Violent Video Game Protection Act 341
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.
Double standard. (Score:4, Insightful)
Isn't this a double standard displaying a bias against gamers...
Re:Double standard. (Score:2)
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.
Re:Double standard. (Score:2)
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.
Re:+5 for this? Are you all insane? (Score:2)
Why make the distinction that 2000 of the were children? Are they somehow more important than the 8000 adults? Why not just leave it at 10 thousand people? Or mention how many women and men were also killed? It's not like the children are any more important than anyone else.
This has gotten me so mad I need to go blow ppl up, Quake time!
Kintanon
Re:+5 for this? Are you all insane? (Score:2)
Yes, children are important, because children in a case like that are guaranteed non-combattants. They're a little more innocent. They should never be shot at. Nor should anyone else. I take it you don't have kids yet. You'll understand a little better when all of your effort is spent on them.
But I do understand your point about human is human... if only others felt the same way.
Re:+5 for this? Are you all insane? (Score:2)
Children are not necessarily noncombatants, the vietnamese used children to deliver bombs to enemy troops primarily because the children were 'harmless'.
Personally I don't think ANYONE should ever be shot at under ideal circumstances. But the relative value of a child versus an adult isn't part of my evaluation and shouldn't be part of anyones. Humanity is humanity.
Oh, and you are hopelessly naive if you think children are innocent. All children are inherently evil (where evil is defined by being completely self centered, selfish, and self absorbed). IF you leave 5 2 year olds in a room together they will all be fighting inside 10 minutes. The ability to function in society as a polite and courteous human being is a learned one, and a lot of parents aren't teaching their kids anything.
Most of the young children I see today not only have fouler mouths than I do, but will actively torture each other to extremes I never saw until high school. I've seen kindergarteners kicking the CRAP out of a kid because he had on the wrong colored shirt. And yet everyone always claims that their child is innocent and precious, well you're all wrong. You're kid is just as much of an asshole as the rest of them until you train them out of it. Not the school, not their friends, not the church, not TV, not video games, not music, it's up to you to make sure the little hellbeast turns into some kind of presentable human approximate that has respect for the people around him.
(note: The above rant was not directed specifically at you El Camino, but directed at the general population of pro-natalist bastards that believe being a child automatically makes you better than everyone else and capable of doing no wrong)
Kintanon
Re:+5 for this? Are you all insane? (Score:2)
Did you sit in a ditch in Afghnistan?
Do you know what is really going on?
Because I am five feet away from one who did, and who does know. Really... did you even read what I wrote before you labeled me "American Swine?"
Next time you want to talk about journalists not wanting to tell the truth, then you go F'n talk to the ones that slept in a ditch in a war zone. Cause I have a feeling that they care more about honesty in their jobs than you do about computing or whatever you do. Its so damn simple to just say "Stupid Americans," that it doesn't even register with us anymore.
Personally, as I said before and I WILL SAY AGAIN, it is an insult to those that go through hell to bring back footage and be branded as a propaganda machine.
If you want the European Version of this, petition Reuters to be like CNN. Better yet, start up "NNN" or Dutch NEWS NETWORK or something like that.
"Sheep are very dim..." (Score:1)
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)
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)
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.
Re:Discriminatory (Score:2)
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
Re:Discriminatory (Score:2, Informative)
In the 1960s, communities began establishing their own film censorship offices. The MPAA took a look at this trend and saw disaster: if a film was banned in some places, re-edited in others, and shown uncut elsewhere, marketing would be a nightmare. So they essentially designed the rating system to head this off. Each studio agreed not to release unrated movies (theatrically... they never extended this to videos) and that such rating must appear in all promotional material (which itself must be approved by the MPAA).
They succeeded in holding off censorship. The last of the film censorship offices closed in 1991, in Dallas.
I'm not sure how many Slashdot readers are aware of how the ratings are assigned. The MPAA has a pool of volunteer reviewers. The only requirement is that you be a parent of a child under 17. From this pool, reviewers are chosen randomly to watch the film and afterwards give their rating. These are tallied and (I believe) the median rating is what's assigned to the film. If the distributor dislikes the rating, they can resubmit it until they get a rating they like.
I guess the main thing is, if you're a parent in SoCal who hates the rating system, you do have an option: you can go to the MPAA and try (I'm not sure how you get into the pool... the MPAA web site is down) to get in the pool. You'll also get to see uncut movies before they're released...
