of something George Carlin said

[KarlIsNotMyName]

"And now, they're thinking about banning toy guns - and they're gonna keep the fucking real ones!"

Why is violent video games a bad thing in a country where guns are the ultimate right?

Re:Reminds me of something George Carlin said

[ElectricTurtle]

While I don't agree with banning games, toys, or guns, to be fair, it's almost impossible to save yourself from a violent home invasion with a copy of GTA4. (And further, there is a certain rationale, even if I don't agree with it, to banning toy guns... if during a police action a toy gun which has been altered to look more realistic is spotted the possessor may just get dropped by a justifiably anxious officer.)

Re:Reminds me of something George Carlin said

[geekmux]

...Why is violent video games a bad thing in a country where guns are the ultimate right?

How many households have real guns?

Now, how many households have a computer or gaming console?

Yeah, I thought so. The target is where it should be. Besides, asking for simple parental involvement (which any good parent would have NO issues doing so) is hardly stepping on any Constitutional Rights, which do come into play when you start talking about real guns. This isn't censorship or an outright ban, it's merely an extra layer of protection and responsibility on parents that quite frankly should be there in the first place.

Re:Reminds me of something George Carlin said

[Atriqus]

How many households have real guns? Now, how many households have a computer or gaming console? Yeah, I thought so. The target is where it should be.

Those questions don't paint a picture nearly as impressive as you think it does. According to http://www.justfacts.com/guncontrol.asp 40-45% of households have a gun. So even if we assume just about everyone has computer or game console, every other person also has a gun in their home. Half is hardly a fringe situation.

Besides, asking for simple parental involvement (which any good parent would have NO issues doing so)[...]

I smell a no true scottsman in that statement. You can't know what you put in the parenthetical simply because everyone's interpretation of good parent is different.

[...]is hardly stepping on any Constitutional Rights, which do come into play when you start talking about real guns.

It's not that hard to make a 1st amendment issue out of this. Why does the medium matter; why not books? After all, what good parent wouldn't shield their child from violence of every medium. Could you imagine how horrible a parent would have to be, not only to not be concerned, but encouraging their child to read about mass genocide by drowning and billing it as a good thing? (Gilgamesh and some derivative hack work comes to mind... on an unrelated topic, can I mod myself flamebait? :D )

Re:Reminds me of something George Carlin said

[cheekyjohnson]

"How many households have real guns?

Now, how many households have a computer or gaming console?"

How many people are unable to differentiate between what we know as reality and a video game (likely none) and use these guns with the intention of hurting other people (likely none)? There's no need for adults to indoctrinate children with their own illogical beliefs and prevent them from playing these games for no reason.

Parental involvement

[night_flyer]

"prohibits minors from purchasing ultraviolent or sexually violent video games without parental consent."

I have no problem with this. Parents are supposed to be responsible for their children.

Re:Parental involvement

[DragonTHC]

parents are now the ones who buy these games for their kids.

They are clueless. They use excuses like, "he's played worse" and "it's for his older brother"

you can count on parents to be stupid. This explains much about our culture.

Re:Parental involvement

[cheekyjohnson]

"I have no problem with this. Parents are supposed to be responsible for their children."

Really? That doesn't surprise me, but why? Do you truly believe that only adults are able to differentiate between what we know as reality and a video game? Those that can't (likely none) would have already been deemed 'insane' by society, anyway, and certainly don't need violent video games to give them ideas on how to carry out violent acts. There's no reason that a child can't buy a violent video game with their own money (if they have some) with the intention of playing it. The parents can't really stop them from doing that, and they have no logical reason to. They don't even have evidence to support their illogical opinions, which they should need to make decisions that affect other people. Too much indoctrination. It's very frightening, actually.

100% of adults were minors.

[Anonymous Coward]

100% of adults were minors.

Web Sites

[LatencyKills]

Every go to one of those websites that ask for age verification? They use a drop box to select the year you were born. I often pick 1901 just wondering if it will skew their demographics. I know, offtopic.

Re:Web Sites

[nasalicio]

I know this is a late reply to this, but...

I never understood the point of these. Do they honestly expect people will be honest in their reply? I do pretty much the same as you, but if only for getting through it quicker by selecting a random year so long as its 18+ years or so I don't much care. It wouldn't matter if I were 50 or 5, this check does nothing but block usage of the website. They all need to be removed.

Illegalize it

[twitch1982]

I support completely banning Minors from purchasing of playing M rated games, if only so I don't have to keep getting my ass kicked by 13 year olds in CoD.

Adults supporting ban

[phoenixwade]

.... Only so we have a chance to actually win at a cool video game.

I love surveys

[Aphoxema]

"Are you in favor of, neutral to or against the potential sale and promotion of games that may occasionally exhibit mischief and violence to minors?"

Versus

"Are you in favor of games that expose children to graphic violence, or do you hate America? Why do you hate America?"

Twisty little headlines.

[Dunbal]

support a law that 'prohibits minors from purchasing ultraviolent or sexually violent video games without parental consent.'

Not the same as a "violent game ban".

Re:Twisty little headlines.

[sixsixtysix]

unless, of course, it causes some major retailers to not carry those games at all. then again, wishful thinking would have me to believe that since items will have to be restricted/purchased with an id, maybe more "ultraviolent or sexually violent video games" will become readily available, though it's highly unlikely, but that is mostly due to retarded development licensing from console manufacturers. where is my "bitch-hunter: the game" or "super shokushu goukan" (where you use wii-motes to control the tentacles) already!

Re:Twisty little headlines.

[Dunbal]

unless, of course, it causes some major retailers to not carry those games at all.

      I guess I am just biased as a PC-gamer (yeah we still exist). It's been a long time since "retailers" have stocked games for PC anyway... just one more push towards Steam/Gamersgate/torrents should do it...

Re:Twisty little headlines.

[sixsixtysix]

i only play on pc too, but i can understand the plight of the adult console gamer. first they came for the mature console games...

Ummm...

[Anonymous Coward]

I've got a better solution....how about a law that requires all would be parents earn a certificate in parenting. I'd even go so far as to say you need a certificate in biology and human sexuality before you can engage in intimate relations.

I mean seriously, all parents need to do is say no. Instead they want the state to act as the bad guy, so they can still remain best buds and BFFs with their kids. Kids aren't your friends, they're your kids. You need to take some responsibility for their upbringing by being a parent.

Why not go one step further?

