Want to read Slashdot from your mobile device? Point it at m.slashdot.org and keep reading!

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
Censorship Entertainment Games

Interview with 'Anti-Gamer' Senator Leland 157

Posted by Zonk from the bit-crabby dept.
strwrsxprt writes "Game Almighty recently had the chance to speak with Senator Leland Yee about his views on the validity of California Assembly Bill 1179, which was designed to criminalize the sale of Mature rated games to minors and require retailers to keep Mature games separated from other games. He also shares his thoughts on everything from the effectiveness of the ESRB and the place AO games have in the market, to the movie industry and their rating standards in relation to games. His answers might just surprise you."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Interview with 'Anti-Gamer' Senator Leland More

Interview with 'Anti-Gamer' Senator Leland

Comments Filter:

  • Smarter replies than I expected (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Sciros ( 986030 ) on Thursday October 11, 2007 @02:43PM (#20943465) Journal
    I wonder if that's a good thing, though...

    As reasonable as many of his answers were, I disagree with the entire notion of "sheltering" kids from the very real and ubiquitous violence around us, whatever form it's in. On top of that, you will end up with the *wrong* people in prison if you criminalize something like selling ESRB-rated M games to kids 17 and under.

    Somehow I wish this guy was as loony as Jack Thompson so he'd be easier to debunk and toss to the wayside. There's nothing more dangerous than someone who can think [somewhat] logically and still pushes for harmful policy.

    • Re:Smarter replies than I expected (Score:5, Insightful)

      by everphilski ( 877346 ) on Thursday October 11, 2007 @02:45PM (#20943505) Journal
      As reasonable as many of his answers were, I disagree with the entire notion of "sheltering" kids from the very real and ubiquitous violence around us, whatever form it's in.

      You read his answers, but not well enough. He said parents can decide for their children if they want them to be playing violent video games. Parents can purchase games that their children cannot purchase, and let them play them. Nothing wrong with that. The laws he proposes only affect the point of sale.

      In all honesty I think he hits it right on the money.

      • Re: (Score:2)

        by Sciros ( 986030 )
        No I read his answers quite closely. He followed what you mentioned with something along the lines of "parents can't be there all the time," "parents work 12 hour days," etc. So him saying that he's putting all the power into the hands of the parents is a bit misleading. "Parents have full power, but since they can't exercise it, I want the government to do it for them." Oh and I suppose he also feels that if parents find out someone sold their kid an M-rated game they'd want the seller to get jail time, si
        • 2+2 != 10000

          More aptly, he is stating that he is helping the parents excercise their control.

          i.e. "Kids will have more difficulty bypassing their parents at the times the parents can't be there."

          Its quite valid really - A parent working 12 hours a day can still manage to go out shopping at least once a week - and pick up a game during the trip if they decide the kid can have it. Conversely, without this legislation, it would be a lot easier for a child bypass the parents concerns about what games he or she

          • Re:Smarter replies than I expected (Score:5, Insightful)

            by Sciros ( 986030 ) on Thursday October 11, 2007 @03:52PM (#20944659) Journal
            .. Because this legislation CRIMINALIZES the sale of games to minors. *Criminalizes* is the key word, and you have to think about what that means. Your addition problem analogy is indeed appropriate here, because I simply cannot see jail time being a fitting penalty for selling a minor an M-rated game. To attempt to make a point with an extreme (bad tactic but I'll try it) why don't we just propose a law that states "if you sell a minor a game, you get lethal injection" because yes without that law it would be a lot easier for a child to bypass parent concerns. However, who is to say that parent concerns include making sales of violent games to their children a felony? Imagine if you are a parent whose child (18+, under 18, whatever) works at a game store in Cali? Now you have to worry about him accidentally screwing up, selling something like Gears to a high school junior, and facing prison time for it!

            This is "quite valid"?!?

            • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

              by Sneftel ( 15416 )

              Because this legislation CRIMINALIZES the sale of games to minors. *Criminalizes* is the key word, and you have to think about what that means. Your addition problem analogy is indeed appropriate here, because I simply cannot see jail time being a fitting penalty for selling a minor an M-rated game.
              Heh. Looks like you didn't actually read the bill. Nobody's going to be sent to jail for violating this law.

