Illinois Gov. Seeks Violent Video Game Ban 651
Foobar_Zen writes "Gov. Rod Blagojevich of Illinois has apparently decided to build on past "wins". He seeks to impose legislation that will prohibit the distribution, sale, rental and availability of mature video games to children younger than 18. Breaking of this law would be punishable by up to one year in prison or a $5,000 fine." From the article: "The Illinois Retail Merchants Association blasted the governor's proposal as a way for retailers to become "the violence and sensitivity police for the state of Illinois." Update: 12/16 21:14 GMT by Z : Lum's take on this over at Broken Toys is excellent.
America's Army (Score:5, Insightful)
Don't they have more important things to do? (Score:5, Insightful)
What's the problem? (Score:5, Insightful)
Kids dont buy games (Score:5, Insightful)
video games are NOT physically harmful! (Score:5, Insightful)
Ok, I see the connection with adult movies (and I'm talking about porn, not R rated movies) but I cannot see how they think this can cross over into alcohol and tobacco territory!
Alcohol and tobacco are PHYSICALLY HARMFUL. You can die from alcohol and tobacco. You *cannot* die from abuse of video games... Explicit or otherwise.
On a personal note: Yes, video games showing full frontal nudity or realistic depictions of death (and when I say this I mean watching actual video clips of people being tortured, decapitated, etc) should be looked into as we do with movies... But video games showing a completely unrealistic depiction of human characters (as real as video games are looking they are still not 100% on) in a fantasy world should be treated as such.
I thought that as we matured as a society that this type of conservative bullshit would cease. Perhaps we are regressing?
Good! (Score:4, Insightful)
I don't see anything wrong with requiring a consumer to be 18 to purchase a game marked mature. I think it's a good idea to require proof of age when purchasing games marked AO or Mature by the ERSB.
If anything, this puts responsibility back onto the parents. You can't blame you're kid shooting someone on video games if the parents have to buy them for them.
Stupid law... (Score:1, Insightful)
So, how big is the penalty for kids going to a NC-17 rated movie or buying hardcore pr0n?
Why is one so much bigger than the other?
Re:Availability? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Consolidating your base (Score:5, Insightful)
What a joke though, in one article I read they listed Halo 2 and Half Life 2 along side Doom 3 and GTA. Like there's any real comparison between those games. It was clear they never played any of the games.
Ridiculous (Score:5, Insightful)
Remember Judas Priest , Ozzy, et al being sued back in the 80s because their satanic lyrics caused all of the problems with young kids today?
Remember when it was Dungeons and Dragons?
The people are idiots though, if the movie and recording industries can police themselves (MPAA ratings / "explicit lyrics" stickers), whats the problem with the (incredibly coherent) ESRB rating system?
And once again, games are created for and marketed to adults, primarily 18-40 year old males. Just go google for any statistics (Nielson, etc) on who plays/buys games if you dont believe me.
The "think about the children" argument is a red herring. This is all about appeasing Hollywood by helping eliminate the competition. Pure pork. And politicians think it's win-win because it'll get them a lot of "cranky old bitch" votes.
Re:America's Army (Score:5, Insightful)
Err.. talk about a biased article.. (Score:5, Insightful)
Hello, how is this different than R-rated movies today? Mature games are intended for a mature audience and you better believe we shouldn't have 8 year olds playing GTA3 unless their parents approve of it and buy it for them.
What's the crazy backlash to this? It's absolutely sound to set up laws prohibiting sales of these games to minors (just as it prohibits sales of pr0n to minors).
If parents choose that their kids are mature enough for said games then they'll go and buy it for their kids. If not, then kids won't be playing games that they likely aren't ready for.
-Nic
Parents are the answer, Rob (Score:4, Insightful)
"We already place limits on alcohol, tobacco, even adult movies. It's just logical that video games, which are so heavily marketed to young kids but many of which contain adult images, should not be available to young people or to minors," Ottenhoff said.
Methinks he subscribes to different logic than I.
The answer, of course, is to do nothing - allow the Invisible Hand of the Market to continue to do its work, driven by parents' enforcements of what little Johnny can and can't buy.