[Chmcginn]

But who gets to classify 'ultraviolent' vs. 'violent' vs. 'comic violence'? If it's an industry body, then there's the same kinds of conflict of interest that leads to independent films getting 'worse' ratings than big studio releases. And the last thing we need is an Australia-style government run ratings board.

The obvious solution is to prevent children under 18 from buying any media at all. That way it's a content neutral restriction, and all the responsibility for what kids are playing, reading, or watching falls on the parent.

Re:Why not go one step further?

[Jaysyn]

The obvious solution is to prevent children under 18 from buying any media at all. That way it's a content neutral restriction, and all the responsibility for what kids are playing, reading, or watching falls on the parent.

I'd be behind that. Reductio Ad Absurdum is sometimes a good political strategy.

Re:Why not go one step further?

[Anonymous Coward]

Please, oh please tell me this is sarcasm. Seriously. It won't work. It won't even seem like it works. Does this media include books? Comics? Every kind of media whatsoever?

I'm currently residing in that gray zone between adolescence and parenthood. As someone who can still remember what it was like to be a minor, being restricted from viewing any kind of media without explicit parental permission would have likely killed any interest in obtaining such media legally, which would have made the restrictions rather redundant. As someone who could become a parent within the next few years, manually approving every single form of media that my child views could get exhausting once one takes into account that movie theaters would have to be similarly restricted, as well as bookstores, video stores, game stores, libraries, EVERYTHING.

Not to mention the fact that many parents are quite lacking in common sense when it comes to buying games. I recently witnessed a mother buying her 10-year-old a copy of GTA IV after he convinced her that he wouldn't kill the prostitutes.

No, that was not a joke.

I vote we stick with the ESRB system, and just make it actually illegal to sell M-rated games to minors, or to sell them to parents without explicitly warning them of the content. Require ID if the purchaser isn't obviously in his or her twenties. The rating system already works, after all. The contested bill forces the game's own publisher or developer to rate the game's content, which cannot possibly allow for an unbiased rating. Your solution would violate the right to free speech, since "any form of media" includes several forms of media that have already been judicially declared as protected under free speech rights.

Polls

[bluhatter]

One problem I have with regarding opinion poll results with any level of confidence is that no researcher has ever approached me to ask MY opinion about anything. 2100 is a fairly small number, and can be easily skewed.

Even worse

[Sycraft-fu]

The parents who complain are often the ones who do shit like this.

So one day a friend of mine asks me if I want to go see a movie at the dollar theater (which isn't a dollar anymore but hey). Sure, why not, I've got nothing better to do and cheap entertainment is fun. We go and decide to see Scary Movie 4. Nobody will confuse it for high art, but it is a funny movie. Theater is almost totally empty, which is pretty common for the dollar theater earily in the day. Just my friend and I, and a mother with 4 small (all pre-teenage) kids. We watch it, enjoy it, get our $2.50s worth of entertainment.

On the way out of the theater we pass the mother, now talking loudly on her cellphone to someone about "How inappropriate that damn movie was." I wanted to slap her and say "Look bitch, you were the idiot that took your kids to a fucking R rated film."

I'm quite sure that idiot would support a law restricting movies that are "bad for kids" in almost any way, including stopping their production, despite the fact that she took her kids to see them.

Re:Even worse

[Anonymous Coward]

To her credit, such movies are marketed to that age group.

Ultimately

[Greyfox]

It's the parent's responsibility, not the state's, to decide what their children should be exposed to.

Re:Ultimately

[FlyingGuy]

I agree and it is certainly the right sentiment but as a parent of a 9 year old boy I like the fact that he cannot wonder into a game stop and just by something that is extraordinarily violent / something violent with heavy sexual overtones.

Try as I might to teach him values that are in line with my beliefs ( not that far out of the mainstream bet definitely not mainstream) it is a struggle when his peers seem to have ready access to this type of content.

Ultimately I want him to think for himself and make reasonable decisions about things like this with my guidance so I really don't have a problem with laws prohibiting the sale of games that are ultra-violent or ultra-violent along with sexual themes.

Re:Ultimately

[cheekyjohnson]

"I agree and it is certainly the right sentiment but as a parent of a 9 year old boy I like the fact that he cannot wonder into a game stop and just by something that is extraordinarily violent / something violent with heavy sexual overtones."

Why? What does it hurt him? Do you truly believe that only adults are capable of differentiating between what we know as reality and a video game? If not, then why do you care?

"Try as I might to teach him values that are in line with my beliefs"

Sounds like indoctrination to me. Not really surprising, however.

"Ultimately I want him to think for himself and make reasonable decisions about things like this with my guidance so I really don't have a problem with laws prohibiting the sale of games that are ultra-violent or ultra-violent along with sexual themes."

So, wait. You want him to think for himself while you try to force your own beliefs down his throat? Odd.

Re:Ultimately

[cheekyjohnson]

"It's the parent's responsibility"

It's the kids' responsibility. If the parents don't want to pay for these games, that's one thing. If the parents try to forbid them from playing the games at all (even if they purchased it on their own), that's another. People who can't differentiate between what we know as reality and a video game (likely none) would have already been deemed 'insane' by society, and don't need video games to give them ideas on how to carry out these violent acts. There's no reason to forbid them at all.

Re:Ultimately

[FlyingGuy]

Well first of all I gotta ask, are you a parent?

"Does it hurt him?" Well I suppose one has to define "hurt".

I truly believe that 9 year olds tend to blend reality with fantasy, which in and of itself is not a bad thing as it can lead to some really interesting right brain thinking. On the other hand blending extremely violent fantasy with reality can have some serious outcomes as in kids trying to break actual chairs over each others heads thinking it is all fun and games right until someone gets a fractured skull. Not such a great outcome.

Indoctrination... Interesting. Children are a blank slate when it comes to values and need guidance which is my job as a parent. So if not my own values then who's? Set aside everything I believe and then teach him what, the golden rule only and let him make up his mind about everything else? Not so much.

And your last statement is pure flame bait but I will respond anyway.... A value system is based on some foundation of core beliefs and since I am the parent then it is my job to build that foundation which he may then add to subtract from or any combination thereof as he matures and grow into a young man, just as your parents built your core foundation which you then took what you believed to be valid and built upon that.

Re:Ultimately

[cheekyjohnson]

"Well first of all I gotta ask, are you a parent?"

