Follow Slashdot blog updates by subscribing to our blog RSS feed

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
Censorship Your Rights Online

Violent Video Game Protection Act 341

Posted by timothy from the quixotic-but-deforming dept.
KidIcarus writes: "Four lawmakers in Georgia have submitted a bill that would make it a criminal offense to sell or make violent video games available to minors. Full text of the bill here. Seems that politicians still don't have a clue, despite indications that video games don't cause violence." This may remind you of the (since overturned) law segregating certain video games from others in Indianapolis.
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Violent Video Game Protection Act More

Violent Video Game Protection Act

Comments Filter:

  • Double standard. (Score:4, Insightful)

    by shockwaverider ( 78582 ) on Saturday February 16, 2002 @09:31AM (#3017689)
    But of course it's OK for CNN et al to show scenes of mass slaughter of innocents.

    Isn't this a double standard displaying a bias against gamers...
    • But of course it's OK for CNN et al to show scenes of mass slaughter of innocents.


      No, because the TV is at home where it's the Parent's job to regulate (or educate) viewing. The Parent may also buy the video game. However, if the Parent chooses not to allow the game into the home, there needs to be a system in place to enforce it. I don't see the difference between Movie rules (PG-13, R, etc.) and this.
      • Ultimately, it should be the parent that decides, you are inferring that it should be the retailer that decides instead of the parent. In order for this measure to make a difference, you should look at the following criteria:

        1) Would it be effective, in other words, would it decrease violent behavior.

        2) Would it be enforceable.

        3) Would it cause any harm.

        As far as effectiveness, I would point to the URL provided in the news header that shows that there is no significant correlation between violent videogames and violent behavior. With no correlation it is seen that there is no real reason for requiring this law to be enforced by *retailers*. Some parents, on the other hand, don't approve of violent videogames and should thus exercise their right to forbid their children from buying and playing such games (although as noted below, kids can still warez or play at a friends house).

        Enforcability is also somewhat problematic. If you ban violent videogames from kids, you'll only encourage them to frequent warez channels and play games at friends houses.

        Lastly, there is no doubt this would cause significant harm to the videogame industry. Without being able to retail to kids, a significant portion of the industry would have to either forgoe a significant profit from kids or to lame down their games to a level suitable for Barney. This, in fact, is the real reason behind this bill. It's not to try to get violent vidoegames away from kids, it is to prevent the games being made for anybody. Politicians know better than anybody that the way to castrate an industry is to remove it's funding. This particular politician obviously doesn't like violent videogames and is trying to see that they don't get made in the first place.

        I personally would rather not see this happen. I enjoy games featuring violence, since I consider violence to be integral to many significant conflicts. You don't hear legends about how Custer lost a game of checkers to the Indians, nor is it likely that the fall of Troy to trade sanctions would make much of an epic. Videogame violence also has a visceral appeal that allows me to blow of steam by fragging pixels rather than getting rude or snappy with those I deal with in RL.
  • "...once they get an idea-r in dere head, dere's no shiftin' it."

    The above Monty Python line would seem to apply to legislative politicians; a herd mentality that just takes one dumb sheep to create some very stupid laws. Chanting refrains of 'do it for the children' and all that nonsense, in hopes of pulling in one more mini-van mom vote.

    On the lighter side, I suspect the sons of these Georgia legislators are probably the guys that do the stupid, violent stunts in the 'Backyard Wrestling' video series (as seen on late night TV ads here in the US).

  • Discriminatory (Score:3, Interesting)

    by bildstorm ( 129924 ) <peter.buchy@s[ ]fi ['hh.' in gap]> on Saturday February 16, 2002 @09:41AM (#3017716) Homepage Journal

    I'd like to see how they can even think it'll hold up in a court of law. This one should be so simple to beat down, I can't imagine it would even help in an election race.

    The reality is that you cannot discriminate towards one particular form of something. Case in point would be pornography. Ok, if we restrict pornography, then we have to do in all forms of media.

    The point was made previously, but if the law was non-discriminatory, this would mean that most news publications, not just on television, but also print and web would have to avoid allowing minors to access such things.

    Personally, I'd like to see how this would affect demos downloaded off the Internet. Can you imagine id Software getting prosecuted because some kids in Georgia downloaded a Quake demo?

    • Re:Discriminatory (Score:2, Insightful)

      by AndrewRUK ( 543993 )
      If I'm reading it right, it doesn't say anything about giving violent games away (including demos.)
      What it says is "A person commits an offense if the person sells, rents, or otherwise provides for use for a charge any video game to a minor which contains scenes or depictions of graphic violence as determined by the Entertainment Software Rating Board."
      If you're giving it away, you only need to tell people about the violence.
    • I'd like to see how they can even think it'll hold up in a court of law. This one should be so simple to beat down, I can't imagine it would even help in an election race.

      The reality is that you cannot discriminate towards one particular form of something. Case in point would be pornography. Ok, if we restrict pornography, then we have to do in all forms of media.

      Chances are they already have the law in place for movies (porn & R & NC-17) and books (likely only porn). Here in TX at least, movie theatres have signs "We card". As to whether or not they actually do is another question entirely

  • WHAT?!?!?! (Score:4, Funny)

    by timdorr ( 213400 ) on Saturday February 16, 2002 @09:41AM (#3017718) Homepage
    They're trying to stop me from playing my violent games? KILL KILL KILL KILL KILL KILL!!!!!!

    Dammit, I'm gonna rocket jump over to their house and grenade spam their house, but first I gotta find the red key to get inside....lemme bunny hop over to that building that says central control......