WHAT?!?!?! (Score:4, Funny)
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)
Re:Makes me so angry! (Score:2, Funny)
Georgia? (Score:2, Insightful)
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.
Re:Georgia? (Score:1)
Re:Georgia? (Score:2)
Atlanta. Perhaps you've heard of it.
Re:Georgia? (Score:2)
Didn't the lost city of Atlanta sink into the sea over a thousand years ago?
Embarassed to be from Georgia (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:Embarassed to be from Georgia (Score:2)
its scapegoat hunting time (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:its scapegoat hunting time (Score:2)
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)
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)
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.
Re:Too much (Score:2)
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)
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.
Re:What do you expect from a GameSpot article? (Score:3, Interesting)
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)
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..
Re:What do you expect from a GameSpot article? (Score:2)
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.
Prohibition Never Works (Score:2)
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.
Re:Prohibition Never Works (Score:2)
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)
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
Re:Prohibition Never Works (Score:2)
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.
Re:Prohibition Never Works (Score:3, Insightful)
Nope. I actually, am against gun control, for some of the same reasons that have been cited by others.
Good going, Jack - you win the door prize for "stupid premise - stupid conclusion".
Quite witty of you, but you've apparently misread everything I wrote. The argument was, "anti-gun legislation has no effect on gun deaths". That is, quite simply, incorrect. It does, and has had, an effect. Now you might argue that it has LITTLE effect, or ALMOST no effect, but that's quite a different logical construction than NO effect.
However, I don't simplify the other side's position so I can put up an easily-knocked-down strawman. Restricting firearms WOULD cut down on gun deaths. The question becomes, is it worth the lessening of freedom required? Some people say yes, some people say no, but both sides come up with poor arguments while doing so. The difference between me and those attacking me on this thread are I prefer to speak with PRECISION.
Re:What do you expect from a GameSpot article? (Score:2)
Re:Got guns? (Score:3, Insightful)
parental responsibility, not legal mandates will stop school killings. Parents taking the time away from their precious TV to teach by example (not just tell) their childern what is right and wrong.
quit blaming objects, there was death and destruction before video games and before guns
Germany (Score:1)
Re:Germany (Score:3, Funny)
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.
They just don't get it .... (Score:1)
Re:They just don't get it .... (Score:2, Insightful)
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)
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.
i'll complain about the rating system. (Score:3, Insightful)
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)
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)
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)
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)?
Re:Think about the children. (Score:2)
Re:Think about the children. (Score:2)
This is the entire problem. If you as a parent have so little involvement in your kids life that:
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.
Re:Think about the children. (Score:2)
Re:Think about the children. (Score:2)
Re:Think about the children. (Score:2)
Time for a Chris Rock quote.... (Score:1)
If only they had done this sooner... (Score:2)
Good grief (Score:4, Insightful)
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.
Good grief indeed (rant) (Score:2, Interesting)
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
Re:Good grief indeed (rant) (Score:2)
I agree with your general points, but saying that Braveheart has historical perspective is much like saying that Disney's Bambi is an educational nature programme.
Try here [google.com] for a start on what's wrong with it. Good film, total fiction.
Cheers,
Ian
Re:Good grief (Score:2, Insightful)
Maybe us youth don't WANT our parents to control us. Maybe you're a big fucking idiot and can't make good decisions. I don't want to pay for it. There are no moral absolutes - no one knows what is right for EVERYONE; only for themself.
You may not want your parents controlling you, but the rest of society does. In the end, it's better for you (and everyone else). I used to have the same attitude, and it's a good thing my parents actually controlled me.
I don't have any problems with decision making, thank you. I have exposed myself to plenty of violence in movies and video games, and I'm fine. I would never wield a weapon against another person, nor would I make any attemp to solve a problem through violence. Unfortunately, you do have to suffer for the fact that many people are idiots. Some peole can't handle this exposure. Sucks for everyone.
There are moral absolutes. There are things that aren't absolute. However, there are many things that are for the betterment of society, yet don't infringe on your rights. Problem is, if you are under 18, you don't have as many rights. Your parents have to exercise some of them for you. You can still get your game, as long as your parents have agreed that you can.
Look, the bottom line is that you're right - no one knows what's right for everyone. Like it or not, until you're 18, your parents get to say what's right for you. After that, you can decide for yourself. Teenagers (on the average, some are different) don't make sound decisions, they make emotional decisions.