Irrelevant. Have you ever heard the phrase "it doesn't take a chef to taste bad food"?

"I truly believe that 9 year olds tend to blend reality with fantasy"

Where is your evidence of this? You're affecting the life of another person, so you had better present some. I know of no person that can't differentiate between what we know as reality and a video game, including little kids. I've played violent video games since I was four, and even then I knew the difference between video games and 'reality'. It also doesn't take a video game to teach you that hitting someone with something will hurt them, and they certainly won't make someone believe they have multiple lives. Even kids know this, at least as long as they're not being actively lied to.

"Children are a blank slate when it comes to values and need guidance which is my job as a parent."

It is your 'job' to teach them what activities will put their life at risk, not to try to implant your personal beliefs in their brains (such as your illogical belief that kids can't differentiate between video games and reality).

"since I am the parent then it is my job to build that foundation which he may then add to subtract from or any combination thereof as he matures and grow into a young man"

Same as above. Also, a logical reason why something is beneficial/detrimental needs to be given. Too often that doesn't happen, and what is the result? It happens/doesn't happen anyway.

Re:Ultimately

[FlyingGuy]

Ok, so clearly you just want to pick a fight, sorry I don't take that kind of bait.

P.S. I really hope you never reproduce. Buh-Bye.

Re:Ultimately

[cheekyjohnson]

What? Pick a fight? That isn't what it was meant to do. I merely stated that your argument was illogical and challenged you to prove me wrong.

"P.S. I really hope you never reproduce. Buh-Bye."

You seemed to get angry at me when you thought I was "picking a fight," and now you yourself are doing just that.

Re:Ultimately

[Greyfox]

When I was 9 (That was a very long time ago) I would have had trouble coming up with a quarter for a coin-op game, much less $60 for... something that cost $60 back then. I think I would have had trouble divesting myself of my parents for long enough at the mall to play it, either.

Obviously your kid has an excellent source of funding as well as excellent alone-time opportunities. Perhaps you could address these, prior to asking for laws to be applied to everyone.

I also seem to be rather unusual in that I actually remember being 9. All my exposure to stuff I wouldn't want my kids to be exposed to (swearing, smoking, sex and violence) came through my school and my friends from school. Popular culture was pretty tame compared to what I was exposed to by interacting with other kids my age.

So even if you put laws in place that absolve you from any parental responsibility for knowing where your kid is and what he's doing, your kid will still get exposed to Rapelay over at his friend's house.

Online sales?

[chemicaldave]

I hope this type of rule would only extend to brick-and-mortar stores. Outside of age restrictions on accounts, how can I sell a game on amazon or ebay without being sure that an adult is buying it and not someone's kid? It might be in the adult's name, but a child could easily order something from me or a retailer online just as they can use a parent's cash or debit card. But I'm sure this has been handled for other "adult" online purchases. Also, where do we draw the line of what is considered "ultraviolent" and just plain "violent"? ESRB?

"slight weights"

[Halifax Samuels]

the online survey collected the opinions of 2100 adults, with "slight weights" added to region, party, age, race, gender and education "to more accurately reflect the population."

http://www.zogby.com/Soundbites/ReadClips.cfm?ID=19402

Does anybody else not like how this sounds? They just admitted to purposefully changing the results to more adequately suit how they think they should have turned out. Granted, it may be less sinister than I just made it sound, but then again it may not be. I'd feel much better knowing what the raw data they collected was, and THEN seeing what the data was once it was altered to fit what they expect it should be based on whatever it is they base that on.

Re:"slight weights"

[The Moof]

After reading those results, I'm thinking it's a lot more weighted than they claim. After all, I remember this story (from 2007) about the FTC praising the ESRB with some interesting stats of their own:

The FTC gave the games industry high marks in rising awareness levels of the ESRB system, with 87 percent of parents and 75 percent of children showing awareness of the ratings, up from 61 percent and 73 percent in 2000.

94 percent of parents said the ESRB system was easy to understand, up from 77 percent in 2000, and parental involvement in buying games was up 5 percent from 2000 to 89 percent. The number of parents actively restricting the games their children play was also up from 69 percent in 2000 to 85 percent this year.

So either the past three years have had parents drastically changing their outlook and knowledge, or the results are intentionally skewed.

Not a gun owner, apparantly

[Sycraft-fu]

By federal law you must be 18 to own a long gun (shotgun or rifle or the like) and 21 to own a pistol. One of the very few areas, alcohol being the only other one I can think of, that being an adult isn't enough to purchase something. When you purchase, gun stores don't just check ID, they do a full background check. They take your ID and take down a good amount of additional information. Technically, you don't have to provide it, but if there isn't enough to uniquely identify you, you wont' pass the check. They then call the police who run all that info through the NCIC. This checks to make sure you are not a convicted felon, or convicted of misdemeanor domestic violence, or have been in a mental institution. If the check comes back good, the store then sells you the gun.

So no, kids are not walking in and buying a gun unless they have a really good fake ID, and that fake ID actually identifies them as a real person who is above 18 or 21, and they have all the information (like SSN) for that person correct.

Re:Not a gun owner, apparantly

[Anonymous Coward]

Nah, you must be 18 or 21 to purchase long guns or handguns, respectively. They can usually be gifted at earlier ages, depending on state law. Of course, kids and other people who can't pass a background check can often purchase guns illegally.

But you're right at the very least--they don't go to retail stores and buy guns.

Re:Not a gun owner, apparantly

[ElectricTurtle]

You're conflating ownership and purchasing power. Federal law dictates that minors cannot purchase firearms, but it is state law that dictates whether or not a minor may "own" a firearm (insofar as a minor "owns" anything, the legal term is "possess"). For example in Montana and Alaska a 14 year old can possess and open carry a handgun legally so long as an adult has legally purchased it and freely given it to the kid. (However Montana does not preempt localities on age of carry so local ordinances can be stricter than state law with regard to legal age to carry. Alaska preemption is total, so no locality can impose any restrictions beyond state law.) I am not a lawyer and the previous should not be taken as legal advice.

Just store policy

[Sycraft-fu]

Stores don't want to get sued, and they don't want more government regulation (because that is always more of a headache than it needs to be). So stores self police. Target is extremely strict, as far as I can tell they card everyone. I'm 30 and they card me when I go to buy an M rated game there.

For that matter the ratings themselves are all voluntary. The ESRB is a non-profit group setup by the video games industry, it isn't mandated and indeed indy titles sometimes don't submit for rating (though it is hard to sell in a store without it). So are movie ratings, for that matter.

