Catch up on stories from the past week (and beyond) at the Slashdot story archive

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
The Courts Government Announcements News Entertainment Games

Video Game Industry to Sue Michigan's Governor 505

Posted by ScuttleMonkey from the good-news-for-gamer-geeks dept.
hapwned writes "A news release at Warcry writes that the ESA (Entertainment Software Association) plans on filing suit in Michigan to overturn the recent Violent Games Act. From the article: 'The ESA argues that this bill is an effort to substitute the government's judgment for parental supervision and turn retailers into surrogate parents. Lowenstein said that the industry's products were being unreasonably and unfairly singled out. He contends that while there is no question that a few games have content that some audiences will find offensive, the same can be said for some content in TV, films, music, and books. Since the government does not regulate the sales of those entertainment industries, it should follow suit for the sale of video games. Ultimately, he concluded, parents, not government or industry, must be the gatekeepers of what comes in the home.'"
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Video Game Industry to Sue Michigan's Governor More

Video Game Industry to Sue Michigan's Governor

Comments Filter:

  • These guys have my full support. (Score:5, Insightful)

    by TwoTailedFox ( 894904 ) <TwoTailedFox@Gmail.com> on Wednesday September 14, 2005 @05:51PM (#13561607) Journal
    It's not the Government's place to tell it's population what they can, and can't play.

    Really, it's gone way the fuck too far.
    • Neither is it the games industry's place to subvert parental control.

      Yeah, yeah...I hear all of you saying "keep control of your kids!" or "Don't let your kids buy it!"
      Well...tis is one tool to help parents do just that.

      No one is removing this from shelves, but rather giving parents a little more of a choice in what their kids do and see.

    • Which part of the Michigan bill tells the population what they can't play?

      As far as I know, it simply defines what you can't sell to minors.

      You also can't sell alcohol, tobacco, or pornography to minors. So what?

      If a parent wants their kid to play Grand Theft Slaughter Rape Party, they can still buy it themselves.

      • Firstly, I don't believe alcohol and tobacco are appropriate comparisons. These items do well-documented, scientifically provable, physical harm. They are provably physically addictive. They do not qualify for Constitutional free-speech protection. None of these things are true of video games, so I don't think it follows from "It's legitimate to age-restrict alcohol and tobacco" to "It's legitimate to age-restrict video games."

        Scientific studies on video games are conflicting at best, and tend to find that the harm is slight (mildly elevated aggressive tendency for an hour or two), nonexistent (no noticeable change in behavior), or even an actual benefit (Johnny takes his aggression out on the virtual bad guy that might've otherwise gotten taken out on his real classmate/sibling/etc.)

        What I'm most concerned about, though, as that with this issue (and so many others!) it seems the focus is on taking care of peripheral, relatively unimportant issues, rather than the central ones. The central issue here is that many kids have bad, or uncaring parents, or parents who are simply clueless on the right way to raise a kid. What can we do to solve this? I propose that a few things can be done-freely available birth control, to ensure that those who don't want children don't have them, easily accessible and comprehensive education for new parents as to the basics of child development, etc., a stop to the "not my business, not my problem" attitude, and the corresponding "I won't take any advice from anyone" mentality, a universal living wage to ensure that parents will not both have to work long hours just to stay afloat...

        Obviously, these are harder things to do. They require challenges to people's comfort zone. They require money. They require planning and cooperation. They require careful thought and community involvement. It's easier to point another finger, slap another fine on something peripheral, and then run "stings" every so often to net a fine or two and get a pat on the back. But we have so often forgotten to ask the fundamental question about any solution to any problem, and that is:

        Is what we are doing, WORKING? Is the problem decreasing in severity and frequency? To the current methods being used to combat bad parenting (scattershot "education" which generally consists of a couple hour-long sessions on how to burp a baby and change a diaper, underfunded social services divisions which take away kids who were with good parents and then quite often leave genuine abuse/neglect cases behind, age restrictions on a few things) I would say the answer is no.

        When the current solutions and methods have been tried for quite some time, and the problem is only getting worse, it is not time to "strengthen" the existing, non-working structure-it's time to tear it down, rethink, and rebuild. Unfortunately, that takes guts, brains, planning, and money-and in terms of doing anything really worthwhile, all of those seem to be in very short supply currently.