              • Re: (Score:2)

                by Sciros ( 986030 )
                Well yes, I didn't read the bill, but I am also lazy and don't live in Cali and like to argue with people.

                Ok reading it, it's a maximum fine of $1000, not even close to jail time. Does this go on your permanent record, though? Can it screw you over in that sense? If so, it's still too harsh, although not nearly as harsh as I assumed based on the Senator's words.
          • Doesn't anyone question why parents are working 12 hours a day? And whether that MIGHT be a reason why some kids have no idea about morals, values and limitations, which is usually just the reasons why people like aforementioned Senator wants laws like this?

            Get the parents back to their kids and make them raise the kids instead of handing all power to the state, and you'll see far more and more efficiently executed moral standards and good citizens than the government ever could achive!
            • Sometimes, its a choice between

              (1) Work 12-16 hours a day
              (2) not have enough food to eat.

              I've known people in that situation who've chosen #1, and people who've chosen #2.

              Both have their drawbacks, but I've a lot more respect for those who choose #1. Not all jobs pay enough to live on sadly.
              • Why should that be the choice?

                When parents have to work 12+ hours a day just to get by, there is your reason why today's youth is in the sorry state it is in. Take a look at the average "problem child". A good friend of mine is a social worker, so I get a bit of an idea what's going on.

                You will see, without fail, that all those "problem kids" come from families where their parents have zero time for them. This can (surprisingly) happen in well-off families too, where the parents are more concerned with thei

      • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

        by IndustrialComplex ( 975015 )
        And what that means is I will again be needlessly 'carded' whenver I want to buy a game. It's the same crap with alcohol that is used as a rallying cry for sleazy politicians to rally the overprotective parents.

        So, the annoyance of being carded aside. Lets not forget that we don't need to go further down the path of expanding the amount of time people remain 'children'. This is not a labor law, where unfair working conditions forced children to work in dangerous conditions.

        You have to work to survive, i
        • I've seen a lot of cases of #2 in high school

          9 out of 10 of those kids were NOT responsible. They had a job, yes, but they screwed around with their lives, and ended up going no where with their lives. Some of them abused drugs (I'm not saying just used, even people who noted a difference between used and abused would call this abuse). Some of them went from job to job, not holding one for long before getting fired, some were violent, some were in gangs...

          Sorry, but #2 is certainly not a hallmark of respons
          • And to think... what if they were drug abusing gang bangers and played Halo. They'd be like running a drive by with a rocket launcher.

            I'd rather have the kid fragging me online than tagging my mailbox.

      • Re: (Score:2)

        by ivan256 ( 17499 )
        I think he craftily dodged the point, and steered the interviewer away from asking the hard questions as only a good politician can.

        He turned it around on the industry, claiming that they can only oppose the law if they actually want to sell these games to children... But that's not why the industry opposes the rule. The industry is afraid, rightfully so, that many stores will stop carrying M rated titles to avoid the risk of prosecution.
        • The industry is afraid, rightfully so, that many stores will stop carrying M rated titles to avoid the risk of prosecution.

          And that's their prerogative. Game manufacturers can feel free to sell games directly if stores will not carry them.

          • Re: (Score:2)

            by ivan256 ( 17499 )
            Sure it's their prerogative, but why shouldn't the game industry be concerned about it?

            My claim wasn't that it would be wrong for retailers to do this... It's a valid concern of the game industry that this might happen... But my main point was that it is disingenuous to assert that the only reason the game industry would oppose this legislation is that they want to sell 'M' rated games to children; which is exactly what this politician said.

            I fail to see how your comment is a response to my comment in any w

      • Re: (Score:2)

        by RingDev ( 879105 )
        [quote]You read his answers, but not well enough. He said parents can decide for their children if they want them to be playing violent video games.[/quote]

        I think you might want to go back and re-read them again... Specifically:

        [quote]Sen. Yee: No. Time and time again, the ESRB has proven it can not be trusted and is not a very valuable tool for parents.[/quote]

        The ESRB is not responsible for the sales/distribution of games to minors. They are responsible for rating games so that distributors know who it i

        • Re: (Score:2)

          by RingDev ( 879105 )
          /. markup pwnt my bbcode markup. Imagine that.