Re:Good grief (Score:2)
Murder is illegal, but what about Ted Kennedy, OJ Simpson, or Gary Condit?
TV Addiction (Score:2)
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)
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?
Re:Laws to do parent's job (Score:2)
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.
Re:Laws to do parent's job (Score:2)
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.
Re:Laws to do parent's job (Score:2)
Re:Put her in the basement just to be sure (Score:2)
So, I have no problem with it. she doesnt go anywhere that I haven't researched already. and my daughter is a happy, super smart child. she has her own computer and the horrible horrible internet on it and she was told when she got it and when friends come over that I know everything she sees and goes to. Granted I use Squid to block the obvious porn sites (and the AD sites) so that she doesnt get slammed with porn when searching for N-stink or Christina Augleria. and her email address goes through procmail (same as mine) to filter out the crap.
It takes little effort to raise a good honest child. It's just most parents dont want to be bothered with it.
Food for thought... (Score:2, Insightful)
"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
"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?
A modest proposal (Score:2)
Call me crazy (Score:2)
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)
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)
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.
i think i'll draw from the wisdom of MM (Score:2, Insightful)
- Marilyn Manson
Slightly OT (Score:2, Interesting)
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)
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.
Re:non-adults are citizens too (Score:2)
While I agree that perhaps a 10 year old doesn't need to be getting head shots and watching porn, I also think that 18 is a bit high (at least for the head shots). Hell, I saw Star Wars when I was like 7 or 8, and I knew that when someone got shot, they were dead, and that it was just a movie.
Hypocrites... (Score:2)
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?
Re:Hypocrites... (Score:2)
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.
NOT like film ratings (Score:2, Interesting)
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.
They still don't get it. (Score:2)
I submitted this story....twice (Score:2)
Guess I must've pissed some dork off.
Max
so what's next...books? (Score:2)
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)
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... (Score:2)
...when they pry it away from my cold, dead fingers...
Re:Lets use me.. (Score:2)
Interesting how changing "gun" to "knife" makes the argument so much more fatuous, isn't it? And yet a knife is far less deadly than a 'scoped rifle...
TWW
Re:Lets use me.. (Score:2)
Re:Lets use me.. (Score:2)
Re:Lets use me.. (Score:5, Interesting)
did you father or whatever adult that taught you weaponry teach you the basics? Like dont point a gun at something unless you want it dead? Always use the safety, NEVER keep ammo in a stored weapon, NEVER EVER keep one chambered unless you are hunting or shooting?
The basics that are the mantra of the NRA are the most important part of good gun use. My 10 year old daughter has gone shooting (cute little 22 rifles) she loves it, and I am teaching her basic gun safety, Athough I go overboard a bit.. she knows that even pointing an empty gun at anything is dangerous and has a good chance of killing. you never put your gun away without a complete cleaning and inspection, the guns go in their cas and in the safe.
yes, as far as the Liberal Left is concerned I'm raising a gun-toting freak. but in reality I am rasing a child that for the rest of her life knows that guns are NOT toys, they can be very dangerous if you dont use them right.
I firmly believe that EVERY child when they get into 4th grade should be taught basic gun safety and should be taught to respect guns. Maybe we would have less morons running around trying to cap every fool they think diss them.
Re:Lets use me.. (Score:2)
I grew up with guns (well, mostly shotguns and the odd rifle). My father was a hunter (small game generally: partridge, rabbit), fisherman, and general outdoorsman. I learned firearm safety at an early age, and while I didn't take up hunting (really, it was a lot of effort, and while you can't buy wild partridge, I was happy with chicken -- wild game is a luxery that I can live without), this was useful basic safety training, along the lines of "don't touch a hot stove, don't run into traffic, etc."
Most of my friends had a similar upbringing: their fathers had firearms, whether for hunting or sport.. rarely with the primary intent of defense, but that was a useful "double duty" option.
We didn't go around shooting our peers or go on a killing rampage in our schools. Guns were just another somewhat dangerous "tool", like knives, and chainsaws.
If anything gun-related is to be blamed for gun violence in society, perhaps it should be the nonchalant or glorified unrealistic portrayal firearms are given by movie-makers.