    • That's what happens with a fucking chick in public office. First she raised cigarette and alcohol taxes to make more money off "sin tax". Then she made strip clubs either full nudity and no alcohol, or only top-less with alcohol, and you can't get lap dances anymore. Then she fucks with our games..... blah

  • OMG. (Score:5, Funny)

    by Mastadex ( 576985 ) on Wednesday September 14, 2005 @05:53PM (#13561623)
    Its like some of those 'soviet russia' jokes are coming to life.

    "In soviet russia, games sue you!"

    were doomed!

    • Re:OMG. (Score:3, Funny)

      by jam244 ( 701505 )
      "In soviet russia, games sue you!" were doomed!

      Dear Mastadex,

      DOOM ("DOOM") is the owner of United States Federal Trademark Registration(s) No. 12345678 and *numerous other trademark registrations pertaining to the mark. DOOM uses this mark in the United States in conjunction with its three main manifistations, DOOM 1, DOOM 2, and DOOM 3, and other products. DOOM's federal registration has been in full effect for over a horking high number of years. A copy of the federal trademark registration data is

  • Smackdown! (Score:2, Interesting)

    by Anonymous Coward
    Ha! Damn politicians thought they could just roll over the games industry eh? To be honest, I didn't think that the entertainment companies had it in them to challenge the government. Good for them!

    • Re:Smackdown! (Score:2, Insightful)

      by Anonymous Coward
      Yeah, what a concept. If this suit is successful, parents will be finally required to do some, err what was the term again, oh yes, parenting. This means setting and enforcing the moral standards for the household, amongst other things.

  • when's the last time (Score:5, Insightful)

    by s388 ( 910768 ) on Wednesday September 14, 2005 @05:55PM (#13561640)
    anybody got fined 12,000 dollars for renting or selling a "violent" movie to a youngster?

    or better yet, a cartoon.

    or an orson scott card novel.
    • Ever read the Bible? Lots of violent/sexual content in there and I damn sure dont want my kids exposed to that kind of crap.

      And many of the more freakish God pushers that support the Bible seem to be pro-murder and child-rape. Many are tax evaders to boot.

      I want them kept under raps too.

      A big fine per offence should do nicely.

      C.

  • Holy cow I'm torn! (Score:5, Informative)

    by numbski ( 515011 ) * <numbskiNO@SPAMhksilver.net> on Wednesday September 14, 2005 @05:56PM (#13561644) Homepage Journal
    Doug Lowenstein.

    Come on guys, you know that name.

    The IDSA. The same guys that were tearing down emulation sites by the dozens between 1998 and 2000. I still have some screwed up pictures of the guy someplace on my hard drive from back in the days of utter hatemail over the issue.

    So I'm torn to even begin to support anything the guy or the new name of the computer entertainment mafia. But they are right.
    • No offense, but tearing down emulation sites was a fairly clear cut case from the get go. Given the amount of number of 'remakes' of older games (FF1 + 2, Classic NES Series, Sega collection games, etc), I'm gonna have to side with the IDSA on the emulation issue.

      Not that it means I like it, but they do have a point.

    • http://www.idsa.com/ [idsa.com]

      Just in case you don't remember. If you require a further reminder of awful things past:

      http://www.mediamatic.net/article-200.5683.html&q_ theme=200.265 [mediamatic.net]
    • Uh. Game emulation sites offering ROMs for download are blatantly illegal... if this guy's out to protect the gaming industry, don't you think he'd also be fighting piracy?

      I mean, duh. There's no real difference between what he was doing then and what he's doing now.

      • Just because they're illegal, it doesn't mean they're wrong. If we're talking about ROM images for games you can currently purchase, like GBA games, then I'd say that's wrong. If we're talking about things that you can only get used - and once in a blue moon at that - then who's being harmed? Collectors will still drive up the value of the actual carts, and yet the people who want to just play the games can still get their hands on them.