          -Rick
        • That someone else will be the Government.
          you put those words in his mouth. He didn't state that. And you misquote him in the first place. He never inferred that they were in charge of distribution, merely a tool for parents. For reference, the question was, GA: Do you believe that the Entertainment Software Rating Board (ESRB) is effective in monitoring and policing the game industry and its content?. His reply: Sen. Yee: No. Time and time again, the ESRB has proven it can not be trusted and is not a very

          • Re: (Score:2)

            by RingDev ( 879105 )
            I disagree. We both agree he said "the ESRB has proven it can not be trusted and is not a very valuable tool for parents". Regardless of the question that prompted that statement, his message is clear, the ESRB needs to be replaced. And his replacement for a self regulating industry board is, the Government. That much is inarguable. For better, for worse, who cares, it is unconstitutional and that is that. Heck, if you don't believe me, go read the freaking bill! It specifically states what acts it consider
            • And his replacement for a self regulating industry board is, the Government. That much is inarguable.

              I don't see how. He never said it, you are presuming it.

              Heck, if you don't believe me, go read the freaking bill! It specifically states what acts it considers immoral and states that selling a game with state deemed immoral acts will result in a fine.

              Yes. These things are called 'guidelines'. Guidelines the ESRB can follow. Guidelines are not a regulatory board. That's the whole point of this legis

              • Re: (Score:2)

                by holt ( 86624 )

                Their caretakers (parents, legal guardians, what have you) are allowed oversight to make exception (for example, your parents can let you drive on private property, drink, etc. as a minor. But as a minor you can not purchase these things, must be purchased by an adult and done under the consent/monitoring of a parent. This extends very readily to the consumption and purchase of movies, pornography and - oh my - software).

                I don't think that's entirely true, at least not in all jurisdictions. You correc

    • Re:Smarter replies than I expected (Score:5, Insightful)

      by cowscows ( 103644 ) on Thursday October 11, 2007 @02:58PM (#20943731) Journal
      I think this guy is mostly right though. Parents have a difficult balance to try and manage between monitoring their kid's activities and allowing them some freedom to grow. A law that doesn't have any direct effect on the existence of certain video games, but merely restricts the sale of them to children doesn't seem particularly problematic to me. It's up to people with a better understanding of legalese than I possess to decide if a specific law is properly written to accomplish only that, but I have no problem with the idea of it.

      I guess I don't see the policy as being particularly harmful. It's not saying that these games are illegal, it's not even saying that letting a child play the game is illegal. It's just about making a small part of parenting a little bit easier. It's not about pretending that violence doesn't exist, it's about helping parents control how their children are exposed to and learn about that violence. I don't think that violent video games, movies, or even porn will have a serious negative impact on your average well-adjusted child, but at the same time I would appreciate the ability as a parent to somewhat control how my child gets introduced to these things. The ESRB is a start, but unless game retailers really start enforcing it, then it's not really having much of an impact. It's probably easier for the movie industry to self-regulate, because there's relatively few theaters out there compared to stores that stock games, but I'm still surprised that the game industry and the retailers don't have their act together a little better on all of this. Maybe the threat of these laws will move that process along.

      At the end of the day, I don't think this law accomplishes all that much. Most kids don't have the resources to go buy a $50 video game on their own. An adult likely helped out somewhere along the way, either knowingly or not. This law won't eliminate bad or indifferent parenting. I doesn't seem like a "slippery-slope" issue to me, nor should it make games any harder for adults to get their hands on.

      • Re: (Score:2)

        by Sciros ( 986030 )
        I find *criminalizing* a sale of a non-weapon and non-controlled-substance to anyone to be a "slippery slope" issue. Realize that it means if you sell a 16-year-old Gears of War you can face jail time. How the HECK is that a fair reflection of what parents would want? (Some parents maybe, but by golly not all!)
        • Well maybe jail-time just for selling a game is a bit ridiculous as a penalty. But reasonable fines would not be problematic. Like I said, the specifics of any particular law might be debatable, but the basic premise of restricting sales to minors doesn't bother me.

