NationStates Jolt Archive

http://www.1up.com/do/newsStory?cId=3156448



Ugh...Just...ugh.

while I disagree with the 30 or above thing, and it will never pass, I have no issues keeping violent video games away from minors, none what so ever. If the parents find it acceptable, let the parents buy it.

http://www.1up.com/do/newsStory?cId=3156448

Much like Boris Johnson, the State of New York apparently simply refuses to believe that those 'little hypnotic machines' are innocent.
Two newly-proposed laws are in the process of winding their way through the the NY legal system right now. Both proposals are aimed squarely at setting up restrictions on the sales of certain types of (read: violent) video games to minors. Legal blog GamePolitics has coverage detailing both proposals in-depth.


Exhibit A: A proposed law put forth by Rep. Keith Wright which aims to limit the sales of any game whose content contains "racial or religious violence." Scratch the surface however, and the list of ban-worthy content broadens somewhat. Check it: Should this law actually be passed it would prevent any minor in New York from purchasing a game which contains or depicts:

commission of a violent crime
suicide
sexual violence
violent racism
religious violence
illegal use of drugs & alcohol
That's a pretty all-encompassing list -- especially the first and last entries. Rep. Wright's law also mandates the creation of an "Adults Only" section in your local game store, where any game containing the above is kept under lock and key, accessible only to people over 30.

Exhibit B: A proposal known as A02024 put forth by Rep. Aurelia Greene, which also aims to ban the sale of violent video games to minors. In this case it's games that contain "adult images such as morbid violence, rape, alcohol and illegal drug use, as well as other malicious acts" which are to be put under lock and key to anyone under the age of majority.

It's interesting to note that in the official record of the N.Y. Assembly, the fiscal implications of passing a law like A02024 are currently listed as "None".

Of course these sorts of proposals generally tend to be of the 'stand up, knock down' variety. The history of the courts striking down such legislation goes just about as far back as politicians who attempt to bolster their own image by capitalizing on the public fear and hysteria over the bogeyman of video gaming. It's interesting to note that recently, courts have begun penalizing entities who purposely waste their time with attempts at passing frivolous and unconstitutional anti-videogame legislation. You'd think might deter motions like the ones seen above, somewhat, wouldn't you?

All of this begs the question: What the heck is going on in NY right now that videogames should come under this kind of concentrated fire? Word to the senators: the last game we saw advocating religious violence wasn't actually published by Rockstar. Just sayin.'


Ugh...Just...ugh.

They want to ban adults from playing these games? Adults? I can vaguely understand where they're coming from when they want to ban under-18s from playing them, but adults?! If anything's going to be put under lock and key it should be the people trying to pass these laws.

They'll never pass these. Nobody is that stupid.

Funny, you'll find most of those reasons on prime time television and the major news networks in the United States.

Man,this is ridculous.Video Games do not make people violent.We have been kiling each other long before the industrial revolution much less the modern age.

Man,this is ridculous.Video Games do not make people violent.We have been kiling each other long before the industrial revolution much less the modern age.

Man,this is ridculous.Video Games do not make people violent.We have been kiling each other long before the industrial revolution much less the modern age.

So people will be old enough to have a beer, run for Congress, rent a car or a hotel room, or die for their country, but they couldn't possibly be old enough to play that video game where that Christian fights that Muslim, or whatever. What doesn't make sense is this, though: There's no mention of Jack Thompson in the article. Jack Thompson is the Fred Phelps of video game legislation, and this is the most Draconian legislation anyone's ever seen.

Will Mario be included in this? He does ingest magic mushrooms...:rolleyes:

He'll be included cos he's a commie too.

*does the time warp*

You can join the Army at the age of 20 and use REAL firearms and kill real people - but you can't buy a video game where you just simulate being a soldier?

Will Mario be included in this? He does ingest magic mushrooms...:rolleyes:

This is complete and utter bullshit. This would be yet another reason why I would never move to New York state.

30?? If they have to have to have any age limit, it should not be higher then 18. it would be stupid to allow someone to dring, smoke, and vote, but at the same time not llow them to buy a fucking video game. and having age limits for viewing stuff is just wrong, like any other form of censorship.