        I don't do things (or not do things) just because of legality. I do

  • But why does this have to turn into yet another round of Sue Somebody(TM), much less the governor? Even if I were to sue somebody, I'd sue the state legislature first, or better yet, the special interest groups that started the bill in the first place.
    • Because, in this case, it is the correct due process of law to directly challenge the law without requiring some poor, dumb schmuck getting arrested for it and ruining his business and life.

      It's the State that will be sued, not actually the governor.

      KFG
    • Because when you sue the state, you effectively sue the attorney general who reports to the governor.

    • Re:I'm all for overturning the law... (Score:5, Informative)

      by Elwood P Dowd ( 16933 ) <judgmentalist@gmail.com> on Wednesday September 14, 2005 @07:09PM (#13562258) Journal
      Because that's how you overturn the law.

      Some of the problems with the legal system are *solved* by lawsuits. If you disaprove of lawsuits in general, then you don't understand our legal system.

      Parent is not insightful or interesting. Slashdot is full of this crap. Whenever we hear "Scumbag backstabs littleguy; littleguy sues for violation of contract", someone here says, "While I'm all for littleguy, suing is never the answer." It's exactly the fucking answer. Yes, I know that's a different misunderstanding than this one. Still.

      Makes me weep for all those poor lawyers out there.

      Just kidding.
  • But industry shouldn't have a role? That's crazy talk. Parents ought to keep a close eye on the things their kids do, but it is also the community's responsibility to raise kids rightly. If a kid is running around Wal-mart yelling and screaming, most of the time people just look the other way and mutter under their breath. But that is doing a huge disservice to the child who will not learn proper behavior.

    So too is it important that industries concentrate on producing high-quality, wholesome products.
    • I agree that communities should get involved, the same way in which friends of an alcoholic might hold an intervention to get him to clean up his act. However, I cannot support a government playing mother hen, *especially* not when other similar industries are not getting the same kind of legislation.
      • Perhaps other, similar industries are doing a better job of self regulation?

        I honestly don't know. For TV, there is the V-chip. For movies, the theatre and video stores are supposed to check ID before allowing a child to see or rent a movie. I believe blockbuster and hollywood video do a decent job on that for video games and movies.

        I'd be interested to find out if stores like Target, Wal-Mart, etc. that sell R Rated DVD movies are checking ID. If not, then I would think they should be busted. Maybe I'll se
    • ...but not necessarily one any more or less than any other companies. Certainly the arguement about movies and music being less pressed-upon is quite valid...

      There's a big difference between this and selling drugs or booze to minors. First of all, street drugs are illegal to all... and both are something that despite any mental maturity, young people initially have little physical resiliance to.

      Give them ratings, enforce, and inform... but don't hold the game companies accountable when parents buy their
    • I think the point is he is asking for equal treatment. Media is Media. singling out games is ridiculous and counter productive. The industry has already taken responsibility, and the government should have nothing to do with what media we consume in a free democratic society or you risk the erosion of an informed public: a tenant of both freedom and democracy.

      There is a rating system in place that is more than adequate and quite easy to make assumptions based on (ie you do not need to know the specifics

    • Re:Government, absolutely (Score:5, Insightful)

      by JesterXXV ( 680142 ) <jtradke@gmai[ ]om ['l.c' in gap]> on Wednesday September 14, 2005 @06:26PM (#13561888)
      It is not always 100% the job of the parent.

      Yes, it fucking is. Granted, it is 100% the responsibility of the gaming industry to provide information (e.g. ratings) about the content of their games. But it is the parents' responsibility to make decisions for their own children based on that information. Parents are not being deceived here; each game has a recommended age printed on it, along with a laundry list of potentially offensive topics or images that appear in the game.

      Any parent who buys Grand Theft Auto for their child (you don't even need ratings - read the title!!!) is a either a goddamn psychopath, or woefully ignorant. Either way, it's their fault for accepting or ignoring the consequences.

      • You would be surprised at the number of really bad parents in the world. Talk to a social worker sometime about it.