The reason is because the various industries don't want the government involved. They know what happens down that road: Lengthy, problematic, ratings process with free speech restrictions. Just look at Australia where they do have government mandated ratings and games get banned or cut down because they "can't agree" on the highest rating so games can't get it so can't be sold.

It may sound benign, but behind this isn't is always someone trying to suppress speech. The groups who sponsor things like this aren't interested in good ratings or ID checks because we get that shit anyhow. They are interested in government control so they can then pressure the government to ban things they don't like.

Really 2100 whole people out of almost 37 million

[ShadoeKnight]

2100 people is absolutely NOT a sufficient sample. If half the people in California are adult then that is a population of 18.5 million, my bet is its much higher than that. 2100 is 0.011% of that 18.5 million person population which nowhere near enough of a sample size. To get a sample that small also means that like 2 people were working the survey at 1 location. This is statistical maneuvering at its worst. Not only are they reporting a bogus survey but they assume we're all idiots who don't understand our mathematics. Where did this insufficient sample come from, hmmm? Outside Walmart on a Saturday afternoon in one location. Please quit insulting our intelligence and do something truly worthwhile like conduction surveys that aren't bull. Your opinion on video games is your own and I respect that. If you want to effect change in how the nation deals with something then act like you have some sense. Conduct real polls with good statistical analysis and stop yelling at the top of your lungs about nothing. In the end you come off sounding at best like ignorant stay at home Moms without any sense while at worst you sound like a strange desert religious cult screaming about being right without any good arguments that make sense to anyone but you. By the way, if the poll you commissioned was done this way without your approval, FIRE them and get a real company to handle it.

Re:Censorship tag? Really?

[DrScotsman]

Really? You don't think economic pressures alter the content and destroy the artistic integrity of creative minds? Do you have any idea how much gets ripped out of movies and games to achieve 'desired ratings'? It may not be de jure censorship, but it is de facto censorship.

Don't you already have that de facto censorship in the US? I thought that Wal Mart prevents the sale of AO rated games, and cinemas don't take NC-17 rated movies.

Besides, many comments claim that the majority of US retailers already don't sell M rated video games to minors. Those are the only retailers that publishers really care about, so will this really change anything?

Sexually violent?

[capo_dei_capi]

Do they mean Japanese rape simulators?

Zogby Interactive + Paid For By CSM = Joke

[Anonymous Coward]

Zogby-I has serious reputation problems and CSM should choose better if they want to be seen as reliable. Whats the news here? CSM decided to publish the results of a study they commissioned with a crappy pollster showing People Want What They Want?

If that qualifies as news these days why not just give CSM and any other issue group a few permanent 'ad holes' in the news paper they can fill with press releases it would save time.

I'm in favor of a ban

[Anonymous Coward]

I'm in favor of a ban. An industry ban, that is. We shouldn't need a law to implement common sense.

Idiots.

[MaWeiTao]

Every parent has the power to enforce a violent game ban -- in their own home. Forbid their kids from playing these games.

Better still they should talk to their kids about violence and it's implications. Perhaps point out the stupidity of turning violence into a fetish. Point out that violence does not a mature game make. This way, even if your kids are exposed to this stuff outside the home they'll at least be able to approach all this from a more informed perspective.

As a kid I enjoyed violent games, although many did pale in comparison to what's available nowadays. But the point is that I wasn't as fixated on excessive violence as so many kids seem to be. I could have a good time, but I didn't need my games to be violent and didn't have this immature expectation of blood and gore.

All these stupid parents clamoring for this ban are handing over power to the politicians. They're giving the government the power to control our lives and ultimately those politicians will decide they need to ban something these parents don't agree with.

Re:Idiots.

[cheekyjohnson]

"Every parent has the power to enforce a violent game ban -- in their own home. Forbid their kids from playing these games."

For what reason should they do that? Violent video games do not cause violence, period. Again, people who can't differentiate what we know as reality from a video game (very, very few people, if any) would have already been deemed 'insane' by society, and do not need video games to 'give them ideas' on how to carry out violence. If the parents refuse to buy the games, that's one thing. But they can't stop the kid from buying the games themselves with their own money. They aren't slaves.

"Better still they should talk to their kids about violence and it's implications."

Same as above.

"immature expectation of blood and gore."

I happen to like blood and gore in video games. It gives me the sense that I'm dominating my opponents in this likely fictional world. Just because I happen to like that and don't care too much for games without it, that by no means makes me 'immature'. I could say the same thing about your opinions.

"They're giving the government the power to control our lives and ultimately those politicians will decide they need to ban something these parents don't agree with."

Like you suggested the parents do to the kids? Odd.

Nicely worded poll question..

[anyGould]

From the summary (emphasis mine):

prohibits minors from purchasing ultraviolent or sexually violent video games without parental consent

Pretty easy to get nice high poll numbers when you're asking people to think of the absolute worst example and ask if *that* should be banned

Also looking forward to seeing how they'd define "ultraviolent", or even "violent" for that matter - Mario's been torching and sitting on people's heads for 25 years now... could even call him a "repeat offender"...

And once again...

[mapkinase]

And once again those horrible adults are trying to make the life of youngsters miserable. If only there was a way to get rid of the tyranny of adults...

Please check the facts...

[Itesh]

http://www.ftc.gov/opa/2008/05/secretshop.shtm This is the latest secret shop that the FTC has made available. Minors trying to purchase M- Rated games had the smallest success in doing so versus explicit CDs, R Rated Movies, Unrated DVDs, and R-Rated DVDs. So, if the SCOTUS is going to back a law that restricts the sale of M-Rated games to minors I want to see the same action taken on all similar forms of media. Government intervention isn't needed in the game industry as their self-policing has improved dramatically over the last few years.

Argumentum ad populum

[Wild_dog!]

Great cause it matters that our decision making should come from poll results. Of the 72% against video games, how many have played computer games at all other than solitaire at work when they are bored.

Upholding Logical Fallacy is definately how the courts should make decisions.

Polling is a terrible way to tell a story. So full our biases and the biases introduced by the line of questioning. With questioning you can lead folks to agree to so much and disagree with so much. It depends on what you are asking.

as others have posted:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3gMcZic1d4U

Busted for selling to an undercover child?