  • Makes me so angry! (Score:3, Funny)

    by kisrael ( 134664 ) on Saturday February 16, 2002 @09:44AM (#3017727) Homepage
    Man, this stuff makes me really angry! I hate ignorant politicians like these guys who want to take away our electronic rights! Someone should smash into them with a Hadoken Fireball! Or take the chaingun into the Georgia legislative building corridors! Or jump on top of their stupid turtle-like heads! Or grab an energizer and give them a taste of their own medicine! Or something!

  • Georgia? (Score:2, Insightful)

    by Greyfox ( 87712 )
    Does anyone actually LIVE in Georgia? It's one of those states like Mississippi that you always drive through without stopping.

    In any event, they tried something of the sort in Indiana if you recall a while back. Court smacked them down like a pimp slapping down a 2 dollar hooker. If I were one of the hypothetical residents of Georgia, I'd be pretty pissed off that the legislature was wasting our tax dollars that way, since they'd have to know there'd be no way it'd survive a constitutional challenge.

    • Not really anyone, other than the 4.5 million in the Atlanta area. Busiest airport in the world. 4th largest city in the US. Nope, no one really lives there.
    • Does anyone actually LIVE in Georgia?

      Atlanta. Perhaps you've heard of it.

      • Does anyone actually LIVE in Georgia?

        Atlanta. Perhaps you've heard of it.

        Didn't the lost city of Atlanta sink into the sea over a thousand years ago?

  • Embarassed to be from Georgia (Score:5, Interesting)

    by jkinney3 ( 535278 ) on Saturday February 16, 2002 @09:44AM (#3017729)
    Once again, the elected leaders of Georgia demonstrate why this state is still ranked 49th in education quality . It's stupidity that leads to violence. Since this state is chock full of stupid people it might explain the high violent crime rate. Sadly, as more people pass through the public school process in Georgia, the situation will only get worse. We might even sink below Mississippi at some point .

  • its scapegoat hunting time (Score:3, Insightful)

    by vicious_sloth ( 534928 ) <louie4NO@SPAMcooper.edu> on Saturday February 16, 2002 @09:47AM (#3017735) Homepage Journal
    The politicans just want a scapegoat for the violence they see in schools. THey blame video games becuase its easy and noone really understands anyway.. but why are politicans trying to pass a bill? in fact why would politicans do anything? Its becuase they get alot of pressure from people who actually take the time and write to them, complaining. in this case politicans got a lot of letter from ignorant angry americans who just want to se something done more then actually finding the real cause or taking and real responsibitly for their actions. these same ignorant americans are probably the same ones that use proxy parenting, "if the government says its good, then my children should be seeing it" As you've seen, slashdot is noticed and heard. It can become a real political powerhouse if everyone who disagreed with the governemt actually wrote to their senators (americans that is) its as easy as printing your comment and mailing it to your favoirte senator, or assemblymen. (snail mail becuase no one really takes e-mail seriously)
    • Its becuase they get alot of pressure from people who actually take the time and write to them

      How DARE those elected officials devise new laws by listening to their constituents. What do they think this is, a democracy?

  • Too much (Score:5, Insightful)

    by jACL ( 75401 ) on Saturday February 16, 2002 @09:48AM (#3017738)
    As a parent, I can understand why some people think that playing Max Payne [maxpayne.com] would be like training for the next Columbine. Violence runs rampant in our media.

    But it always has. The greatest literature, and some of the most thoughtful movies (Schindler's List and Platoon come to mind) are rife with violence. The difference is the follow-through. Showing a full consideration of the effects, or the struggle against violence is often what sets stories of violence apart as literature.

    Would I want these games banned? No. The ratings system that is in place is what I use. Before my kids get a game, I evaluate it. Only the responsible ones get through.

    • Re:Too much (Score:2, Funny)

      by neonstz ( 79215 )

      As a parent, I can understand why some people think that playing Max Payne [maxpayne.com] would be like training for the next Columbine. Violence runs rampant in our media.

      Yeah, I can imagine a bunch of testosterone-filled teenagers with guns running around in their local school, throwing themselves around the corner, just to realize that Bullet Time doesn't work in real life.

    • Would I want these games banned? No. The ratings system that is in place is what I use. Before my kids get a game, I evaluate it. Only the responsible ones get through.

      Do you seriously evaluate it, though, or do you just use the rating system? One thing that dawned on me recently is that the rating system is woefully inadequate. For instance, Grand Theft Auto III has large amounts of realistic urban violence, as well as things like prostitution. Therefore, it has an "M" (Mature) rating. Devil May Cry, on the other hand, is an over-the-top action game that reminded me in many ways of playing Sonic the Hedgehog when I was a kid. But because it has some small amounts of blood, even though the player NEVER fights anything remotely human, it, too, gets an "M" rating.

      I guess all I'm saying is that as a parent, please evaluate the games you buy for your children more than just looking at the rating, if you don't already. Many games on the market today are mislabeled. In fact, any game with any sort of violence in it at all seems to get a Teen or Mature rating lately, despite not being very different from older games like Contra and Castlevania.

  • What do you expect from a GameSpot article? (Score:4, Insightful)

    by osgeek ( 239988 ) on Saturday February 16, 2002 @09:49AM (#3017742) Homepage Journal
    Seems that politicians still don't have a clue, despite indications that video games don't cause violence.

    Well, that's not really even what the GameSpot article says, and can you guess the slant that the GameSpot article takes on the original Surgeon General's report?

    The Surgeon General's report states that violent video games can be a factor, but is not a sole motivator for violent behavior.

    If it's a factor, then further studies should be done to determine how much of a factor it is. Put some numbers on it.