Micro-Rant (Score:5, Insightful)
My stock micro-rant on this topic is mostly just a quotation.
- Now that eighteen-year-olds have the right to vote, it is obvious that they must be allowed the freedom to form their political views on the basis of uncensored speech before they turn eighteen, so that their minds are not a blank when they first exercise the franchise. And since an eighteen-year-old's right to vote is a right personal to him rather than a right to be exercised on his behalf by his parents, the right of parents to enlist the aid of the state to shield their children from ideas of which the parents disapprove cannot be plenary either. People are unlikely to become well- functioning, independent-minded adults and responsible citizens if they are raised in an intellectual bubble.
Any elected government, be it Democracy, or Representative Republic, or otherwise, owes it to their constituents to allow unfettered access to ideas and information, praiseworthy or critical. To deny a citizen the right to know their own world is to deny them identity.--American Amusement Machine Assoc. v. Kendrick No. 00-3643 (7th Cir., March 23, 2001)
Re:America's Army (Score:5, Insightful)
If you don't know what your kids are buying with the money you give them you have no right to be a parent. And if your kids are old enough to make their own money I say they've earned the right to "corrupt" themselves.
Re:America's Army (Score:5, Insightful)
The problem is in the punishment (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:What's the problem? (Score:5, Insightful)
How's that working out, by the way? I assume no one under 17 watches R-rated movies in theaters, no one under 18 smokes, and people under 21 have never even tasted alcohol...
Won't have the consenquences they hoped for (Score:2, Insightful)
Yeah, that's a brilliant plan.
Re:Don't they have more important things to do? (Score:3, Insightful)
It may make a few parents take note, but it will probably just irritate other parents who have to take the time to go buy the game themselves. Do you all - or even most - parents are going to pay attention?
Re:Parents are generally incompetent, Rob (Score:3, Insightful)
The invisible hand of the market would have 16 year olds consuming vast quantities of hard liquor and probably driving around afterwards. Not that this doesn't happen anyway but imagine if you weren't impeded by the need a fake id as a kid, I probably wouldn't even be here.
Re:Availability? (Score:5, Insightful)
If the answer is yes, the law doesn't empower me, it takes away from me the right to decide what is fit for my children and what is not. It means the gov't meddling in my child-raising, which I wouldn't appreciate.
Re:video games are NOT physically harmful! (Score:1, Insightful)
Shit, 1970s had problems with handguns in the schools, too. What video games were popular then?
Re:Consolidating your base (Score:4, Insightful)
He is not censoring anything, unless you call not letting a 13-year-old into a hard-core porn store censoring.
In this society, we try to protect children. Children cannot vote, drink, buy guns, buy porn, etc. The fact that you might consider it to be OK does not mean that you get to make that choice for the whole country. With this law, if a parent wants to buy it for their children, they can. But at least they will be aware of what their children are doing.
I bet that most of the people flaming this law do not have kids.
Re:Err.. talk about a biased article.. (Score:2, Insightful)
Oh whatever, this is so naive as to be laughable.
Take a step back for a bit. Ok, take a deep breath. Now try, I know it's hard, but just try to get your one sided mind to look at the other side for a bit.
What are the downsides to this law? Really, I'm waiting.
The video game manufacturers themselves have already said that these games are NOT appropriate for children, that children should NOT be playing them. This is setting up a law (and therefore enforcement by retailers) to help enforce that belief. Is it perfect? No, but considering how many games are rented without parents having any clue it's a step in the right direction.
Who is getting hurt? If you feel your child is mature enough for some content (game or otherwise) then by all means go buy it for them. But our society as a whole can (and should) make some reasonable attempt to keep inappropriate content away. Yes that clashes with the naive, I'm still in college,
I'm still waiting for WHY this is a bad move apart from a knee jerk reaction. Who will this hurt? Don't give me some slippery slope bullshit argument either, cause that's just not being able to think for yourself.
-Nic
Re:What's the problem? (Score:3, Insightful)
Your right, its very similar to the R rating at theaters which have been in existence since 1966 without any legislation involved.
The problem is that this is something that does not need to involve the government. We do not need a new law every time a new product hits the shelf.