        Although, in some cases, the effects of GTA on these kids might not be the biggest thing society has to worry about. OTOH, do you really want a child who is already a sociopath playing GTA games?
      • Children are not just someone's property, they're also members of society and its budding new generation. Society has a responsibility towards them and so, as you often get, some children are taken from their parents and put in foster care. That's why it's not up to the parents whether they feed or ignore their kids, or whether they deprive them of proper education; you can't just lay the blame on the parents and pretend their child is like their house or car, they can run it down or wreck it, heck, even ho

    • Re:Government, absolutely (Score:5, Insightful)

      by shawb ( 16347 ) on Wednesday September 14, 2005 @06:28PM (#13561910)
      And if you try to discipline someone else's child, you run the risk of getting yourself into a physical fight with the parents, or even sued. I don't think so.

      People try to make wholsome products... problem is nobody buys them. Or at least not enough people to make them profitable.

      Video games are not chemicals ingested in the body. Yes, you can argue that the playing of video games does alter neurochemistry somewhat, but that is totally a different thing. Regulating video game sales WITHOUT regulating the sales of books, movies, cds, magazines on the same basis is uneven and therefore unethical. There is far more violence in the bible than in any video game that I have seen... would you accept banning sales of bibles to children? The number of people killed by religion [google.com] is far greater [google.com] than the number [google.com] of people [google.com] killed [google.com] because [google.com] of video games.
      • And if you try to discipline someone else's child, you run the risk of getting yourself into a physical fight with the parents, or even sued. I don't think so.

        Hiting someone else's child is never appropriate. If the child is acting inappropriately and the parent is not around, it is OK to say something reasonable to ask the child to behave. If you are a store owner, it would be perfectly reasonable to ask the parent to remove the child from the premises if they are allowing bad behavior. But, you have to u

    • Good God man! (Score:5, Insightful)

      by OzPhIsH ( 560038 ) on Wednesday September 14, 2005 @07:02PM (#13562204) Journal
      Posts like this just make my head spin...

      Parents ought to keep a close eye on the things their kids do, but it is also the community's responsibility to raise kids rightly.

      But? But?!? Parents ought to keep a close eye on the things their kids do. PERIOD. There is no 'but.' You're just making excuses for bad parenting, and then blaming it on society. Right. It's everyone ELSE'S fault you're a shitty parent and your kids is going nuts in a public place. That kind of attitude is part of the problem.

      So too is it important that industries concentrate on producing high-quality, wholesome products. Whether this be something as nutritious as breakfast cereal or as empty as your typical R-rated movie, it is important that the community standards to which a majority of a community profess are supported by the corporation's product.

      It is important for industries to concentrate on goods and services that people want to pay for. Thats it. No, no, stop, really. That is ALL. If it isn't in the industry's interests to produce what you call "wholesome" products, then it has no responsibility to do so. The industry doesn't owe you anything. Why should anyone be able to hold them to their own personal standards of decency through enforced legislation? Thats just crazy. If you don't like what they're selling, don't buy it.
      There always seems to be a handful of outspoken activists railing against one thing or another that they consider offensive. There is always talk about common decency, community standards, etc. But you get right down to it, most of the stuff they find offensive (popular Movies, TV shows, GTA) is hugely popular. Many many many times more people are actually buying and enjoying the very things these "defenders of decency" are opposed to. This leads me to ask "Just what mythical puritan community ARE these people representing?" Because when you look at the numbers, THEY are the ones in the minority.

      It is good business to provide people with things they need. But there is also a lot of money involved in selling people their vices. We do not accept people who wish to sell drugs to minors, nor do we absolve of guilt those who would ply them with alcohol.

      You're comparing video games drugs and alcohol? You've got to be kidding me....

      It is not always 100% the job of the parent.

      Um, yes. Yes it is.

      The community must be held responsible to the extent that they have offered moral corruption from beyond the purview of the child's parents.

      As I said before, the community is not responsible for your child. You are.
      But say you're right. What if this mythical magical "community" is responsible? What are you going to do about it? Who are you going to punish? All community is, is a group of individuals. Are you going to just start selecting subsets of individuals and punishing them for their 'irresponsibility'? In the case of GTA, who do you pick? Do you punish the head of Rockstar games? The development team? The marketing guy? Suddenly one of these people is responsible for your kid? Or what? It just doesn't make any sense. These people don't even know you, or you them. There is no way they can be blamed for your poorly raised child.
      Your kid, Your problem

      • Re:Good God man! (Score:3, Insightful)

        by QuantumG ( 50515 )
        You gotta explain this stuff to the parents. Perferably before they have their kids. Perferably in some sort of compulsory breeding licensing program where you have to undergo a background check and prove you have the financial and emotional means to raise a child.