          The industry would be in a much better position to help dictate the specifics of these laws (or even avoid them entirely) if they could get their act together in terms of their own ratings system, and enforcement of such.

      • Re: (Score:2)

        by Miraba ( 846588 )

        The ESRB is a start, but unless game retailers really start enforcing it, then it's not really having much of an impact. It's probably easier for the movie industry to self-regulate, because there's relatively few theaters out there compared to stores that stock games, but I'm still surprised that the game industry and the retailers don't have their act together a little better on all of this. Maybe the threat of these laws will move that process along.

        Maybe you want to see the FTC's report [ftc.gov] on the issue. Here's the failure rates:

        R-rated movie ticket: 39%
        M-rated video game: 41%
        R-rated movie on video: 71%
        Unrated movie on video: 71%
        CDs with "Explicit Content" labels: 76%

      • Please keep in mind that this kind of restriction does not exist in other entertainment mediums. (Except for extreme instances, such as pornography)

        If a store sells a R-rated movie to a 16 year old, is it a criminal offense? No
        If a store sells a Steven King book (sex and violence) to a 16 year old, is it a criminal offense? No.
        If a store sells a CD with a parental advisory sticker to a 16 year old, is it a criminal offense? No.

        So why should selling a M rated game (Not AO) to a minor become criminal?

    • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

      by TheVelvetFlamebait ( 986083 )

      There's nothing more dangerous than someone who can think [somewhat] logically and still pushes for harmful policy.
      One thing that I consider more dangerous is someone who still believes themselves correct and refuses to modify their opinions even in the face of something unmistakably reasonable.

      • Re: (Score:2)

        by Sciros ( 986030 )
        o.O ... Clever words, but if you find jailing someone who sells a kid an M-rated game "unmistakably reasonable", then you're part of the problem here.
        • OK, let me clear this up. I don't think that it should be a crime to sell a violent game to a minor. The issue is that the original poster was all but convinced, he found the senator's arguments logical, it's just that he pulled out because he let his preconceptions trump the new influences. Kinda like what you're doing here, where you treat your opinion like a fact, rather than something dynamic and open to influence.

          • Re: (Score:2)

            by Sciros ( 986030 )
            Well yes I am aware that I treated my opinion as fact there, but when laws turn opinions into unavoidable "facts" as far as society is concerned if you know what I mean, I kinda play by those rules...

            I'm the OP, by the way ^^ it's not that my preconceptions trumped new influences per se; rather, I find the Senator's motivations noble but his methods horribly flawed. And noble motivations driving flawed methods is in my eyes a dangerous thing. I can't help but feel that way. (As an aside that setup often mak
      • Actually, they're easier to debunk. Once everyone and their dog realized that they're spewing bullcrap, they lost. At least when it's someone trying to sell an opinion.

    • There's nothing more dangerous than someone who can think [somewhat] logically and still pushes for harmful policy.

      He thinks the same thing about you I'm sure. The point of the matter is that he's coming from a different perspective than most of the people on slashdot, he realizes there are a lot of very valid concerns coming from parents, and he's trying to make a compromise the best way that he can. He understands the issues and he's stood up for free speech in video games before. The balance he's striking might not be the balance that you or I want, but at least he's willing to look at the issue rationally before de

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by Sciros ( 986030 )
      BTW, it's not prison. It's a maximum fine of $1000 according to the law. I don't know if it goes on your permanent record, that would still suck huge and IMO would outweigh the severity of the offense. Anyway, due to laziness I was spreading FUD woohoo!

  • i agree (Score:2, Insightful)

    by niloroth ( 462586 )
    "Sen. Yee: No. Time and time again, the ESRB has proven it can not be trusted and is not a very valuable tool for parents."

    I think he kinda nails it right there. Sure, there should be involvement by the retailer, the ESRB, and the parents, but if that is all failing? What then? I have yet to see any store not sell a rated M game to someone who wants to buy one. of course the same could be said for a fair amount of the movies these stores stock. But the rating system should not only be there to inform p

    • Re:i agree (Score:5, Insightful)

      by Qzukk ( 229616 ) on Thursday October 11, 2007 @02:51PM (#20943613) Journal
      I have yet to see any store not sell a rated M game to someone who wants to buy one.

