Congress To Consider Age Limits On Violent Games 591
labrat1123 writes "It looks like Congress is getting ready to revisit the 'Protect Children from Video Game Sex and Violence Act.' Cliff Notes version: It would become a federal crime to sell or rent a violent video game to anyone under 18. Entire article available on CNN." Note that this is not a law; it's a bill being readied for reintroduction after its original version was killed last session.
It's CLIFFS Notes, people! (Score:2, Informative)
It's Cliffs Notes, not Cliff, not Cliff's not even Cliffs', okay?
You can check the web site:
http://www.cliffsnotes.com/
Thank you.
-Mr. Cliffs (no, not really)
Laws already in place on this issue: (Score:5, Informative)
Stores are already at a risk selling ANY video game to a 17-year-old, because having not reached the age of majority, the sale can be easily rescinded, in efforts to protect minors from clever merchants who make their living taking advantage of the ignorant.
So everyone relax. Restrictions for those under 18 aren't THAT terrible, and even more importantly, THEY'RE ALREADY IN PLACE!
Penny Arcade (Score:3, Informative)
Here. [penny-arcade.com]
It's a good thing they're handling this, otherwise "first person shooter" games might start being produced, and all our kids would be turned into mass-murdering psychos.
Re:It's so encouraging to know ... (Score:5, Informative)
In the society of that time, a slap on the cheek was not intended as a physical injury but rather as an insult, putting an inferior back in his or her place. The strength of that insult depended greatly upon which hand dealt it: as the left hand was seen as unclean, a slap with the left hand was the insult far greater than one dealt with the right hand. This was reflected in the legal penalties for an inappropriate slap: the penalty for slapping a peer with your left hand was a fine one hundred times the penalty for slapping a peer with your right hand; the penalty for slapping a better with your right hand was a fine while the penalty for slapping a better with your left hand was death. The people Jesus was speaking to most directly were, by and large, slaves and the downtrodden. A slap on the right cheek was dealt with the left hand. To turn the other cheek would leave the master with two options. The first would be to slap the slave again, but this time with the right hand (therefore declaring the slave a peer). The second would be not to slap the slave again (therefore effectively rescinding the first slap). Now, such impudence and sauciness would often tend to bring punishment, but it none the less says "Hey, I'm a human. I have rights. You can't treat me like this." It is not an action without suffering for oneself, nor does it inflict suffering on the "enemy": but it does say and do something in a powerful way.
(from JonathansCorner.com [jonathanscorner.com])
Re:One reason (Score:3, Informative)
We're talking about passing legislation here. "Why not" doesn't cut it.
Re:It's so encouraging to know ... (Score:3, Informative)
Re:R Rated vs X(XX) Rated (Score:3, Informative)
Also, it is the retailers that voluntarily follow the guideline by not renting or selling to minors.
Nor Pornography is a totally different story. Selling or renting or showing Pornography to a minor usually fall under child sex crimes. It is up to the courts to determine if a particular image/video/movie etc would be considered pornography.
Movies are no longer classified as X or XXX by the MPAA. These are self applied ratings to encourage the purchase of the materials by adults. Usually pornography is never submitted to the MPAA, which means that average theater won't show it, etc...
Since none of the movies mature content (violence, sex, adult themes) is actually law, the Gaming industry should follow the same. It should be companies that refuse to rent, sell, or produce games to minors. Congress should have no business in it.
Yes, it's censorship (Score:5, Informative)
For minors, the Supreme Court (Ginsburg?) ratcheted up the cutoff for obscenity. This is clearly censorship, but constitutional censorship, at least according to the Court. I think they're probably wrong, mostly because I don't think the sexually explicit material is dangerous, but that's me.
I don't think these restrictions on minors -- whether print, film, or game -- make much sense, though as a parent I do appreciate the *labels* as a heads-up to what's inside. It makes it a lot harder to "con" me, or to make an honest mistake, even I'm distracted or unknowledgeable.
Even requiring labels interferes with free speech (what happened to the record labeling thing?), but might be upheld. Who knows though, the thought of the gov't making these judgment calls is disturbing. Note that the whole movie rating system was cooked up by the industry to head off gov't intervention, and so escapes the 1st A.
The other cheek... (Score:1, Informative)
First, Matthew 5:38-39 (all quotes from the NIV):
"You have heard that it was said 'Eye for eye and tooth for tooth.' But I tell you, do not resist an evil person. If someone strikes you on the right cheek, turn to him the other also."
From this much, yes, you could argue from the cultural viewpoint, that it's making a person use the other hand, etc, etc, although the phrase "do not resist an evil person" casts doubt on that. Now, the rest of the paragraph (Matthew 5:40-42):
"And if someone wants to sue you and take your tunic, let him have your cloak as well. If someone forces you to go one mile, go with him two miles. Give to the one who asks you, and do not turn away from the one who wants to borrow from you."
Especially the first sentence of this passage contradicts the idea that turning the other cheek is a forceful gesture of assuming equality.
Yes, culture is an important part of understanding what the Bible says. But context is more important. After all, the Bible also says "there is no God." (In context, Psalm 14:1 "The fool says in his heart, 'There is no God.'").
Hope this helps...
Matt