Re:video games are NOT physically harmful! (Score:4, Insightful)
It is doubtful that video games cause kids to bring guns to school. Your "evidence" is merely a temporal coincidence. You might say the same thing about TV, or the internet, computers in general, or even the automobile; that all of those cause violence, because look where we are today. However, it seems obvious that the problems we have these days arise from lack of proper parenting. Yes, with the rise of television, and computers, it's much easier to have them do the babysitting and childrearing; and it ends up that a lot of parents take that route, whether on purpose, or through ignorance. But it's not the televisions or computers that are the problem. People like you were the ones saying that Rock-and-Roll is the devil, and look how silly that is/was. As with anything new to society, there needs to be an adjustment to accomodate the changes. I don't think society has changed enough to keep up with everything, due to old people being old and stodgy. I would tell you to use some facts, instead of coincidental stuff.
-Jesse
Re:Don't they have more important things to do? (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:The kids are not buying the games (Score:2, Insightful)
Parents don't know any better, and percieve games to be "for kids" simply because they don't understand them. Then they get shocked and outraged that their 9-year-old's GTA:SA christmas present depicts strong violence.
(OT: My grandma walked in with a shocked face after the Star Trek episode "Contact". (The one where one of the alien (in typical hippie/Roswell fashion states "I always wanted to have sex with an alien" (meaning Riker). In very "old-lady" tone of voice, my grandma shouts, in utter horror, "Star Trek's supposed to be a children's show!" Anyway, same principle here with games.)
Re:video games are NOT physically harmful! (Score:4, Insightful)
If you haven't noticed by the flags and ribbons on people's cars, we are a nation under stress, and when people are under stress and have no way of eleviating that stress they look towards others to do it for them.
Also, the greater the stress and disparity, the more controlling and totalitarian leaders and their actions are sought out.
Re:What's the problem? (Score:2, Insightful)
-A
Rod is just trying to get his name known (Score:2, Insightful)
Its just one pathetic attempt after another so that when he tries to run for president, the country is already familiar with his name and his being on the "correct side" of these issues.
Yes, I voted for him. I thought he'd be slightly better than this, but he was the best choice at the time. Oh well, hopefully next time around we'll have some good choices.
Re:Err.. talk about a biased article.. (Score:2, Insightful)
Please go look up censorship.
a) This is not a ban, it's control for a certain age group, it's not censorship either. If the government was banning violent games outright then ya, I could understand, but this is just a little effort to help kids off some of the more mature titles out there.
b) The idea that you as a parent can control everything is all well and nice, but ultimately unrealistic. The media, corporations etc, are what you should be worrying more about, rather than the government. We are on a race towards the bottom right now, driven purely by profit, profit that is coming from corporation appealing to the basest instincts. Want no control, no legislation, nothing? Let me paint a picture of what that would look like. Basically 24/7 pr0n, intersperced with some violence and then some more pr0n, maybe a bit of football here and there with hardcore girl on girl on goat halftime shows. That will sell, therefore that's what will be on the airwaves with absolutely no control.
The point is that we as a society need to make some effort to let parents MAKE that decision for their children until they can make that decision themselves. If all content, pr0n, mature video games etc, are available to anyone at any age, then parents really don't have much of a change to instill those values.
As for saying that's the parent's job. Consider that kid's spend hours upon hours a day either watching TV (in school no less!), playing video games, or otherwise being exposed to marketers and the corporation's messages. How many hours a day do most parents get to really sit down and talk values with their kids? It's not a fair fight, so having some reasonably sane laws to hedge things in the parent's favor is absolutely sound.
-Nic
Re:video games are NOT physically harmful! (Score:5, Insightful)
I think most of the problems we are having is one of acceptence. Schools and other sources are pushing people to conform more and more to some extrovert idea of what someone should be. As you turn up the pressure and also remove options for having stuff changed people turn to violence. That has been true for all of human history that I know of. I know when I was in school I was considered a nerd because I liked math, science, reading etc and was picked on for it and the teachers certainly permitted it since they never tried to stop it. At some point you turn to violence to solve your problems. I learned from the society that when you are forced into a fight by a group of people that you fight to win and you better go for shots that count because if you don't you are going to end up much more badly hurt. So you go read up on nerve strikes and how to hurt someone as quickly and efficiently as possible.