      Of course you haven't. "Minimum wage clerk obeys store policy and doesn't sell an M-rated game to a minor!" doesn't exactly scream for front page news.

      • Re: (Score:2)

        by j0nb0y ( 107699 )
        Years ago (I think it was about 2001/2002) I was carded when I bought Unreal Tournament. I don't buy many M rated games, so I can't remember specifically anytime I bought one and wasn't carded. Nowadays I probably wouldn't get carded anyway because I look too old.

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by AvitarX ( 172628 )
      It is funny how it was a good enough tool for him though.

      Time and again he uses the term 'M' rated game.
      • Yes, and I would hope that most parents, if they were going to write legislation on this subject, would have the same grasp of the issues. However, since most aren't, and many consider things like computers and xbox's to be "new stuff the kids are good at", i think that the ESRB alone fails mightily.
    • I've seen it happen more than once, actually, and the latest studies find that the ESRB ratings are more effective than movie ratings. I see laws like this as something like seat belt laws: everyone has the tools, they either know about them or should be able to find out about them if they put effort into it, and yet the government feels the need to push the agenda beyond the point where it's reasonable.
    • I have yet to see any store not sell a rated M game to someone who wants to buy one.

      I certainly have. Went into Best Buy with my 16-year-old brother. I picked up a copy of Katamari Damacy, he grabbed a copy of God of War, and we went to the register. They refused to sell him God of War.

      So we switched and I bought God of War and he bought Katamari. The store did exactly what it's supposed to do.
    • A better idea, rather than passing laws and forcing compliance would be "Leave the retailer alone to stock their store as they see fit, the parent can shop elsewhere for lil Johnny and Janey." This, to me is like city wide smoking bans in bars. People feel entitled to everything and it's up to the government to provide it through a handout or a law prohibiting an something they feel "icky" about (and most likely they simply don't understand it in the first place).

      I guess I have a hard time seeing wisdom leg
    • Sure, there should be involvement by the retailer, the ESRB, and the parents, but if that is all failing? What then?

      Who says that it is "all failing"? Retailers have basically adopted a policy of "if an employee breaks ESRB rules, hes fired instantly", the ESRB has launched SEVERAL marketing attempts to raise awareness on ESRB rating and parents have... maintained the perception of "video games are for children". Who's failing and what should be done about it?

      When it comes to your children, ignorance can

  • Reasonable, Articulate, and Restrained (Score:4, Informative)

    by Elemenope ( 905108 ) on Thursday October 11, 2007 @02:47PM (#20943545)

    Clearly this Yee character is from an alternate universe, where politicians consider policy with a decent amount of reflection and don't feel the need to demonize the horreur de jour.

    He makes an especially interesting point in that, unlike movies, it is unrealistic for parents to provide guidance for their children throughout the entire gameplaying experience because games are pretty damn long-playing compared to comparable media.

    • Well that's good to know! I'll make sure that my parenting skills are top notch for 2 hours a day to ensure that I complete my "good parent time quota" to ensure that my son doesn't watch a bad movie. And ya know, when 'Cars' finishes, if 'Debbie Does Dallas' winds up in the DVD player, who am I to stop him? I mean, I made sure that he behaved himself through the entirety of 'Cars' I'm good for the day.

      -Rick
    • Care to tell me about a game where you didn't know after 30 minutes (heck, make it the intro) whether it's going to be "bloody" or "cruel" or "violent"?

      I could really not think of a game that was all "Teletubbies in Lala-Land" for the first 2 hours and then turned into something that makes me want to get a bucket to collect the blood dripping out of the monitor.

      • The Longest Journey. It's Alice in Wonderland and even has cute talking animals. What isn't immediately apparent is the sexually frank dialogue (including discussions of homosexuality and date rape), cursing, and some even more seriously fucked-up shit...and the best part is you don't see much of any of that for the first four to five hours or so. So, yeah, it is quite possible for a game to seem like it is appropriate for one age level and actually be something quite different.

        p.s. I *loved* TLJ. It w

        • Re: (Score:2)

          by cmarkn ( 31706 )
          But this game (TLJ) would not be affected by Sen. Yee’s bill. It only contains sexually frank dialogue. It doesn’t contain any of the violence that Yee claims to be concerned about. And yet it carries the ‘M’ rating. His focus on the graphic violence is one thing, but his avoiding the subject of sex, and even more his using porn as an example, indicate that he is trying to sneak in more restrictions than he lets on.