Re:Lets use me.. (Score:2)
I firmly believe that EVERY child when they get into 4th grade should be taught basic gun safety and should be taught to respect guns.
When you consider the statistics [westnet.com] on teenage smoking, I'm dubious that education is the issue. Despite 20 years of health warnings, the teenage smoking rate is rising. 19% of teenage males and 27% of females smoke.
In any case, the unsafe use of fire arms is not the reason that guns are a problem. It's because they are used in crimes. You can see the limitations of the education approach if you were to say that every 4th grader should be taught not to commit a crime with a gun.
Re:Lets use me.. (Score:2)
Re:Lets use me.. (Score:2)
But guns aren't the problem (Score:2, Insightful)
The problem isn't guns: it's bad kids. Taking away people's 2nd amendment rights in no way "attacks the real problem". Nor does videogame labeling or censorship.
American history was a long long time ago for me.. (Score:2)
A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.
It's from memory so bear with me if I'm not 100% accurate. Seems to me the second amendment states you have a right to join the national guard. One weekend a month, two weeks a year.
I'm all for RESPONSABLE people owning guns, and being a REASONABLE person, I've no problem with the government determining who the reasonable, responsable people are.
Re:Misrepresented (Score:2)
Look at me, I'm probably one of the most peacefull guys on earth yet I play RTCW, MOHAA, Unreal and plenty others. I even put a little trash talking into it.
Re:Oh puh-leez! (Score:2)
"He, O men, is the wisest, who, like Socrates, knows that his wisdom is in truth worth nothing." - Socrates, Plato's "Apology"
Violence does in fact breed violence. The violence presented by video games is not the creator of violence in society, but rather the result of violence in society.
There is no logical reason why one should enjoy engaging in violence, be it simulated or real. It is an expression of a deeper emotional problem. Perhaps instead of trying to ban violence in video games, or trying to protect violence in video games, our society should try address why our society is so infatuated with violence to begin with. If you try to fight a fire by pumping in fresh air to replace the smoke, it's only going to burn hotter.
Re:Oh puh-leez! (Score:2)
Take a dog for instance. If properly care for (providing an ideal amount of food/exercise and the approriate social structure), the dog will not act out in violence. This is why people keep dogs as pets. If the dogs environment is not perfect, then he may act out in violence. But it not an uncontrollable biological urge, it is in fact reactions to the negatives in his environment.
This is how one can have a dog who is absolutely vicious to it's owner but then on the same hand, incredible tolerant and protective of a young baby. The dog acts out against the perceived threat.
So, we can arrange ourselves as a society to eliminate the biological response of violence. Merely trying to outlaw the response is unproductive though as the stimulate is not eliminated.
Re:?? (Score:2)
Re:I totally agree with GOOD Legislation (Score:2)
NOT ALL PEOPLE UNDER THE AGE OF 18 ARE UTTER IDIOTS!!!
There are many of us who are quite able to seperate reality from Quake, we aren't all hormonally overstimulated jerks, some of us are actually capable of rational thought, most of us see "drugs are bad for you" school assemblies as redundant, and some of us are justified in looking down upon some of our teachers in terms of intelligence and rationality.
Perhaps a better standard would be to keep violent video games away from idiots, whatever their age. But these senators wouldn't like that. They wouldn't be able to see the games then, while some of the more intelligent teenagers in Georgia wouls be playing them.
No, they would never go for a policy that didn't assume that minors are idiots.
Re: (Score:2)
What amazes me is what the report says... (Score:2)
They attribute a noxious combination of drug sales, gangs, and access to illegal firearms (Which were already so (It's been illegal as long as I can remember for a minor (under 21) to own a handgun save via inheritance, and even then they can't use it without adult supervision until that age...) before any new legislation- keep that in mind folks...)- it isn't what they're pegging as the problem.
Just like most clueless politicians- go for the quick, easy, unrelated fix that won't do a damn thing for the real problems.
Re:Violent society (Score:2, Interesting)
Re:It's not violence (Score:2)
Perhaps it's a British thing. Mind you, even here the age limits are pretty wierd. You can buy cigarettes, ride a moped, and have a drink with a meal in a restaurant when you're 16, but you can't go to a pub and buy a drink until you're 18... Now, in the restaurant, someone *18 or over* has to buy you your drink, but on any other licensed premises, that would be illegal.
You can legally drink at home if you're 3 or older. Yes, three years old. Seriously.