[tepples]

Probably the bartender knows how to read a persons age while the borderline aspergers kid at the game shop has to check ID.

That or GameStop is a national chain that instituted a policy of carding everyone. Perhaps it got busted for selling to, say, an undercover child with a condition that causes the appearance of accelerated aging. A local bar is less likely to have been busted.

Re:Busted for selling to an undercover child?

[Anonymous Coward]

man they are creeeeeeepy looking. i'm gonna have nightmares.

"It's for homework"

[tepples]

not if my firewall, the one that only allows the mac of my whitelist proxy server out, has any say in the matter.

With some parents, "it's for homework" is a magic word to get anything whitelisted. And as schools recognize video games as an art medium, this will only happen more often. For comparison, how closely do you monitor your children's teachers' reading lists to make sure that no R-rated classic literature is included? A high school teacher who assigns a book report on a war novel will often end up putting books with "fuck" in the dialogue in the hands of minors.

I will remove the central processing unit and memory from his motherboard and put it in my safe for a month.

At which point the school comes after you for modifying the laptop that it has leased to you for your child's use.

72% of US Adults Who Also Game...

[gVibe]

...are tripping over each other to ban violent games from minors...simply because they are tired of getting their assess kicked in said games by said minors. That is the real reason for this poll and the real reason any Adult gives a crap what type of games minors are playing.

So, what age do you have to be to buy a Bible?

[Anonymous Coward]

Really, America is so messed up that we freak over sex or boobs but until now we let any kid buy/play violent games to the point that our own armed forces make a game and target it to kids.. Why not, the 16 year old's can start training and the average age of solders in Iraq is 19... Fucking 19 years old and given a gun and told to shoot the bad guys.

But really.... Has anyone read the bible? Sex, murder, rape, violence on a level unknown in our modern world.. Even Hitler used gas at least..

Here is just a TINY chunk of what the Bible, the Holy scriptures, Words that God breathed directly on the pages, Infallible and true calls for :

"Every one that is found shall be thrust through; and every one that is joined unto them shall fall by the sword. Their children also shall be dashed to pieces before their eyes; their houses shall be spoiled, and their wives ravished." (Isaiah 13:15-16)

"And we took all his cities at that time, and utterly destroyed the men, and the women, and the little ones, of every city, we left none to remain." (Deuteronomy 2:34)

"And they utterly destroyed all that was in the city, both man and woman, young and old, and ox, and sheep, and ass, with the edge of the sword." (Joshua 6:21)

"The righteous shall rejoice when he sees the vengeance. He shall wash his feet in the blood of the wicked." (Psalms 58:10)

"And Israel joined himself unto Baalpeor: and the anger of the LORD was kindled against Israel. And the LORD said unto Moses, 'Take all the heads of the people and hang them up before the LORD against the sun, that the fierce anger of the LORD may be turned away from Israel.'" (Numbers 25:3-4)

And I'm not even talking about all the various other books, Steven King comes to mind, that any aged, gray, nice little librarian will be more than happy to check out to anyone who asks, free of charge and supported by the taxpayer.....

Me... How about you 'Monitor YOUR Fucking Kids'... Christ on a stick...
God Dam Nanny State and a bunch of old bitches that have nothing better to do?
How about you ACTUALLY help kids and spend your extra time helping foster kids?

Re:So, what age do you have to be to buy a Bible?

[cheekyjohnson]

"Me... How about you 'Monitor YOUR Fucking Kids'... Christ on a stick...
God Dam Nanny State and a bunch of old bitches that have nothing better to do?"

Better idea: stop believing idiotic things such as "violent video games make people violent!" There is absolutely no need to "monitor your kids." People who can't differentiate between what we know as reality and a video game would have already been deemed "insane" by society, anyway. These people don't need to play video games to get their ideas.

Not surprising.

[Mister Whirly]

72%? Big deal.
In 2006 50% of the US thought Iraq had WMDs.
20% of the US now thinks Obama was born in Kenya.
6% of people still think the moon landing was faked.
Aren't numbers fun?

72% of US Adults?

[Necreia]

Then 72% of US Adults shouldn't buy the games for their children.

Retarded

[UndeadCircus]

Just sell the damn games to the kids. If you don't, they'll find someone to buy it for them. The only thing this law is doing is wasting money, time, and about 30-minutes in the kids' lives to try and find someone to buy it for them.

Great, now the minors will be unprepared for

[Phizzle]

the upcoming Zombie Apocalypse! Way to go California :(

Bullshit!

[Athanasius]

Anyone thinking such games have a truly adverse effect on more than a very small minority of kids (who likely already had problems) should go watch this "Penn & Teller's Bullshit!" episode: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1471881/

Sadly there's no synopsis or the like on that URL but from memory one thing they did was have a 10 year old who loves playing something like Modern Warfare on his console go and actually shoot a rifle (AR-1 I think). The kid doesn't enjoy the experience at all. Yeah, the games sooooooo made him likely to grab a gun and go on a real killing spree....

Re:Bullshit!

[Athanasius]

In typical /. inhabitant behaviour I'd not even read all the summary before commenting...

So, they asked about 'ultraviolent or sexually violent' ? Way to load the question. Of course a majority are likely to say 'yes' just because of the words 'sexually violent' !

So, yeah, even more Bullshit! than I thought.

72% of adults...

[Ariston]

Who cares what the adults think? The ban only applies to minors...

Nothing wrong with laws like this

[Nyder]

We have laws to protect children for most activities that "adults" are allowed to do.

buy cigs, alcohol, drive.

So what if some games parents have to buy. At least that way, you can see what your kid is playing. You know, pay attention to your kid?

This doesn't matter

[Daetrin]

This is one of those times where it's a very good thing that Supreme Court justices are appointed for life rather than needing to worry about getting reelected. They're supposed to decide cases on the merits of the law, and not based on whatever is popular at the moment, and this is especially true in cases involving the the 1st amendment. The whole point of guaranteeing free speech is to protect the right of people to say unpopular things. No one needs legal protection to say things that everyone else already agrees with. So it doesn't matter how many people agree with whatever some biased poll says, it only matters if the law infringes on 1st amendment rights.

So does that mean no more M games at ToysRUs?

[NotSoHeavyD3]

Just wondering since they do carry M rated games. (Originally they didn't but from what I remember that went out the window when Mortal Kombat came out. Wow surprise surprise they changed their policy when the stood to loose out on a large some of money.)