    I certainly don't have reservations about preventing the very young from having too-easy access to harmful things. I'm a big freedoms-type Libertarian, but young people often don't have the maturity to be able to handle a full set of freedoms. It's why we restrict driving, voting, and other rights that we grant freely to adults. It's also the reason why minors' criminal records are sealed and they're given special sentencing considerations when they commit crimes.

    • This is all typical. Sure, video games may be a factor, but how about legislating against the big, obvious factors first (like say: guns?).

      If video games were the problem, Japan would be in trouble.

      (for the uninformed: Japans violent crime rates are far below the US)

      • Re:What do you expect from a GameSpot article? (Score:4, Insightful)

        by dciman ( 106457 ) on Saturday February 16, 2002 @10:16AM (#3017822) Journal
        Guns and video games are NOT the problem here. The problem is parents who do not take an active role in the kids lives. You are a fool to think that kids or criminals who want to get a hold of a new video game, or a firearm is going to be thwarted by some new legislation.

        Just like when I was a kid... for some reason me and my friends always found ways to get "R" rated movies. This wouldn't stop anything. Just be a waste of taxpayers money in the courts when the challenge came.

        Parents need to step up and start acting like parents again..... and actually see what their kids and doing...

        Just my thoughts..
        • The problem is parents who do not take an active role in the kids lives.

          You can't legislate against bad parenting. You CAN legislate to reduce the amount of guns and violent video games in kids' hands. Yes, it's an imperfect solution, but guess what: it's an imperfect world.

          You are a fool to think that kids or criminals who want to get a hold of a new video game, or a firearm is going to be thwarted by some new legislation.

          Are you seriously suggesting that anti-gun legislation has NEVER prevented guns falling into the wrong hands? Or that theaters NEVER turned away ANY child under 18 from an R-rated movie? Yes, a lot of guns and violent video games will fall through the cracks, but that doesn't mean the legislation will have 0 effect.

          • Are you seriously suggesting that anti-gun legislation has NEVER prevented guns falling into the wrong hands?

            I would be suggesting exactly that. There is quite an element of truth in the saying "If you outlaw [illegal item], then only outlaws will have [illegal item]." Witness prohibition in the 1920's. It just made alcohol harder to get, lower quality (higher methanol content increased rates of blindness dramatically) and more expensive. Plus, it allowed the Mob to become more powerful because you could only get your liquor from the Mob (incidentally, most of the Kennedy family fortune was alleged to have been made through liquor-peddling). Same thing with guns. You pay more for weapons because they are illegal. And since they are unregulated, you don't know who has them and you can't track their use. Great if you want to commit a crime like armed robbery or murder because illegal items have no paper trail. The original poster has a point because kids or criminals who want to obtain guns, firearms etc badly enough will find a means. What outlawing does is tip the supply in favour of criminals, who don't care about the law and don't operate inside it. Ergo, it doesn't matter to them, only to us law-abiding folk.

            I'd instead argue that the main objection to this legislation by this forum is not because 10-year-olds won't be able to get SOF2, but that this is yet another piece of legislation politicians are introducing to "improve" our lives. We are objecting not to the regulation of our lives, but to the overregulation of our lives. We expect laws to provide reasonable limits on our behaviour, not to dictate our lives.

            • I would be suggesting exactly that.

              You're aware of the logical construction of this argument, right? All I have to do is find a single example of gun laws preventing a single ex-convict from obtaining a single handgun, and your statement is disproven.

              Prohibition has been used as an analogy for just about everything. It doesn't really fit the mold, though; liquor was legal everywhere else in the world, so importation was easy. Guns, however, are far more restricted everywhere else than they are in the US, and there are a lot fewer manufacturers (it's much easier to make liquor than to manufacture guns).

              Secondly, it's not that easy to get an illegal gun. I'm constantly hearing people declare how they can "go down to a van on the street and buy an uzi off it"; these tend to be suburbanites who couldn't take a cross-town bus without getting lost, let alone contact gunrunners. Yes, there are people who sell illegal guns. No, they don't do it openly on the street. Laws that prevent the easy sale of guns WILL cut down on the amount of gun deaths. It will not eliminate it, but laws shouldn't be passed only when we're positive they'll never be broken.

              . We expect laws to provide reasonable limits on our behaviour, not to dictate our lives.

              In the issue under debate, these laws will regulate minors, not adults. Minors shouldn't be granted the same freedoms as adults.

              • Re:Prohibition Never Works (Score:4, Insightful)

                by maxpublic ( 450413 ) on Saturday February 16, 2002 @02:58PM (#3018851) Homepage
                Anti-gun freaks unite! It's for the chiiiillldreeen, after all! If we prevent just one death then the law will have been worth it.

                Okay, so last year, according to the FBI:

                - more than 90% of all murders in the U.S. were committed with 'weapons of opportunity', including blunt objects and knives, even when a gun was available. So hey! Save the children! Outlaw knives and baseball bats! If we just save one life....

                - this means that of the approximately 30,000 people who were murdered last year, about 3,000 were killed with guns. In contrast, 5,000 died in falls (mostly stairs, followed by ladders) and 12,000 drownded (mainly in pools or local rivers or lakes). So while you're rabidly making the world safer for children don't forget to ban: all stairs, ladders, stools, pools, rivers, lakes, and all eight oceans. After all, If we just save one life....

                - ooooh, and let's not forget that a little less than 50,000 people were killed in car accidents. Ban cars!

                - and finally, at least another 50,000 died due to alcohol or alcohol-related diseases. So let's ban alcohol too, it's for the chiiiillldren! Wait, where have I heard that before....