    • Re:Government, absolutely (Score:5, Informative)

      by That's Unpossible! ( 722232 ) on Wednesday September 14, 2005 @07:28PM (#13562377)
      But industry shouldn't have a role? That's crazy talk. Parents ought to keep a close eye on the things their kids do, but it is also the community's responsibility to raise kids rightly.

      No, it's not. That's because the parent has the right to teach their child THEIR VALUES, and not have to worry about you ("the community") brainwashing them with YOUR VALUES.

      The fact that many parents don't act responsibly doesn't mean we take that innate right away from everyone else.

      But that is doing a huge disservice to the child who will not learn proper behavior.

      And the parent and the child will have to suffer with that improper behavior, or do something about it, or wait until it escalates into a criminal act, and then the legal system will do something about it.

      So too is it important that industries concentrate on producing high-quality, wholesome products.

      I disagree completely. Industries produce nothing, companies do. Companies produce what people want to buy. People want to buy what suits them and their values. Don't worry about other people's values, worry about your own.

      We do not accept people who wish to sell drugs to minors, nor do we absolve of guilt those who would ply them with alcohol.

      I absolutely believe it should be the right of a parent to allow their child (and themselves, in the case of drugs) to ingest those things. Many countries have lowered or no cutoff year for when you can drink alcohol. Many of the best parents I know allow their children to responsibly enjoy alcohol before they turn 21, with no ill effects.

      It is not always 100% the job of the parent. The community must be held responsible to the extent that they have offered moral corruption from beyond the purview of the child's parents.

      Uh huh, and just who is going to decide what moral corruption is? Your signature reveals you are a Jesus worshiper, should you be allowed to force your ideals upon my child? If my child is walking through Wal-Mart talking about how Satan is his personal savior, should you have the right to enforce your belief system upon him?

      Just mind your own business. That's a good rule of thumb forgotten by most right-wingers.

  • Where is the Common Sense? (Score:3, Interesting)

    by robocrop ( 830352 ) on Wednesday September 14, 2005 @05:58PM (#13561655)
    Why can we not come to a common ground and have the law enforce the ESRB ratings system? Treat video games like cigarettes, liquor, and porn: make it illegal to sell an adult game to children.

    I don't see why this compromise can't be reached. At that point we will be conducting due diligence, and can reach that wonderful state of plausible deniability.

  • A settlement... (Score:4, Funny)

    by tktk ( 540564 ) on Wednesday September 14, 2005 @05:58PM (#13561662)
    I think they should just do a Counterstrike tourney to settle this lawsuit.

  • Too late (Score:4, Insightful)

    by ewg ( 158266 ) on Wednesday September 14, 2005 @05:59PM (#13561670)
    Who cares, this all comes way too late to save the Lemmings.

    &sniff;

  • Not in America! (Score:2, Insightful)

    by MuckSavage ( 658302 )
    Ultimately, he concluded, parents, not government or industry, must be the gatekeepers of what comes in the home.

    Why should parents raise their kids when the government is happy to do it?

  • Parents...the forgotten authority (Score:4, Interesting)

    by csharp_wannabe ( 886975 ) on Wednesday September 14, 2005 @06:02PM (#13561697)
    Why is it that in America we allow such things to happen? What happened to parents taking responsibility for their children? As a child I remembered hearing my parents telling me "No". And if I continued bothering them the spanking would commence. These days parents are afraid to be parents because of how government regulates children. If a parent disciplines their kids by spanking, it's bad. But if this is not done, than they will grow up and be miscreants. As a conservative right-winged nut, I refuse to blame the game industry. It is the parent's responsibility to take handle of the situation. If you are reading this and want to understand what happens to a generation of children who never got spanked, by all means read Starship Troopers by Heinlein. Parents take back your children or else the state will impose its foot into your house.
  • He contends that while there is no question that a few games have content that some audiences will find offensive, the same can be said for some content in TV,