If the society did not permit the first kind of behavior people would not be forced to learn the other stuff to protect themselves. I did have times where 10 or more kids would find some need to prove themselves to others by trying to beat up on me. You learn fast in situations like that and the schools allow it to happen. It is the same way in the rest of our society. Just look around you. This society is endorsing violene as the primary way to solve problems (bush), that you can do anything you want to get money (corporate america), that laws are made to be broken and are just the cost of doing business (corporate america) etc. What do you expect from kids that are raised in that world? The world is violent and the usa is growing ore violent and a pretty rapid rate and it is getting a lot meaner and the kids are a reflection of that.
You can't shelter people from reality but you can work to change it. In the end violence only creates more violence unless you go for the complete extermination of all other viewpoints which in the end leaves everyone dead. We need to defund our military by a huge ammount and fix it at no more then 5% of our budget which would still have us spending more then any other country does both as an absolute ammount and as a percentage. Then we need to get rid of the entire debt and fix the education system. Have people that really are trained educators and pay them well to do so. The schools needs to be made a safe learning environment. The other thing we need to do is clean up the rest of the crap in the society. Fox News, CNN etc need to be held to standards on reporting the truth and when they lie they need to be very heavily fined. We also need to take away corporate rights. Corporations are not people and should not have the rights that people do and they need to have a lot more responsibilities. Cleaning up the source of the problems which is a society issue not some set of pixels on a screen is the only way to really solve the problem.
Re:America's Army (Score:3, Insightful)
Of course, no mention was made of the fact that when the kids turn on the TV the US is once agian using violence to solve problems. The president ordered the death of more people in texas than any other governor anywhere. The diplomacy of the state departmen has been trumped by the needs of the military.
Kids learn to kill and that killing is ok from many different sources. What is missing is the lessons on who to deal with problems peacefully. The continuing subtext that only the weak need diplomacy just makes it that much more likely that a kid is going torture and murder an advesary. This is expecially true when the would be killer has to prove he or she is not weak.
Re:America's Army (Score:2, Insightful)
Riiiight....you're an idiot. Kids get money. So...a 14 year old kid should be able to buy porn? "If you're old enough to cut grass...."
You're an idiot. Why shouldn't there be a law against selling kids adult material? (besides the fact that it's not completely enforceable) You let a 14 year old into a strip club...you go to jail...what's the problem.
Re:America's Army (Score:5, Insightful)
I know some kids who can handle so called "adult" material better than most adults...
So in the USA: WAR=good SEX=bad
Re:America's Army (Score:3, Insightful)
By not showing realistic consequences, kids know that the stuff isn't real. Just trying to pick up an anvil will quickly make them think otherwise.
On the other hand stuff like pro-wrestling pretends to be very real, and the atheletes execute lethal manuvers on one another with non-lethal results. Worse, in pro-wrestling, they show wanton out-of-control violence with people begging for mercy.
Power Rangers? I'm not sure that's so bad. Kids will imitate the moves, but at least if their victim begs for mercy, it won't be just like it was on T.V.
Re:What's the problem? Here is the problem... (Score:2, Insightful)
If you don't want your 9 year old to buy product X, explain to them why not and then explain to them what will happen when they disobey mommy and daddy. Then, and this is crucial, actually discipline them for disobeying. You know - spare the rod, spoil the child. But under no circumstances should it be MY responsibility to raise your child for you. I wasn't there at conception so your child is not my responsibility. Teaching your child YOUR values is not my responsibility. Making sure your child doesn't buy videogames they want because little Johnny down the street has it is NOT my responsibility.
The responsibility for raising your child lies squarely with you.
Re:Availability? (Score:2, Insightful)
A reality that does not change much, no matter what party is in the White House, really. One group tries to make a level playing field for everyone, to a fault, and the other tells you how to behave in the privacy of your own home. But staying on topic--I'm tired of this "do it for the children" crap that solely blames external factors for adolescent misbehavior.