                Max
                • If we prevent just one death then the law will have been worth it.

                  So you think it would only prevent one death?

                  this means that of the approximately 30,000 people who were murdered last year, about 3,000 were killed with guns.

                  Wait, you just said one person, now you're saying 3,000? There's a difference, you know. Maybe some people think that it WOULD be worth it to save 3,000.
          • I do say it's about time to legislate against bad parenting. It's not impossible, it just takes a lot of time and effort on the part of our elected officials. I'm so sick and tired of people pushing their responsabilities on whatever is close at hand and easy to blame.
  • Such a law has existed for decades over here.

    • Re:Germany (Score:3, Funny)

      by jamesidm ( 244299 )
      I remember the joy on my friends face when we were both 14 and I came to germany with a smuggled copy of a fully gored up quake 1 :)

      and then seeing command and conquer where people bleed oil!? It's an important thing that germany has good broadband coverage to get the uncut versions of games.
  • Not allowing ppl under 18 to go to a store and buy such a "violent game" has nothing to do with that same ppl under 18 playing it or not. They can ask an older friend, download from some warez site, make a copy etc etc ...... Besides violent games are really "kid stuff" compared to some TV reports we see :)
    • "Gee officer, the law doesn't say I did anything wrong. Sure, my big brother got me the pot, and then my daddy gave me the $50 hooker for my birthday, but _I_ didn't go buy it. I mean, the nice homeless guy bought me those cigarettes too! Really, what's the problem?? I was able to see all of this between the fuzzy lines on the scrambled-porn channel on cable!"

      C'mon... I don't agree with this sort of legislation either, but the argument "We shouldn't legislate this because kids are going to do it anyway" wears a bit thin. If public outcry is going to stop crap like this, it sure as heck won't be through this sort of tactic.

  • Explain (Score:5, Insightful)

    by infiniti99 ( 219973 ) <justin@affinix.com> on Saturday February 16, 2002 @10:00AM (#3017774) Homepage
    Can someone please explain to me why the "Slashdot Consensus" seems to be in disagreement of things like this?

    Why is having enforcable ratings on video games a bad thing? After all, we have movie ratings and no one is complaining.

    So a salesman will now stop some 10 year old kid from buying Mortal Kombat 7, with ultra-bloody effects. Isn't this better than being stuck with a one-version-fits-all where the blood is replaced by sweat?

    Without ratings, all movies would suck. They would have to stay within certain limits. This bill is about enforcing who is able to purchase a game based on content (ie, rating). Such enforcement only encourages developers to be as artistic as possible, and not worry about angry parents. The ratings are here to protect not only children, but developers.
    • personally i think parents should take a more active role in the lives of their children. then people will say "we dont have the time to monitor everything our children do". personally i think you should wait until you have time, then have children.

      back when i was young, this lady named tipper started something called the parents music resource center (pmrc). she, and a few other senators wives with nothing better to do, started lobbying the major record labels for a rating system. eventually they got the major record labels to comply, but some others wern't all that quick to adhere to their "moral" views (see at [alternativetentacles.com]).

      so what was their solution? picket any stores that sell this music that they dont approve of. this leads to bands being blacklisted because they dont think morals should be dictated to them. one of the bands was the dead kennedys, an antigovernment band whos lead singer didnt have alot of nice things to say about tippers husband when he ran for election in 2000 (not that he had many nice things to say abou bush either).

      so who cares right? i do, there is a small subset of the population dictating what is "morally right" and i dont think that bodes well with the liberties given to people by our constitution. this allows parents to be less responsible at a time when they should be _MORE_ responsible. i want parents to stop looking for external excuses for their childrens' behaviour and start to accept that they have to participate in the lives of their children to be a good parent.

    • Re:Explain (Score:4, Insightful)

      by msobkow ( 48369 ) on Saturday February 16, 2002 @01:19PM (#3018448) Homepage Journal
      Movie producers go to great lengths to avoid the highest ratings so that they can get the all-important teen audience. If you check any theatre, the vast majority of the audience is under 20, and the video game producers know it as well as the movie producers.

      The producers would probably prefer to keep 10 year olds from buying the most violent of games -- many of them have children, too. They don't want to make it too difficult for the 14-18 audience to buy the games, as that is probably a huge chunk of their market.

      I have to question the rationale behind wanting the violence to be ever increasingly realistic. As a programmer I'm impressed by the attention to detail in the newer games (e.g. area-specific damage skins), but I don't really notice those details when I'm playing the games.

      Realism in the sense of allowing alernate solutions as Deus Ex tried to is far more important to me as a player than whether the blood pool under a body spreads as time goes on.

      Despite my personal opinions that we don't need such attention to detail for the gibs, I strongly object to censorship. It is the responsibility of parents to monitor their children, not society at large.

      Anyone who thinks desensitization comes from video games really needs to take a look at their own reaction to the news, particularly when their children are in the room. How many people sit stone-faced while the latest accident/murder/rape is reported on the news, suggesting to their children that this is a "normal" part of society? How many more protest "shock" at such acts, while remaining glued to the screen in rapt attention, the very attention children crave from their parents?