    Um, the V-Chip, Janet Jackson's nipple...

    films,

    It seems to me that the movie industry, haveing been made an offer it couldn't refuse (from the US gov't back in the '20s) set up self regulation: Films get rated, distributors won't screen X, unrated or (often) NC-17 films.

    music,

    Content labels, and the world's largest retailer won't carry potty-mou

    • It's whether or not to protect the sensibilities of children. It's not a book ban, or a movie ban, or even a game ban. It's keeping kids from getting uber violent and very adult-oriented materials.
      • Sensibilities. Thats funny. Jimmy might be exposed to an idea! Jimmy can think up stuff hisself, and lemme tell you, nothing is stopping him from carrying it out if he really wants to. As a kid I was able to buy an axe, lighter fluid, matches, bug bombs, drain cleaner, etc, no questions asked. I'm thinking priorities are pretty misplaced. What's worse, supplying a potential idea, or the tools needed to carry it out?

    • Re:Sure the government regulates those others (Score:5, Insightful)

      by Blakey Rat ( 99501 ) on Wednesday September 14, 2005 @06:47PM (#13562081)
      It seems to me that the movie industry, haveing been made an offer it couldn't refuse (from the US gov't back in the '20s) set up self regulation: Films get rated, distributors won't screen X, unrated or (often) NC-17 films.

      Uhm. So has the games industry... what the heck do you think the ESRB *does* exactly?

      The problem is that video games are being harassed by lawmakers *despite* having set up a mature self-regulation system, and movies (for instance) are not. Novels, which can be extremely disturbing and violent (see: American Psycho) have never had a self-regulation system, and they're entirely ignored by politicians and the press. Why? THAT is the issue.
      • Novels, which can be extremely disturbing and violent (see: American Psycho) have never had a self-regulation system, and they're entirely ignored by politicians and the press. Why?

        You have to be able to read in the first place. Novels don't get burned but I suspect a lot of redneck types sublimate their illiteracy by having a spot of book burning now and again.

        Anyone intelligent enough to read for their entertainment has already been written off by the "family values" freaks. Although now that I think of
      • One question. What would happen if some of these novels were re-written in cartoon/comic book form, with language that could be read by a 10 year old, and placed in the kid's section of the library/bookstore? People would complain, and if it happened enough, people would try to introduce legislation to prevent it. Books do have a self-regulation system, in that as a child grows in reading comprehension, more mature topics become available. Video Games do not have that self-regulation. Do the gamecontroller


  • you know what ethics, and all that crap aside, and yes I said crap. In todays capitalist society the gaming industry needs to pony up and lobby the hell out of this. Thats the real driving force behind law making in this country isn't it. I'm tired of people pretending that this is a moral issue. All it is about is about Hillery Clinton preping her self for the 07 presidential race, and paying off enough senators to make this go away.
  • "while there is no question that a few games have content that some audiences will find offensive, the same can be said for some content in TV, films, music, and books"

    Why'd you have to bring other media into it?! Now we'll all have to show ID at the Barnes & Noble checkout!

  • I agree... (Score:2, Interesting)

    by gQuigs ( 913879 )
    with an Entertainment Industry suit.

    Wow thats weird.
  • And if they do win, I hope that they force the governor to pay in quarters.
  • That must be the logic of all those politicians protesting the gta hot coffee mod. Killing cops must be ok too since that was always a highly visible part of the game, unlike the mod.

    Also I think we should ban high school football. God knows how much violence that has caused outside of playing it.

  • Huh? (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Chmarr ( 18662 ) on Wednesday September 14, 2005 @06:47PM (#13562082)
    Um... feel free to correct me (and I'm sure everyone will leap at the opportunity), but I thought the whole idea of the bill was to ensure that the parents DO get involved. Ie, a child cant go to the video store and buy a NC-17 game (or whatever the classification system is), but instead has to get their PARENTS to buy the game for them.

    Otherwise, the kid could just buy the game and hide it until the parents aren't around.