So, let me get this straight: I can get drunk off my ass, smoke a carton a day, buy porn, kill other human beings in the military and buy firearms by age 21 but I can't buy a game where pixels shoot each other to death with simulated weapons? Hell, I could even buy Japanese guro or loli rape porn before I can buy GTA or Resistance: Fall of Man by these rules?

I mean, it makes perfect sense.:rolleyes: These idiots should be fined for wasting taxpayer dollars, legislature time, and judicial resources with their unconstitutional anti-videogame proposals.

I would take away all age limits on videogames,films or any media what-so-ever. Everyone should ba able to watch or play what they want. It should be up to the parents, not the authorities, do decide what their children should or shouldn't be able to watch or play.

I would take away all age limits on videogames,films or any media what-so-ever. Everyone should ba able to watch or play what they want. It should be up to the parents, not the authorities, do decide what their children should or shouldn't be able to watch or play.

and how will parents know what is appropriate without a ratings system?

I would take away all age limits on videogames,films or any media what-so-ever. Everyone should ba able to watch or play what they want. It should be up to the parents, not the authorities, do decide what their children should or shouldn't be able to watch or play.

Seconded. However, I do support laws requiring game companies to disclose their content and assign a rating, but not actually limiting the sale of those products.

I mean, face it: Kids are going to get these games whether there are age limits or not. The only way they don't is if parents keep an eye on their kids in the first place; it isn't the state or the video game industry's responsibility to babysit your kids because you're too lazy or to indifferent to keep an eye on them.

All prohibition does is waste the time and money of everyone involved.

and how will parents know what is appropriate without a ratings system?

They can use common sense. I don't really care. Rating systems are stupid for films or games. People will watch or play them anyway.

They can use common sense. I don't really care. Rating systems are stupid for films or games. People will watch or play them anyway.

and then how will kids get their hands on violent material if they can't buy them, unless the parents give it to them?

If you don't really care, why did you bother to post?

and then how will kids get their hands on violent material if they can't buy them, unless the parents give it to them?

If you don't really care, why did you bother to post?

It's easy to get hold of violent material even if you aren't old enough. I bothered to post because I don't like age limits but I don't care how parents are parenting their children in this case. It's up to them.

As I read it, this law states that people under 30 will still be able to buy such video games, but employees working in game stores will not be able to access them for the purpose of sale unless they are over 30. Of course, this is silly in itself. How many people over 30 still work in game stores? It's not hard to see this having a chilling effect on the industry.

They can use common sense. I don't really care. Rating systems are stupid for films or games. People will watch or play them anyway.

Common sense doesn't tell you the content of a game of film.

Seconded. However, I do support laws requiring game companies to disclose their content and assign a rating, but not actually limiting the sale of those products.

If a company wants to have ratings on it's products they should be able to have them, although I don't se any reason they would want to. I don't think there should be any laws about age limits but there could be recomendations. Really, age limits don't protect or help anyone. Kids will easily get hold of the violent material and we had violence before video games.

If a company wants to have ratings on it's products they should be able to have them, although I don't se any reason they would want to. I don't think there should be any laws about age limits but there could be recomendations. Really, age limits don't protect or help anyone. Kids will easily get hold of the violent material and we had violence before video games.

They protect kids with shitty parents.

If a company wants to have ratings on it's products they should be able to have them, although I don't se any reason they would want to. I don't think there should be any laws about age limits but there could be recomendations. Really, age limits don't protect or help anyone. Kids will easily get hold of the violent material and we had violence before video games.

Oh, they'll get hold of it, but the point is to make it easier for the parents to know what's in the games so that they can be better informed and take more responsibility.

For example, I might allow my kid to have a WWII FPS but not allow him to have GTA because I find the themes of the WWII game to be more appropriate than the content in GTA even though they have the same "mature" rating.

They protect kids with shitty parents.

They don't protect anyone. Kids with shitty parents will get those games as easy as anyone else and do you think that shitty parents would care what their kids play?