Re:So does that mean no more M games at ToysRUs?

[guyminuslife]

You remember incorrectly. There was no M rating when Mortal Kombat came out, or any content rating system at all for video games. The success of Mortal Kombat was one of the reasons why they exist.

Re:So does that mean no more M games at ToysRUs?

[NotSoHeavyD3]

Hmm, I think you're correct. I just checked on google images and the Genesis version was MA-13 but you could uncensor it with a code. (The SNES one was censored and unrated.) I must have been thinking of MK2 which was MA-17 on the Genesis and I'm pretty sure Toys R Us sold that. (After bragging they wouldn't sell any MA-17 games. Of course this reminds me there was a previous rating system for games that got replaced by the new one.)

Funny...

[Anonymous Coward]

Most americans are also against prostitution. But then again they are the biggest audience of pr0n, and the ones that seek most sexual tourism on underdeveloped countries...

An alternative that works

[Zaphod-AVA]

Instead of 'M' for mature, put a photo of a giant erect penis on the cover.

Credit has no age barrier

[Anonymous Coward]

When you buy Playstation credits, you don't need ID...

Then you go online and purchase an 18 rated game...

So where is the protection? Is this the same for XBox or PC?

So what is the goal here?

[jdcope]

Are they looking to arrest parents that buy videogames for their kids? Because I don't buy the idea that parents don't know what games their kids are buying. Games are expensive. The parents give them the money or buy the game for the kid in most cases. They see them playing it. I think this is just an agenda for the holier-than-thou to force their views on others.

Because Virtual Console prints money

[tepples]

unless you can point to proof of a general appreciation among minors for abandonware

Games sold in the Virtual Console section of Wii Shop Channel were first published between 1983 and 2001. For the first year and a half of Wii Shop Channel, VC games were the only thing that Wii owners could spend Nintendo Points on. As I understand it, Nintendo sold points cards in big box stores primarily so that people without a credit card or checking account could buy points. If grown-ups were the only people buying points, Nintendo wouldn't have to go to the trouble of having stores stock points cards; instead, it could rely on the "buy points" button inside Wii Shop Channel. Therefore, we can conclude that minors bought points and spent them on VC games.

Re:Because Virtual Console prints money

[ElectricTurtle]

You assert:
a) It is possible for minors to acquire points without credit cards
b) Points can be used to buy old games for virtual console
Therefore c) because a) and b) are merely possible it necessarily follows that a large number of minors "buy" old games for virtual console (in a market containing both adults and minors where minors do still have some barriers to entry even if they are not wholly excluded) even though there is no discrete verifiable demographic data to back up this hypothesis.

Yeah you need to take a course in logic if you think possible = probable, let alone statistically significant.

The unfortunate sad fact...

[Anonymous Coward]

...that well over 72% of US Adults do not have the intelligence to understand the larger picture, nor do the extremists realize that their efforts are really best concentrated elsewhere. Even worse, my best advice for them is brain-shock by ibogaine. But hey this is America, do what you want, grow a culture that rapes all the creative spirit from our children. For God and Country.

It Won't Work

[b4upoo]

We can't stop heroin, coke, or pot nor millions of illegal immigrants from crossing the border. The chance of keeping violent games or sexually explicit material away from teens approaches zero. It might even make such materials even more interesting for teens. And you can bet that an illegal supply industry will instantly pop up to get those materials to the teens. There are a lot of hurting people right now and getting an adult with an ID to make purchases for a teen will require little effort at all.

uh??

[Anonymous Coward]

So, what implications does a state or federal law have on independently published or distributed games? Its one thing if mainstream publishers and retailers along with the ESRB establish their own policies which already work fine.

But when the government says "this game is violent you can't sell it to minors"-who are they talking about? Do freeware game makers and hobbyists now need to watch their back lest our nanny state comes after them for "polluting the minds of our precious youth"?

Games vs Movies (why are they different)

[Thail]

This should not be about poll results but about the legality of the government stepping in and regulating the sale of this material. Video games should be treated the same way as movies. There is a self regulating body for both movies and games, the MPAA for movies, and the ESRB for video games. In both cases, ratings are applied to video games, and then the store decides what policies it wants to enact when selling them, and finally the choice of the customer whether or not to purchase the game or movie. Most stores that I have been to require an ID check for anyone appearing to be under the age of 18.

If it's a crime to sell video games with certain ratings to certain age groups, then it follows that the next step is to restrict the purchase of videos. After that the government will need to enact their own rating boards. And the final step is government censorship.

There is an assumption kids will play adult games

[thetoadwarrior]

I think part of the problem is the game industry banks on children playing adult games. You can go back and look at things various company people have said about kids playing the games, the rules within communities makes assumptions that some are of the users will be kids and quite frankly I'm tired of it.

I do not hang out with children in real life, I don't play physical games, like pool or basketball, with kids and I don't want to play games online with kids. In the days of Quake it wasn't too bad but now you can hear them and it's annoying because it's not longer possible to pretend you're playing with all adults.

The way I heard it...

[KingAlanI]

This was the summer camp range officer talking about shotguns and rifles, as opposed to handguns.

12 to shoot, 16 to own your own, 18 to buy your own (between 16 and 18, you could receive one as a gift)
Shotguns might have been older, whether de facto or de jure, because of handling the recoil.

There weren't age limits on shooting BB guns

Trained adult supervision of course.

Somewhat analogous to graduated driver licensing?

[In NY, the state]

Why do parents need a law?

[blair1q]

Parents already have control over their under-18 children.

Why would anyone have to pass a law to keep kids from getting information that parents don't want them to have?

Ohhhh... I get it. They already keep their kids from having it, and want to enforce that on your kids.

Never mind. Just another repudiation of the concept of America, perpetrated as an act of blatant tyranny, disguised as "family values".

Re:Why do parents need a law?

[stewbacca]

Ohhhh... I get it. They already keep their kids from having it, and want to enforce that on your kids.

Exactly. I have coworkers who won't let their children mingle with mine, because, gasp, we have the Harry Potter books. Turns out my kids are a lot smarter than theirs, because my kids actually read.

I've heard this with alcohol

[KingAlanI]

Obviously the home life of those around alcoholics is kinda FUBARed, but the children of teetotalers haven't been taught how to handle the stuff if^H^Hwhen they get ahold of it.

All my relatives seem to drink decent stuff in moderation.