    Yes, this is an inconveinece for the store clerks, that have to vet customers ages, and yes it'll reduce sales because there'll be fewer games being sold. But saying that this bill does NOT support a parent's interjection in a child's activities is just stupid.

  • I don't really understand it (Score:3, Insightful)

    by NoMercy ( 105420 ) on Wednesday September 14, 2005 @06:51PM (#13562108)
    In the US you can be a todler and go into a games store and buy something like... Vampire Bloodlines (with plotlines involving snuff films, butchering babies, killing police officers...) or some other pleasant game like GTA SA.

    But you can't at age 18 walk into a pub and order a pint of beer...

    I don't really understand it, computer games are like videos, just so far worse graphics and more interactive, but I'd imagine soon it'll reach video quality. Which begs the question... isn't letting a minor buy a sex-rape-killathon style video game over the counter the same as letting a minor walk into a dirty sex video shop and buy the equliviant video off the shelf?

  • Help us game industry!! (Score:2, Insightful)

    by Yenin ( 793347 )
    How thoughtful of the game industry to support the individual's right to raise their own children. Except that it is blatantly obvious that their only reason for doing this is so that they can take advantage of people who don't take an interest in what their kids are doing. The fact that the game industry is against it is fairly strong evidence that the problem exists to be taken advantage of. I'm as against this kind of government regulation as the next guy, but that doesn't make the game industry in any

  • The Bill itself (Score:4, Informative)

    by VGPowerlord ( 621254 ) on Wednesday September 14, 2005 @07:48PM (#13562503)
    Here's the Bill's webpage [mi.gov] and the final version [mi.gov] signed by Governor Granholm at 11:58am EDT today.

  • HOLLY CRAP!!!!!!! (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Stonan ( 202408 ) on Wednesday September 14, 2005 @08:47PM (#13562851) Homepage
    Someone FINALLY clues into what I have said to my peer group (and been sound berated for) It's about bloody time parents started taking responsibility for their offspring.

    I have always maintained that kids blaming their anti-social behavior on video games, music, movies, etc was a cop-out, a way of deflecting blame and reducing their possible heavy sentence.

    I grew up watching the Big Bunny & Roadrunner Show. The most violent cartoons of their time (not to mention Tom & Jerry) and I don't go around smacking people with a 2X4. I was also seriously seriously teased throughout my grade school life. I also thought about grabbing a gun and blowing away more than a few of my fellow students. I didn't because.......

            MY PARENTS TOOK AN INTEREST IN RAISING ME!!!!!!!

    Parenting is not just having offspring but also raising that offspring to be a productive member of society wether they be ditch-digger, philosopher, politician or scientist. It doesn't matter what they become as long as they contribute to society rather than interfering with it.

    I know this is kind of a rant/lecture but I care about human-kind. (Plus I've have a couple of Canadian-strength beers)

  • Lets Destroy the Parental Role! (Score:4, Funny)

    by Durrill ( 908003 ) on Wednesday September 14, 2005 @08:51PM (#13562875)
    If parenting is such a burden to the common whiny parent, then I move to totally eliminate the entire parental concept and let the government control all infants born in our fine nation. Such a radical thing could not exist in our current form of government, so it is necessary to remake our government to satisfy these claims. Anyone who has read 'Platos Republic' would have a good idea of what I am suggesting, but I will enlighten you all on my interpretation and opinion on how our current culture would design this fabulous creation.

    Ahemm...

    We need to destroy our constitution, human rights, marriage, religion, and of course, the common family unit consisting of a father, mother, and children. With our clean slate, we are now free to craft this new republic.

    First off, a child is born and immediately sent into government processing. (I will explain how the child was produced later)

    1 - Government is responsible for raising the child, this includes housing, feeding, and education.
    -> Child lives in a type of nursery where trained (Beta) females, headed by an (Alpha) female, would raise all infants until the point of basic language comprehension (Typically 3 years of age). Other responsibilities would include recognizing birth defects, mental and physical retardations. Such children would be removed from the nursery and experimented on so as to identify the causes of these defects, they are later terminated.
    -> Children passed the age of 3 are then formed into logical clusters based on specified breeding arrangements from their parents. They are then dormed together so that each cluster will receive a unique program of education designed to bring out the expected results concluding from their eugenic pattern.
    -> Education typically involves physical training, lingual understandings and comprehensions, mathematics, sciences, technology, and creativity. (History, Philosophy, and Art doesn't exist anymore. We want our children to be intelligent, but we don't need them to 'Think')
    -> Graduation from this education system will determine what classifications each child will have within our republic.