Oh, they'll get hold of it, but the point is to make it easier for the parents to know what's in the games so that they can be better informed and take more responsibility.

For example, I might allow my kid to have a WWII FPS but not allow him to have GTA because I find the themes of the WWII game to be more appropriate than the content in GTA even though they have the same "mature" rating.

I agree that information should be easy to get hold of but it is preatty easy to get info about a game today. Just google it.

If a company wants to have ratings on it's products they should be able to have them, although I don't se any reason they would want to. I don't think there should be any laws about age limits but there could be recomendations. Really, age limits don't protect or help anyone. Kids will easily get hold of the violent material and we had violence before video games.

Actually, the video game industry decided to voluntarily put a rating system on it's products, and privately funded investigations and such into matters involving breaking the "rules" they set forth for themselves.

Of course, the Government decided it wasn't working, stepped in, and put forth a far less effective system.

people use videogames as a scapegoat to blame for more complex and less tangible problems which require a lot more work to solve, when someone goes out and kills someone else and the old videogames caused it tag is bandied about, the real causes are usually that the person has mental issues, comes from a poor background in which violence is the norm etc. It just directs attention away from whats really at stake. I guess videogames(v.80s), computer games, are still sub mainstream, to a very small extent, in that theyre still associated with nerds/geeks/dorks, in addition writing articles about how games are evil sells papers, it works in the media because it functions to elicit hysteria from (stereotyping here but I think it will convey my point better), soccermoms.

and in blaming games for violence one is making a big (and mostly wrong assumption) that people cant differentiate between what is real and what is patently not.

Now if you had a case against children getting all their morals from age 0 from say GTA, and then said they would likely think its normal to steal cars, kill prostitutes etc, then you might have a point, but it doesnt happen

If you don't support this legislation, THE TERRORISTS WIN.

;)

If you don't support this legislation, THE TERRORISTS WIN.

;)

they already won. america and the UK signed its surrender in august 2006. the EU followed soon.

They don't protect anyone. Kids with shitty parents will get those games as easy as anyone else and do you think that shitty parents would care what their kids play?

I was reffering to age limits for buying alcohol or cigarettes.

I would take away all age limits on videogames,films or any media what-so-ever. Everyone should ba able to watch or play what they want. It should be up to the parents, not the authorities, do decide what their children should or shouldn't be able to watch or play.


It already is up to the parents....that is what the ESRB is for...... Kids under the ESRB age are required to have a parent with them if they want them....and as I work for a company who sells games we stick to these ratings very tightly.

so...at 18 icould join the military, go to war and kill a real person but i can't play Grand theft Auto.

that's f**ked

people use videogames as a scapegoat to blame for more complex and less tangible problems which require a lot more work to solve, when someone goes out and kills someone else and the old videogames caused it tag is bandied about, the real causes are usually that the person has mental issues, comes from a poor background in which violence is the norm etc. It just directs attention away from whats really at stake. I guess videogames(v.80s), computer games, are still sub mainstream, to a very small extent, in that theyre still associated with nerds/geeks/dorks, in addition writing articles about how games are evil sells papers, it works in the media because it functions to elicit hysteria from (stereotyping here but I think it will convey my point better), soccermoms.

and in blaming games for violence one is making a big (and mostly wrong assumption) that people cant differentiate between what is real and what is patently not.

Now if you had a case against children getting all their morals from age 0 from say GTA, and then said they would likely think its normal to steal cars, kill prostitutes etc, then you might have a point, but it doesnt happen

IMO the excuse of coming from a poor background where violence is the norm is as lame an excuse as video games made them do it.....if kids are educated on what is right or wrong...then they should have the moral concepts of knowing they are doing wrong. So Education is important ....blaming a background or saying their parents did not hug them enough or even video games is 100% BS.

Does that mean we can all stop ganging up on Germany?

Does that mean we can all stop ganging up on Germany?

No.

Does that mean we can all stop ganging up on Germany?

We could, but why would we want to?

http://www.1up.com/do/newsStory?cId=3156448



Ugh...Just...ugh.