Points cards have not been discontinued

[tepples]

Yeah you need to take a course in logic if you think possible = probable, let alone statistically significant.

I admit that I appear to have committed a fallacy of four terms. So let me express the term that I apparently neglected to imply properly: If retail points card sales were statistically insignificant, then they would be unprofitable for Nintendo to continue offering after the first twelve months. Yet Walmart* continued to carry points cards even through the release of the DSi.

Re:Points cards have not been discontinued

[ElectricTurtle]

That point cards are useful and aimed at minors is not in doubt; however, that by itself does not demonstrate that those minors are using those points specifically for older games. Without a demographic breakdown (and a few different search strings turned up nothing public for me) there is no way to demonstrate that a large number of minors buy games for virtual console. In fact some of the articles I looked at, while mentioning no numbers, emphasized the popularity of older games with older gamers and that the primary motivator is nostalgia. This is what I would ultimately expect as a majority.

But how many minors do?

[MoriT]

Tyranny of the majority isn't better if the minority is minors. Parents should parent, and teach their kids how to make good decisions about what games to play. It is totally and completely not the government's job.

100% of me thinks you should give me money, but that doesn't mean it would make good law. I'm willing to try it out and see, though!

"I'm singing in the rain..."

[HTH NE1]

Next question: "Would you support a law that prohibits minors from purchasing A Clockwork Orange on DVD, Blu-ray, or its soundtrack on CD?"

(Analog media like VHS would be OK since the violent and sexual imagery would be sufficiently degraded.)

This seems fishy

[TyJaWo]

I honestly think that this statistic is a misrepresentation. They surveyed a fairly small group to claim 72% of US adults. They also definitely surveyed people they knew would give them the answers they were looking for.

Better enforcement?

[MattBD]

I'm surprised this isn't already in place. Here in the UK the existing age rating system that was devised originally for videos also applies to video games with certain adult themes, so they can be rated 15 or 18 if necessary, to prevent children under those ages buying those games - for instance, GTA4 on the PS3 is rated 18, so under-18's cannot buy a copy. Half the time when some boneheaded parent is going "Ban this obscenity!" in the pages of the Daily Mail, then the idiot parent bought it for them and failed to look properly, which is their own stupid fault. Better enforcement of the existing rules is the way to go.

VC came before WiiWare

[tepples]

that by itself does not demonstrate that those minors are using those points specifically for older games.

I thought I addressed that above: "For the first year and a half of Wii Shop Channel, VC games were the only thing that Wii owners could spend Nintendo Points on." WiiWare didn't come until May 2008.

Really...WTF

[tempest69]

I was raised by solid parents, but a good chunk of my safety was the fact that I couldn't buy jack as a kid. This was due to a lack of cash on my side.. But I was a nerd at heart and would rummage through trash to find electronics /motors and rip them apart for parts. I'm lucky that I avoided serious injury on way too many occasions. Amazing how fast a lawnmower engine can fly at your head when your 10 years old.
Anyway restricting minors from buying things that aren't innocuous is probably a good thing.

slippery slope, as usual

[sixsixtysix]

of course, this will eventually prevent game buying adults from easily getting their games at local retailers just because some fuckwits shouldn't have spawned in the first place.

False Dichotomy

[stewbacca]

siding with families over video game profits

...talk about your text book example of false dichotomy.

I play all kinds of games with my kids, some violent. I also have a very strong family.

Screw them if they want to tell me that a "good family" means "not playing violent video games".

R/PG-13 all over again

[WinstonWolfIT]

If this goes through, adults will no longer be able to buy adult-themed games.

Well....

[Anonymous Coward]

72% of US Adults need to STFU!

Our country is ruled and overwhelmed by people who want to try their hardest to suppress things like Sex and Violence. I think there is a better solution, but that same 72% will probably think I'm wrong.

Why not educate? I'm not talking this bullshit of pushing students from grade to grade "so they aren't left behind" I'm talking some real hard-core fuckin' learning. Teach them the difference between right and wrong. Drill that into their heads, and I bet it would help them ALL THROUGH LIFE.

Fuck you you conservative douchebags. This country is going to chaos, and it's because we don't have the balls to tell people "here's how it is, here's how it's going to be done" anymore.

Now, everyone just bends over and takes it. People who refuse to work, sticking it to tax payers. Kids sticking it to parents because the parents think there is something wrong with some good healthy dicipline. Parents/Students sticking it to schools because schools are afraid to stand up for basic principles of "you are here to learn".

Fuck you to anyone who won't take responsibility for their own problems. If you can't face up to them, then maybe someone needs to take the initiative to stick them in your face and make you take responsibility.

So I'll say it again.... Violence in video games is fine, if parents can stand up and make sure their kids know the difference between right and wrong.

Sorry for the vulgarities, and poor English. I'm angry, and people only seem to respond to having things shocked into them.

I don't get it

[cheekyjohnson]

No, really, I don't. How about instead of just a poll, they have to actually explain, in a logical fashion, *why* sales of these should be banned for minors. If they don't, their little opinion doesn't matter. They're ready to strip away someones rights or ability to buy something because of their little uninformed opinion. The least they should have to do is provide some evidence to back up their idiocy. Video games don't, and never have, caused violence. The people that can't differentiate between reality and a video game would likely have already been deemed "mentally unstable" by society in the first place, and would have committed these violent acts, anyway.

I also don't support the idea that parents will police what their children buy, because video games never hurt anything. They aren't slaves. Not buying them something is one thing, but preventing them from buying something with their own money is another. Sorry, but you people are complete idiots.

The fact that these idiots are even taken the least bit seriously is appalling.

Re:Really 2100 whole people out of almost 37 milli

[cheekyjohnson]

You must also ask yourself if any of these people have any evidence that supports their views beyond an illogical opinion. They'll planning on putting into place something that greatly affects other people, after all, and shouldn't be able to do that without sufficient evidence (read: there is none).

Real Life Death Games are not virtual, but inspire

[h00manist]

Why do you need a law?

So that only the gov't is allowed to distribute weapons, train killers, and give them orders to kill. Its called terrorism agression and violence, when THEM, EVIL PEOPLE do it, but becomes peace-keeping, heroism, self-sacrifice, when WE, GOOD PEOPLE do it. Better known as police, crime fighting, army, and war -- or terrorism, criminals etc when it is THEM..