    • nobody complaining? (Score:2, Insightful)

      by fringd ( 120235 )
      Why is having enforcable ratings on video games a bad thing? After all, we have movie ratings and no one is complaining.

      first off, you are quite mistaken. i for one am complaining, and i'll take this opportunity to do so. the rating system is an arbitrary piece of shit, that is based on ancient puritan/victorian values. values that i for one do not subscribe to. i believe that nudity is not filthy, and i object to having these values foisted on the next generation including any offspring that i might have. i think that much important storytelling involves violence and lust. i think these stories are important to tell children. i don't think that letting them imagine the world as all flowers and candy till they have to deal with it is a good idea. i think it's kinda twisted.

      now that's not to say i don't think there are things i would rather not have my children see. for example anything promoting racism, anything promoting feelings of shame and inadequacy over perfectly normal and healthy behavior are not appreciated by me. the christian ethic of not touching another person until marriage by a catholic priest is sort of disgusting to me. i would rather my children not be taught these ideas by the media.

      now you may not exactly agree with me, or maybe you do, and that's exactly the point. no system will keep all children from seeing stuff that their parents object to. while one film might bother some parents, it might be a wonderful learning experience as far as another is concerned, and vice versa. the only way to keep a child from viewing any objectionable media in an objective kind of a way is to not let the kid view anything at all, and keep him in a little box with a lock that only the parents can open to let stuff in. i will assume that total sensory deprivation of our children is something that nobody wants.

      so now that i've complained about movie ratings, let me complain about video game ratings. what will we decide is violent? is shooting down planes in jet fighter games violent? is killing aliens in invaders violent? are hunting games violent? (as a vegetarian i think so, a family that hunts might think otherwise) and if we even defined that, who says that violent games are bad? and how do i cast my vote to say that they are not? where do i have some choice in how my child shall be censored by default?

      this seems to leave us with only two objective choices: censor nothing, or censor everything. i personally say we should not censor anything at all. individual parents will have to do that, and they will have to decide how to accomplish it. ultimately it comes down to how much control you have over your child, which you shall find out soon is not as much as you hoped. that is unless you are caring, explain your reasons for disliking a specific kind of media, and respect your child's choice in the matter.

      to me the most horrifying factor in all this is how much parents and the government are eager to "protect the children" without even freaking pausing to ask the children themselves what they think on the matter. most young adults over the age of 13 probably have valuable oppinions on the matter, and i can bet you they don't involve being "saved." children are eager to take responsibility and to grow up. if they see you watching violent movies with mature themes, they will be eager to take up this habit. if you think there is something wrong with this then why do you do it. if you think there is nothing wrong with it, then why are you teaching them that there is?

      this entire moral mode of protecting children from real life has gone on since we stopped sending children off to apprenticeships some centuries ago, and started sending them off to kindergarden. this represented a grave error on our part (i believe), and we should consider allowing children back into the real world. instead of trying to protect them from the evils of the "adult" world, let us do our job and help bring them into that world, it's where they'll be spending most of their life.

  • Think about the children. (Score:3, Insightful)

    by satanami69 ( 209636 ) on Saturday February 16, 2002 @10:02AM (#3017778) Homepage
    Christ almight. I sure hope that 4 lawyers from Georgia don't know what's best for our children.

    What part of "fiction" are the lawyers not understanding about video games? Is it because they look "real"? Maybe it'd be cheaper to put children into sound proof booths, feeding them cool tea and pudding to help protect them from all the evils in the world.

    Of course, video games are not the "only" cause of youth violence, there is NO single cause. The media seems to always look for a single "magic bullet" (e.g. bombing Afghanistan won't stop terrorism...no, duh!) But by taking an incrimental approach and trying to get a handle on the VARIOUS factors that encourage any behavior, including violence, you can have a positive effect on the problem.

    And since when are we concerned about the old USSR anyway(someone look at an old map first)?
    • The same part of "fiction" lawyers don't understand is the same part the kids don't understand when they jump off their bunk bed imitating a move they saw on WWF wrestling. The law since you didn't care to read it says that a retailer needs to see some verification a minor is old enough to buy the video game based on its ESRB rating. Theaters are supposed to card kids when they buy tickets to R rated movies. This is little different. A 10 year old doesn't need to play Counter Strike. I can tag someone with a head shot with an AWP and not be phased by it. I don't presume to think that if I really shot someone in the head with a rifle that they would come back to life in five minutes with an MP5 gunning for me. A 10 year old however might. You reply well the descisions of what a 10 year old can and cannot play is the onus of the parent (your version would be much more inflamatory). This is true. However often times a parent doesn't really know what their kid is byuing. The mow some lawns and raise 40$ or get some birthday money and go buy their video game without Mom or Dad asking anything about it. What the lawyers in Georgia are attempting to do is force the parents to be at least a little accountable for their children and make them buy the game for them or at least be there when they buy it. The parent doesn't have to do shit afterwards, they just have to be present which in many cases is more effort than many parents put into raising their kid unfortunately.
      • However often times a parent doesn't really know what their kid is byuing.

        This is the entire problem. If you as a parent have so little involvement in your kids life that:

        • You don't know what s/he does with her job money.
        • You don't know what s/he plays on the computer or console.
        Then you have no goddamn business being a parent. Period.

        Yeah, kids will sneak around and always manage to do something that you won't know about. But I would say that if your kid is sneaking around they probably won't have enough time playing to warp them very much. On the other hand, if your kid is playing so much that they're getting aggressive, the signs should be there and you should start looking for reasons.

        The problem with violent kids is in a large part lazy parenting, not evil video games.