Preventing my hypothetical 16 year-old son from playing DooM 3, and having him walk over to the TV and watch a slasher film on some pay cable channel, just shows that standards only apply to those who don't have the power to decide their own freedoms, and that these legislators have been practically programmed by moralist lobbyists to believe that playing out violence creates violence. If that was a case, there would have been a national carjacking epidemic directly following the release of GTA3. But there wasn't, because children actually do understand the difference between a TV and the fucking driveway in front of their house. I'm far more concerned about gangster rap's glorification of the coldly violent and mysogynistic thug.
Re:Err.. talk about a biased article.. (Score:3, Insightful)
What's the crazy backlash to this? It's absolutely sound to set up laws prohibiting sales of these games to minors (just as it prohibits sales of pr0n to minors).
I'm not up on current movie laws but as far as I know (and as far as a 5 minute google search yielded) you can't be sent to jail or fined by the government (i.e. courts) for allowing a minor to view/rent/buy an R rated movie.
Now there may be penalties at the theater/store level, you might get fired from ABC Cinemas, but you will not be prosecuted in a court of law. This bill seeks to impose fines and jail time for providing violent video games to minors. Games that are rated the equivalent of an R movie, mind you. That is completely rediculous. And I guarantee that the physical, mental, and social damage done to the clerk in prison will far outweigh any sort of harm done to the kid because he was allowed to play Mortal Combat: Deadly Alliance.
This whole issue needs to be put into perspective, because there are a lot more violent/harmful influences acting on kids than video games. As others have said in this thread, things like the nightly news, TV movies, and your local library contain as much, if not more, violent content than any videogame you can name. And last I knew, you can still go check out any of Stephen King's books from your public library w/o being over 18. And I've read a lot of those books, and there is some evil stuff in there.
Additionally I think it's very easily argued that porn, tobacco, and alcohol are much more directly harmful than playing a violent video game. When a number of reputable and repeatable studies come out proving (not just demonstrating) that violent video games are just as harmful as any one of porn/smokes/booze then there is an argument to be made in favor of this law. Until then the state has no business imposing legal penalties on selling games and not every other form of media. And I think it's very easy to see that placing such restrictions and penalties on all forms of media is totally ludicrous.
Re:What's the problem? (Score:1, Insightful)
my 12 yewar old daughter absolutely LOVES doom3 she is in a horror kick and being inside a horror movie like that is a big bonus for her.
so here she is yelling "YEAH!" after she mows down a bunch of zombies and tells me that the shotgun is much more effective when they are right on you.
the night after that we go to a colonial League hockey game, as the fans started jumping and screaming FIGHT FIGHT she was completely appaled and digusted with the actions of the hockey players and the fans.
I asked her later why when she was ok with doom3... her response was, "at the hockey game those were real people, on the game it's all fake. "
it seems that legislators have less abilities than a 12 year old does, or believe that the general public does.
i am so proud of her that she is the way she is, EVERYONE should be appaled at two human beings trying to injure or harm each other. and further disgusted at the general public finding enjoyment in it.
I don't get it (Score:3, Insightful)
Given that video games have ratings as well (or should be rated) what's suprising about people wanting to enforce those ratings? It seems an exactly analagous situation to me.
Slashdot bias? Noooooo. (Score:2, Insightful)
Sen. Joe Smith - Maine (R)
see?
Thanks.
Re:America's Army (Score:3, Insightful)
The display of sex promotes the objectification of the opposite sex and the desire to have sex. "Casual" sex with strangers, the most common type of sex shown, devalues relationships and promotes the idea that the opposite sex exists for your pleasure. This is not something that Americans want to promote, because they feel that society is based upon families and monogamy. Violence, while shocking, doesn't make you want to kill anyone.
Re:America's Army (Score:4, Insightful)
I worked on like a 3 page response, and decided to scrap it all.
Lets just leave it at this: I have a family, and I am American - and I disagree 100%. Monogamy is a product of religion. I know many people who enjoy casual sex and still have wonderful relationships, much like I know married monogomous people who can't maintain a relationship worth a darn.
Violence ALWAYS hurts someone, by definition. (But I am not for censorship(ever), merely pointing out the fact that we pick what we censor strangely)
Re:America's Army (Score:4, Insightful)