Sad to say, I do find some link between shooting in games and in real life. To verify, hang out in a games-cafe full of counter-strike kids, and look at police records for what happens in these places. Take the shooting games out, the fighting at the places stop. People have violence. The gov't sponsors violence. Corporations pay for enforcing their exploits through the use of violence, and enforce the law of their property rights by violence. Since the gov't sponsors violence, it's become very legal and fun and enjoyed by all. And a game.

the lack of STANDARDS

[Anonymous Coward]

1) Government must impose rating standards; industry has done a piss poor job of it on every system they've devised. It also has little to no recourse for unfair ratings - bias and marketing do influence the ratings. I've seen plenty of rated pg-13 movies that were billed as R. The documentary "This Film Has Not Yet Been Rated" explores a little of the secret private world of film ratings.

2) The rating itself can limit and censor the market for the content - such as a rated X or rated M for games needing to be sold at Walmart - beyond this, it can stigmatize and characterize content even when correctly rated. There are cogent arguments opposing ratings- the senate testimony of Frank Zappa. I disagree and think the problems are worth the gain as far as proper ratings - one could say similar things against FOOD LABELS (and it was said) it would harm products that contained unpopular ingredients...

---

1.1)
Why government? Because this is EXACTLY what government exists for! (I'll IGNORE the silly libertarian extremists.) Just like food labels, it will take effort to list the contents of media content - but just as with food labels the overhead costs will be minimal and many things will be except from listings. The format is THE SAME for all food labels - software can ID the labels and read them - a government ratings system for media would be digital as well so all your devices would be able to block as you see fit. NOT the silly simplistic ratings we can choose to block today.

1.2)
Different media would have the same ratings. None of this R being close but not the same as M crap we have today.

1.3)
As far as profane words - I don't think they should be listed; its a short list - however, the words themselves should not be blocked. It is childish and superstitious to ban the use of single words for any reason. Sadly, too many people are indoctrinated into the belief that curse words are cursed. One can say horrible things without using specific words. The "N" word in the USA is a perfect example of the insanity that goes on - non-racist usage doesn't even matter sometimes - if we left out this censorship, perhaps we can cut down on the irrational behavior. Offending people should be OK! you bunch of wimps! (kids learn ways to offend others really quickly - and racial slurs get more silly every decade integration continues.)

2.1)
A long list of definitions is enough. "Violence" is not enough; somebody's opinion what is R or M level violence is not enough either. There needs to be a formal process and a self rating system with penalties for error (like food labels.) What kind of violence - those should be listed. Spousal violence is something I'd ban for kids on MY technology or for purchases. Nudity is ok; but any sex is not, etc. Naturally creating this list will not be easy especially in diverse areas...

2.2)
Ratings can be contextual and should be - so that A profane lyric in a song could be identified and blocked by the proper software. This would allow you to listen while your child would hear an auto bleeped version (or better yet, the file format supports multiple tracks in a way that allows the clean version to be integrated without recreating the whole track like they do today.) This would be especially useful for Video where they already edit ratings down all the time and even go so far as to cut them to fit in more advertising.
The damage of the ratings would be minimized this way.

2.3)
Disobedient kids can now more than ever gain access because both their parents work more hours than ever (USA) and are unable to properly supervise them. Your kid may not see sex at home; but their friend's parents might... So its is not like we are closing the loophole where teens can see interracial couples, competent black characters, war footage, sex education, opposing religious views, etc. The old stuff didn't prevent it and neither will new stuff. Making drugs illegal hasn't stopped anything either (its actually made worse when it becomes rebellious.)

Violent sports ban for testosterone junkies?

[LostMyBeaver]

Seriously, I would be a huge fan of cutting back violent sport for anyone that has enough testosterone to believe that yelling at an inanimate device such as a TV set would have any impact positive or negative to the outcome of the event which they're watching.

How do you ban selling violent games to kids that have parents who will simply buy them for them? What defines a violent game? Super Smash Bros is EXTREMELY violent. Should that be banned? For tht fact, I remember "Nintendo Duck Hunt" having been quite violent as the only object of the game was to kill animals with a pistol. On the other hand, my 8-year son has friends who rush home each day to play Call of Duty. Their parents apparently didn't believe they were violent. Some of the 10 year olds in my neighborhood play Grand Theft Auto, their dads are sure they know that it's not real.

Why do we waste time on laws that are a waste of time outside of the theory. We're making laws that to try and do the things that parents should be doing instead. If the parent lets their kid go out and buy a violent game, and the kid almost definitely got the money for the game from mom and dad, how hard is it to get their mom and dad to simply buy the game for them? Of course, most of those kids can't get the money from mom and dad for the game, so they just pirate it instead. So what you're really saying is, to the few kids that are honest enough to actually buy a copy of the game, they should pirate it instead?

Tell you what... when you figure out a way to keep 11 year old kids from looking at porn, I'll support your bill.

Movies?

[DarthVain]

Is the rating system for Movies "Law"? I don't see the distinction here.

How about being a PARENT instead?

[ZOP]

First off it's not the store's problem. Parents need to BE PARENTS. If you don't want your children buying/playing those games then you as a parent need to get your lazy butt off the couch and go be a parent. Or away from your computer, or maybe, come home early a few times a week and spend time with your kids. Stop making society try to (very very poorly) parent your kids.

Next basically all retailers are following a (voluntary?) good practice of IDing anyone buying an M or T rated or above game, or requiring a parent. Secondly, theres not one shred of evidence linking video games to violence of any kind. None. Some kids who have committed violence have yes played violent video games, but if you look at their history, their psychological profile, it wasn't the games that caused it at all. In fact there is research that indicates there might be a link to video games and LESS violence. Why? Think about it, if you can kill the school bully in your head 100x -- or -- beat him on the virtual battlefield (if he or she also plays) then it's likely to defuse the conflict by letting the aggression out in a safe, virtual, manner.

As Bob Marley said

[jtrainmf]

The Crusades, Spanish Inquisition, Roman Gladiators, Holocaust, etc...= real human killing. Video Games = takes place after all these violent events, oh and its not real! As Bob Marley said lets not lie to our children. I think the Simpsons had an episode involving the banning of Itchy and Scratchy where the same idea was presented. Damn it Marge!

Then I say 72% of adults are idiots

[Anonymous Coward]

"Oh protect us, enslave us and we will give you all might power government"

Grrrrrr

Dear bad parents,

[AlgorithMan]

Dear bad parents,
a ban of violent video games does NOT free you from nurturing your children.