        • very well stated. I totally agree.
        • However the fact remains that people who don't fucking pay attention to their children have children, usually because their fucking condom broke. These people far outweigh those who ought to have kids and thus cause problems for those with a little more intelligence. Video games don't make bad children, that is ridiculous but they do however provide a negative stimulous for them. When they kill people their score goes up rather than down. This is like a Skinner box, rewarded actions are repeated, punished actions are avoided. It doesn't matter that kids sneak off and do what they please, making that more difficult is not a bad thing, making parents accountable for their children's actions is not a bad thing either. Think about the cases where a parent blames a video game for some violent act, if there was a law saying that child should not have been able to buy that video game without the parent's consent that gives the courts legal basis for telling the parent they are fuckups and punishing them accoringly. If a child does something wrong and has to face a court and a parent blames a movie they saw as inspiration for their act and that movie is rated above what the child SHOULD have been allowed to see on their own the parent is officially neglegent and has no legal ground to stand on.
          • Whatever happened to the stuff my dad used to threaten me with, where he'd make a big deal about how HE was responsible for what I did, and if I screwed up bad enough it'd be his hide on the line? To hell with trying children as adults, try the parents!
  • What ever happend to CRAZY??
  • they could have stopped Jack the Ripper, Charles Manson & Hitler....

  • Good grief (Score:4, Insightful)

    by bwalling ( 195998 ) on Saturday February 16, 2002 @10:08AM (#3017800) Homepage
    Everyone here throws a fit about everything!

    Look, the point of this law is to put the decision of game content into the hands of the parents. If the parent wants the child to own a Mature rated game, the parent can go with the child to purchase it. Same goes for R rated movies. It's the same damn thing. It's not discrimination, it's not politicians not knowing anything about computers or games or violence. It's the same thing as R rated movies.

    The video game industry has finally become large enough to get noticed, and at the same time the content is becoming more realistic - more movie like.

    This isn't going to get struck down, people. There's nothing wrong with it. Face the fact that until you're 18, there are some decisions your parents get to make for you. That's always been the case.
    • If the parent wants the child to own a Mature rated game, the parent can go with the child to purchase it. Same goes for R rated movies. It's the same damn thing [...] This isn't going to get struck down, people. There's nothing wrong with it. Face the fact that until you're 18, there are some decisions your parents get to make for you. That's always been the case.

      Nuts to that.

      For starters, I'm sick of having to carry around "papers" and pull the damn thing out to prove I'm old enough to do/see/drink something.

      Secondly, the ages are absurd. They are so out of line with what kids (rightly) do anyway that it's not even funny--For hell's sake, I was shown R rated movies [imdb.com] in *school* quite a bit before I was 17, and nobody thought anything of it at the time! And don't get me started on drinking...

      Thirdly, have you ever considered that letting your kids out of the house unsupervised *is* parental consent? I seriously doubt my parents were ever unaware of my location (at least to the extent of not knowing what other adult was watching me) for the hours(?) it takes to rent a violent game and play it, not to mention getting access to an unwatched game console and TV until I was well old enough for that to be the least of their worries, and it's not like my parents were terribly strict at all... Quite the opposite, the psycho strict parents that actually didn't want their poor sheltered 18 year old kids seeing "bad" things kept quite enough watch on them to pretty much succeed at keeping them from developing any social skills at all.

      Fourthly, have you considered the effect the "assume no consent unless the parent is present" laws have on the kids' respect for legitimate law? You know *something* rubs off when your parents don't mind their 17 year old son being out after curfew, just don't get caught. Or setting reasonable limits on the drinking habits of a 19-year old, with the obvious disregard for the ludicrously strict rules politicians have decided are appropriate (and the tacit approval of more serious deception, such as the venerable fake ID).

      I suppose the last one is a lesson, though. It's not enough to teach your children that there are rules to be followed, but also there are rules to be disregarded, as well...

      --
      Benajmin Coates
  • Actually as seen the the Scientific American article on TV Addiction [slashdot.org], The problem probably is not the video games, but with TV in General. of whioch Video Games are a subset.

    To which all the TV addicts scream, "we are not addicted, we can watch anytime we want"

    Of course, if TV can cause some sort of a hypnotic or trance state [trance.edu], then all bets are off. Of course, then you have these guys who call every focused mental activity a trance [trance.edu], which is a bit off the mark as well

  • Laws to do parent's job (Score:3, Insightful)

    by Lumpy ( 12016 ) on Saturday February 16, 2002 @10:22AM (#3017838) Homepage
    I will not let my daughter play Soldier Of fortune, Quake I,II,III , UT, Halflife, GTA III .. because she is 10 years old and she is not ready to understand the line between fantasy/make believe and real life. But you know what, THAT"S MY JOB! no R movies, and some PG movies, No the family Guy, Simpsons, South Park... Because she is 10 years old. and you know what? I control it fine. I explain to her when she asks why not, and she respects me and my rules. This is what a parent is supposed to do, Raise their children, teach them limits, and be a mentor/role model. No, I dont say... "Go to bed, the raunchy show I wont let you watch is on, and I want to watch it." Like the trailer trash in the world. I record it for later viewing AFTER she has gone to bed at a regular time or at times she is not here. Same as any LAN parties I host. she is not to be in the house.

    The difference between a real parent and the horrible jerks is that a real parent put their children before ANYTHING ELSE. I want to drink some beers friday night, my daughter is puking with the flu... I'm home with her. I'm at her cheerleading, girl-scouts events, play's at school.

    If your child isnt #1 in your life above your job and "hobbies" then you aren't a parent. Any law trying to stop kids from buying "bloody beheading fest 2004" wont stop them, just like the law that makes it illegal to sell a kid tobacco.. Oh yeah that one works. and the alcahol laws... those work well too.... NOT.

    I dont want any damned laws that are worthless and try to make up for the bad/ lazy parenting.. How about passing a law that punishes parents for being horrible parents? or better yet, you have to get a license to become a parent? we dont let horrible drivers get a drivers license (well, we do now) why do we let people raise a human being without finding out of they can?
    • "How about passing a law that punishes parents for being horrible parents?"