          • An excellent point, however when he was using the porn example he was talking about how everything should be available without restriction to adults. I don't support Yee's position by any means; I'm not crazy about government regulation in the first place, and regulations on art and speech (which I was gratified to here Yee happily concedes that games are both) invariably lead to bad things. I simply appreciate politicians who are willing to engage their critics and try to explain with reason and eruditio

  • Government vs. Private regulation (Score:3, Informative)

    by PlatyPaul ( 690601 ) on Thursday October 11, 2007 @02:47PM (#20943549) Homepage Journal
    The real issue at the heart of Senator Yee's efforts is whether or not it should be an act of government or private regulation which controls the ability of children to buy (and play) M-rated games. For those who don't know (i.e., have been living under a rock), the ESRB [esrb.org] is the video game equivalent of the MPAA/NATO rating group [mpaa.org]. To get a quick idea of Leland's views, check out these two quotes from the TFA:

    Time and time again, the ESRB has proven it can not be trusted and is not a very valuable tool for parents.

    We need all retailers to prevent sales of M rated video games to minors. We need the ratings board to watch more than 30 minutes of footage before deciding on a rating. In fact, they should have to play the game and watch significantly more footage. There needs to be more transparency of the rating system and how they come up with various ratings.

    Clearly, Sen. Yee (and the supporters of his proposed legislation) believes that the ESRB does not do an acceptable job in their role of regulating the availability of violent video games to minors, and that therefore the government should get involved. Take from that what you will: levels of government involvement in private life, comparative success of government and private enforcement, etc.

    Personally, I'd have to say that the government is just as likely (if not more so) to do a lousy job simply due to inexperience and increased outside pressure (i.e., lobbyists). It's not that I don't think they could do it - I just don't think it's worth scrapping what we have and starting over. And, my own little pet peeve: Sen. Yee never mentioned why the ESRB "can not be trusted". And that's just not right [xkcd.com].

    • Clearly, Sen. Yee (and the supporters of his proposed legislation) believes that the ESRB does not do an acceptable job in their role of regulating the availability of violent video games to minors, and that therefore the government should get involved.

      You're missing a big piece of the picture, which is that the ESRB was created specifically because the govnerment was going to get involved unless they industry did something to self-regulate.

      GOVERNMENT: There is a problem. Fix it or we fix it for you.
      GAME

  • Politician Interview Framework v0.1 (Score:3, Funny)

    by Applekid ( 993327 ) on Thursday October 11, 2007 @03:11PM (#20943945)

    CInterviewText Politician::CompleteInterview(MediaInterview interview)
    {
        foreach(Question askedQuestion in interview)
            if (rnd() > 0.5)
                this.qaPairs.AddIfNotExist(askedQuestion ,THEME_YES_BUT_NO);
            else
                this.qaPairs.AddIfNotExist(askedQuestion ,THEME_NO_BUT_YES);
        return (this.qaPairs.GetElaborateAnswers(LANGUAGE_ENGLISH));
    }


    It's only version v0.1 because I still need to program in the "Think of the Children" directive and the ability to flip-flop on questions' answers when politically expedient.
  • I got the impression that this policy was a labour of love. This is one of the policies he happens to be passionate about, one that he's thought about, and may possibly be one of his goals in becoming a politician. He's a child psychologist, so I wouldn't be surprised if he developed a private interest in the effects of games on children in the course of his practice.

    This guy is no ordinary "think of the children" type. He actually does think of the children, and truly believes he is helping them. Refreshin

  • What's Actually Wrong? (Score:3, Insightful)

    by p0tat03 ( 985078 ) on Thursday October 11, 2007 @03:28PM (#20944267)
    While I disagree with placing M-rated games separately from other ratings (go to the video store, they don't do that THERE), I do agree that we need regulations preventing sale of M-rated games to minors. The movie industry has already done it, and games need to do it also.