    I will break these classifications down into 3 categories and then reduce each category by gender.

    [Alpha Male & Female]
    -> Forms the collective governemt to rule its people. All nation affecting decisions are decided solely on individuals who qualified necessary characteristics from their education. These people are not elected, but instead chosen products of perfect excellence who understand fully the needs and growths of our fine nation.
    -> Designs all the mating patterns of the populace, combining both physical prowess and acedemic brilliance in hopes of producing a new generation of more superior (Alphas).
    -> Forms all departments of theoretical sciences and invention.
    -> Elders become professors in order to educate newer generations.

    [Alpha Females]
    -> Heads all nurseries so as to maximize the efficiency of infant growth.

    [Beta Males & Females]
    -> Organizes the developments of the common national needs, such as, food & water, medicine, transportation, government controls, and military.
    -> Provides foundations to encourage creativity, entertainment, and growth. (Video games, movies, music and what not would occur here.)
    -> Organizes breeding programs with the intention to produce a new generation to maintain these (Beta) programs.

    [Beta Females]
    -> Responsible for raising all infants produced for the government.

    [Delta Males]
    -> Those lacking in education are put into greater physical training programs and then placed in the military, programmed to be a meat shield for our nation, protecting and enforcing its interests upon the world.
    -> Mental and physical experimentations for a wide array of reasons. Mainly to determine why eugenic expectations failed. Also to create cybernetic and geneti

  • Why I'm In Favor of This Bill (Score:4, Informative)

    by DavidD_CA ( 750156 ) on Thursday September 15, 2005 @02:02AM (#13564271) Homepage
    Seems a lot of people here are over-reacting, including the ESA.

    All this bill does, as best as I can understand it, is prevent a retailer from selling a "naughty" game to someone under 18.

    It's nothing different than the age requirements for an R-Rated movie at the movie theatre. It simply says that little Johnny can't plunk down $50 and buy GTA.

    If Johnny tries, and suceeds, then the retailer who sold it to him can be fined. If a game is given a Mature/Adult rating, then shouldn't we enforce it at the retail level like we do movies?

    I'm all for parental supervision, but mom can't watch Johnny 24/7. If I were a parent, I would want to know that my kid couldn't go buy GTA without an adult's assistance.

    BTW, the entire bill can be read here:
    http://www.legislature.mi.gov/documents/2005-2006/ billenrolled/senate/htm/2005-SNB-0416.htm [mi.gov]

    • Re:Why I'm In Favor of This Bill (Score:4, Informative)

      by Red Flayer ( 890720 ) on Thursday September 15, 2005 @08:52AM (#13565913) Journal
      "It's nothing different than the age requirements for an R-Rated movie at the movie theatre. It simply says that little Johnny can't plunk down $50 and buy GTA. "

      Except, of course, that the movie industry voluntarily enforces the MPAA rating system. There is no law requiring them to do so. Movie retailers agreed to this to prevent such a law being passed.

      I feel the game industry should do the same -- game publishers have gotten on board, and so should game retailers.

      A plus side of this, for those that wish the ommunity to protect the precious moral fiber of their children, is that there would be a disincentive to produce games with 'objectionable' material. There's a very real reason that the movie industry bothers to publish PG13 titles... catch the drift?

  • TFA is misleading... (Score:3, Informative)

    by pointbeing ( 701902 ) on Thursday September 15, 2005 @06:44AM (#13565163)
    I live in Michigan. SB 416 restricts sale or rental of violent or sexually explicit video games *to minors*. TFA conveniently fails to reveal that point.

    According the to the bill folks 18 and over can buy or rent anything they want.

Slashdot Top Deals

God made the integers; all else is the work of Man. -- Kronecker

Close