      Can't really agree with that, we all know some good parents who raised some horrible child.

      "better yet, you have to get a license to become a parent?"

      Good point, after all there's enough overpopulation as it is. You sure should be qualified, mature and responsible before becoming a parent.
      • nono, you read that wrong.

        No punishment for bad kids... bad parenting...

        If it's found that johnny like to steal, vandlaize and the like because the kid basically brought himself up, mommie was to lazy to raise the kids let alone clean the house, and daddy was more interested in his career than the kids (you know the jerk dad's your friends had that were gone most of the time, even at night because he had to "career build" with the guys after work at the bars...)

        That's what I mean... punish the idiot parents for making an idiot kid... not the parent that tried and tried but johhine still robs liquor stores and kills gas station attendants.
    • My 5 year old plays Q3A and UT, and he sure as fuck knows the difference between a fucking game and reality. Is your 10 year old retarded or something?
  • This is from David Cross's HBO Special. I felt it was rather relevant.

    "I don't like the leaping logic that it's violence in the media. They act like violence didn't exist before TV shows and Natural Born Killers. Like, you know, the guy that climbed the bell tower in the 60's, in Austin Texas, what was the violent movie that he watched? I can't remember what it was.

    "And i'm sorry, what were the video games that Hilter used to play, you know? You know, before he went out and ... what were the video games he gave to the entire German republic?

    "It's ridiculus. Here is the thing. Like, look, if you just program Touched by An Angel, and Providence, and Family Practice and that bull shit, I'll fucking kill somebody."

    Anyway, violence existed way before video games. I figured most of us would be repeating the same theme, but I thought I would add a little humor in the mix.

    My thought, however, is until we start teaching nonviolence and self control through our actions at home, schools or even in our government, how do we expect keeping violent videos games from minors to be the way to start?
  • Why not pass a law called the "Anti-uncool-kid preppy social clique protection act" instead? That would go a lot further in protecting the at risk kids' sanity.
  • Shouldn't things like this be more uniform? IT would be acceptable to say that all games with an M or 17+ rating be out of reach of minors, but individually specifying 'violence', 'sex', etc. is ridiculous. First of all, it shows how dumb these government officials of ours are. Second, and more importantly, I could make videogames that brainwash kids into joining the Skinheads / Nazis / Taliban / whatever, and they would be perfectly legal for anyone to buy.

    I can see it now, a game with barney telling kids who they should hate. Or better yet the teletubbies... Everyone already knows they're evil.

  • Society et al (Score:4, Insightful)

    by cluge ( 114877 ) on Saturday February 16, 2002 @10:54AM (#3017942) Homepage
    How long will it be before we will outlaw children using their thumb and index finger to make a "gun" to play cops & robbers? Oh yeah, a child was suspended for school for that already.

    If guns (and therefore video games, TV and movies that depict guns) are the root of our violence problems in america why the hell didn't my fathers generation kill each other at record rates? Have you SEEN this roy rogers guy? He carries a gun and used it several times! How about that show gunsmoke? EVERYONE carried a gun, and someone got shot in EVERY episode! Not like todays "Charlies Angels" where none of the heroes are allowed to use guns. It wouldn't be PC, and god knows that if Cameron Diaz used a firearm in a movie I might go Columbine on your ass!

    I remember a frontline article [pbs.org] that compared the affects of media on young people to a feedback loop. What our PC culture accepts as normal is so narrow in it's focus that normal behavior that has been in children and teenagers since the dawn of time is now somehow so aberrant that you have to drug you kid out of his mind [pbs.org]

    If society as a whole can't stand simple age appropriate behavior, we are all in for a rough ride. Outlawing video games is just a silly step that some very misguided people are taking for political expediency. If you truly want to stop the violence you have to start early you have to

    1. Have both parents involved (which is hard if they both have to work 70 hours a week to make ends meet. Some parents are additionally pretty heavily medicated at that!)

    2. You must have a have school system that actually cares about something besides how good the football team is and how fashionable dressed the students are. Not all student problems can be taken care of with a "magic pill"

    3. Have a society that kicks silly politicians out on their can when the pull these knee jerk reactions

    I don't hold out much hope

  • Videogames and violence... (Score:3, Insightful)

    by tcc ( 140386 ) on Saturday February 16, 2002 @11:17AM (#3018033) Homepage Journal
    Actually, I'd say that videogames probably PREVENT a lot of violence... check how people are absorbed in Quake-Style games, and how emotionnal they get sometimes while playing (spacebar-tapping harder, moving their shoulders, etc) I mean, this is an EXCELLENT aggressivity release...it disconnect you totally and make you forget all the crappy day I had...

    My position is really simple: If someone has to be violent and go up and shoot people at a certain moment in his life, he'll do it, period. Videogames WON'T be what is going to trigger it, look at molesting parents, peer preasure in school, gangs, etc. The problem with americans and Canada (I am canadian) is that they NEED to blame ONE source for all their problems, they need to see it's not THEIR fault, but OTHERS, while it could be true in some cases (being others), it's completely irrationnal to blame Videogames to this extent.

    You know what's ironic about all this? When they'll discover it doesn't change anything, they won't remove that law, they'll simply encourage more piracy among younger people (which is, by the way, a great way to educate them into NEVER buying stuff in the future), and helping of killing a part of an industry that sells well and that they are getting buttload taxes from. Sometimes I wonder how a politician thinks, heck I wonder if they think at all when they are pulling stuff like this.
  • "You can't blame people's behavior on books, music, film and video games, which are important outlets for emotions. Growing up, I always escaped to music if things got too hard to deal with. When you take away the things people identify with, you create these little time bombs that eventually explode. People feel smothered when they aren't heard."