  • M / R vs. AO / NC-17 (Score:3, Interesting)

    by brunes69 ( 86786 ) <`gro.daetsriek' `ta' `todhsals'> on Thursday October 11, 2007 @03:58PM (#20944753)
    I fully support this bill **IF** the classifications for movies and video games are held to the same standard.

    Ie If Manhunt is an 'AO' game, and the next GTA is an 'AO' game, then then entire Die-Hard series should be re-classified as NC-17. Similarly for the majority of horror films, such as the current 30 days of night, for example.

    The REAL problem is that there is a double-standard.
  • Lumping all humans under the age of 18 into the same legal category is retarded. Selling Gears of War to a 16 year old is one thing. Selling it to a 10 year old is another. Selling it to 5 year old is yet another.

    I do not think it would be entirely unreasonable to have some sort of ID card for minors that basically can be used to signify that they may be considered an adult for certain purposes. Not buying guns or voting. But for things like Violent Videogames, adult movies, cigarettes, and alcohol. M
  • As a gamer, I'm appalled that anything approaching legislating censorship of my beloved pasttime is even considered. As a new parent, I'm terrified that I don't have a way to control my new offspring 100% of the time. Neither of these positions are very moderate, nor should anyone expect them to be. Human nature has a way of emphasizing threats to our control and safety, and the only way to rationally come up with a conclusion is to discount both emotions.

    Creative Freedom must be protected. I think this
    • I think Mr. Yee explained pretty clearly why his law is not some sort of brutal attack on the freedom of game makers. His law is all about trying to keep retailers from selling mature rated games to children. It does not restrict at all the type of games that you can make or sell or buy if you're an adult. It does not restrict the rights of consumers, except for a very specific case if you're a minor. We already restrict the rights of children in many ways because they're often not educated and experienced

      • And his law will be totally ineffective. If you go back and look at the publicized cases of video games being "sold to a minor", you'll find that in all of them the store did not sell the game to a minor. They sold it to a legal adult, in all the cases I can recall a relative of the kid involved and most often a parent, who then gave it to the minor. Any law targeting the store will simply not do anything about that. You'd need a law targeting the parents, and I don't see him proposing such a law.

        • I would strongly argue against such a law. If a parent wants to purchase a game and let their child play it, then that is their perogative. Hopefully they're being careful enough to ensure that their child is ready to play a game with such content, but either way, that sort of thing is not up to the government to decide.

          I doubt I would ban my children from playing Grand Theft Auto until they were 18. I know lots of people who played it at a younger age than that and were not negatively affected by it. But I

          • The stores already won't sell that game to your 8-year-old. Maybe a 17-year-old, or a mature 16-year-old, if the store's lax in carding, but that's about it. And as I said, all the cases that've been the focus of the debate have involved a parent or other relative giving the kid the game. So either there's no problem for the laws this guy proposes to address, or if there is a problem 99% of the time it doesn't involve the store.

  • As a relatively new dad, yes, I'm worried about the content that my son is going to encounter and want to buy.

    But I don't want to make that someone else's problem. That's my problem, that problem belongs in my family, not in some politician's pocket. The government will probably do a lousy job of enforcing this. It will always be a political tool, subject to the whims of whomever needs to get a few minutes of media time.

    I'm probably going to say, "Sure, it's fine to play Gears of Mayhem IV, as long as I
  • If you are not familiar with this game, you aren't going to understand. And probably not understand the true depth to which gaming can descend.

    Custer's Revenge was released one morning in 1983 I believe. It was pulled from every store by noon. If you haven't heard of it, that is probably why. It very nearly sold out of the modest number of units produced. If it had been left on the market it almost certainly would have been the best-selling video game of the time. Well over a million copies.

    It was a v
  • I've been a gamer since I was 5 years old. In the 16 years since that time, I've seen the ratings system evolve. The industry has evolved. I've always believed that games should have real ratings.

    Parents don't care, or they don't know. NOT EVERY GAME IS FOR CHILDREN!

    As someone who will become a father in a few months time, I don't want my kid playing GTA or Manhunt! When he is well adjusted enough to understand such material, then he can play it. There are parents who let their 10 year old kids play w

Slashdot Top Deals

The use of money is all the advantage there is to having money. -- B. Franklin

Close