Yeah.. it makes no sense at all. These people are stupid.

so...at 18 icould join the military, go to war and kill a real person but i can't play Grand theft Auto.

that's f**ked

I know ... wtf. Can buy booze legally at 21 .. but can't drink in a game until you're 30. dumbasses.

We could, but why would we want to?

Yes, them videos are hot.


Oh, we're referring to the other kind of ganging up, aren't we?

I'm embarassed.

No.
Dang. ;)

Dang. ;)

Someone needs to do a censorship parody of that one song that goes like "The protestants hate the catholics, and the catholics hate the protestants, and the hindus hate the muslims, and everybody hates the jews"

Where every bit ends "and everybody hates the germans"

IMO the excuse of coming from a poor background where violence is the norm is as lame an excuse as video games made them do it.....if kids are educated on what is right or wrong...then they should have the moral concepts of knowing they are doing wrong. So Education is important ....blaming a background or saying their parents did not hug them enough or even video games is 100% BS.

If someone is from an impoverished area they are less likely to go to school, get educated etc. There is a higher tendency towards crime and gangs in poor areas in any part of the world you care to mention. There is a link. People have less hope, are less educated and hence are more likely to resort to anti social behaviour. Now Im not using it as a catchall term here, poorness=/= violent behaviour by proxy but its certainly a better explanation from the patterns or facts you can see alone than from videogames inducing violence.

Also the statement about parents not hugging them enough is somewhat flippant. Tbh is pretty much commonsense that if youve got alchoholic abusive parents for example, the kid will probably have emotional issues with a potential marked proclivity towards violence. And although its less certain, children who have very little contact with their parents will find it difficult to deal with any problems they may develop, and so there is a higher (though not necessarily high) chance that they will act out on those problems in an outburst which may be violent.

I guess the best explanation would be do with culture. If youve got a culture orientated towards violence its just a vicious circle ie parents espouse violent sentiments, kids grow up the same and tell their kids to use violence as a solution and so on. Again although its tenous to say this, I myself definately see a link between poorer areas and this sort of culture although Ill be quick to add that its not absolute, you can have absolute scumbags from well off areas too with a culture like that. But I find this link holds moreso with poor areas and again people from impoverished backgrounds have less to be content about so negative cultures will probably develop. (it might sound like Im insulting poor people or being condescending towards them, but I dont mean it that way, Im not saying people with less money are invalid or anything, theyre just like that through bad luck and possibly a few bad decisions which dont necessarily reflect on them as people in addition to the fact that their talents/abilities arent recognised/criminally ignored. Also a lot of rich/well off people are idiots and have suceeded through ruthlessness and cunning without any genuine/beneficial to humanity abilites).

What causes do you think are resultant in violence of this sort of behaviour blamed incorrectly on videogames?

Since when are people under 30 considered minors? o.O

Why do these fuckwits think that the courts would let this stand? No way will "not if you're under thirty" stand up to constitutionality.

I would take away all age limits on videogames,films or any media what-so-ever. Everyone should ba able to watch or play what they want. It should be up to the parents, not the authorities, do decide what their children should or shouldn't be able to watch or play.

Agreed.

And parents should know what is appropriate through reading reviews (like their kids do) and previewing the game, just as my parents read reviews of or previewed books and movies when I was just a Kittenganistan.

Setting an age limit at 30 is ludicrously stupid. Setting an age limit at 18, on the other hand, seems entirely reasonable. Parents should have the ability to decide what is and isn't right for their kid.

Agreed.

And parents should know what is appropriate through reading reviews (like their kids do) and previewing the game, just as my parents read reviews of or previewed books and movies when I was just a Kittenganistan.

Since you change the first letter, wouldn't you be Cittenganistan?

Since you change the first letter, wouldn't you be Cittenganistan?

Nah, I never was a city.

Nah, I never was a city.

I disagree. I understand you were a rather large baby, and your parents felt like making some money...

:D

Setting an age limit at 30 is ludicrously stupid. Setting an age limit at 18, on the other hand, seems entirely reasonable. Parents should have the ability to decide what is and isn't right for their kid.

No, in comparison, it sounds remotely reasonable. Without the absurd limit of 30, it only sounds just short of irrational.