    - Marilyn Manson

  • Slightly OT (Score:2, Interesting)

    by heideggier ( 548677 )
    I could be for the bill because my main problem with violence in video games is the almost pornagraphic nature of its presentation and this has just been done to death(sorry bad pun). If you have violence in a game there should be some context to that violence. For example think of something like Hamlet which has 8 bodies at the end and incest between a mother and son, then you should understand what I am getting at.

    Anything that forces developers to break out of the marketing to teenage psycopaths could be a good thing.

    I see video games being in the same situation that movies where in when the medium was invented, some of the most violent movies ever created were at this time. What you had was a new invention that allowed a voyear to fill their own fantasies. However, such thing's never became popular because of the sense of disattachment which finally eventulates. It just became old, only the most perverse are willing to endure violence for the sake of violence. You need something new to draw you into that world.

    What are really needed right now are deep video games like Des Ex, Half-Life, with really good story lines, ideas and characters IMHO. Not another doom remake (*cough* ID *cough*) or military sim (counter-strike). This is going to become important in a few years time due to graphic engines becoming as close to reality as what you could get on a screen.

    I think that this is a situation which happens to a lot of medium's for example, Manga started out (at least in America) because people liked transforming aliens ripping 16 year olds to shred's(which you still have) but now we have really mature things like Perfect Blue coming in. A few years ago you could picture the main market of manga being young male adults (much like video games today) but today such generalisations are harder to make and in a few year's maybe impossible.

    In closing, if games were more respected as a medium, then it would be harder to scape goat social problems onto them, and conservatives would go back to whining about the latest son-of-the-devil-rock-star or whatever.

    BTW, such bill's rarely work, In my country they banned GTA3 and I just imported a copy from New Zealand.

  • Don't be quick to judge...I think this might be ok (Score:3, Insightful)

    by pgpckt ( 312866 ) on Saturday February 16, 2002 @12:54PM (#3018360) Homepage Journal

    I am personally a huge free speech person, and if this were happening in my state, I would join whatever local political group was trying to make sure the bill did not pass.

    However, I think it is Georgia's right to do this if they really want to. I am conservative, and conservatives believe that local and state communities, not the federal government, should be in charge of most things, including community standards. I greatly oppose acts like the CDA or COPA because they are mandates from on high that completely ignore the fact that some communities do not want it.

    But if Georgia really believes its community does not want the sale of violent video games to minors, and the citizens want that (by not joining groups to oppose it, electing conservative politicians, etc.), then I see absolutely no problem with the state of Georgia enacting this community standard.

    It is not as if they are even banning the games (which I think I might still support). They are for sale. Adults can buy them. If parents think their kids are ready, the parents can buy the games for their children. What is the harm? Parents are able to make a choice about what they want their kids exposed to, the community is protected, free speech is protected, and it is a decision made by the local populace for the local populace.

    On Slashdot, we often complain how the federal government is doing this or that, and how parents are no longer able to make the call. Here is a situation that should make us all happy. Recognize a good thing when you see it.
  • Has it ever occurred to anyone else that Gran Turismo and Need for Speed have more to do with people getting killed than Half-Life or Quake[I,II,III]?

    Think about it: how many kids actually go out and buy BFG's, RPG's, and Shotguns? Probably none. Ok, how many kids buy souped up little imports and go freeway racing? A whoooole bunch (at least in southern california). Yet racing games get rated E.

    Why is that?
    • project gotham racing has this huge disclaimer screen on it every time you boot it up.. it says something along the lines of the following:

      the cars depicted in this game do not necessarily represent how the cars would behave in real life in similar situations. In any case, street racing is highly dangerous and nothing you do in this game should be attempted in any vehicle, on public roads, in real life.

  • The ESRB and MPAA ratings and the enforcement of their ratings are not currently mandated by law. They're self-regulated, ultimately voluntary systems.

    Enforcement of the MPAA ratings is done mostly through economic means and trade association pressure, and not by law.

    There's a big step between a voluntary, self-censorship system and a legislated restriction on access to speech.
  • It's interesting that while retailers have voluntarially tried to restrict sales of "violent" games to minors, developers are not required to have their games rated by organizations like the ESRB [esrb.org]. So, what is to happen? Require every game software title to be rated by the ESRB? What about independent game developers? Last I heard, having your game rated by the ESRB isn't cheap.
  • What's amusing is that I submitted this story - twice - yesterday morning. And it was rejected - twice.

    Guess I must've pissed some dork off.

    Max
  • God forbid that our children should be exposed to fictional violence. We ban them from the movies, from computer and video games...but what about books? Books are incredibly violent and worse, the violence takes place in the unrestricted space of the imagination! Who knows what damage takes place when a child *imagines* violence spurred on by a violent story, without the limiting effects of graphics technology?

    Yes, friends, it's time to start banning books. At the very least they should be labeled as to their violent content. God knows the parents don't have time to judge the content of a book, so letting strangers do it for them is perfectly sensible.

    Max

  • blargh (Score:2, Interesting)

    by BigBir3d ( 454486 )
    Yet another Clinton legacy, this time Hillary.

    Curious how the wording only pertains to the sale of violent games to minors, it has no mention of what the law will be for possession of a violent game by a minor will be.

    Sounds similar to tobacco laws to me.

    (it was Hillary Clinton who made the push for video game ratings)
  • They can take away my gamepad...

    ...when they pry it away from my cold, dead fingers...

Slashdot Top Deals

So you think that money is the root of all evil. Have you ever asked what is the root of money? -- Ayn Rand

Close