Topic awaiting preservation: Policing the arcade... (Page 1 of 2)

OK, maybe not but read this:

Law Bans Selling Violent Games to Kids

Now, I like GTA as much as the next guy, but I have serious reservations about kids getting their hands on games like this. For those of you that don't want to read the article, in Olympia,WA there is a bill on the table that would fine a retail $500 for selling a violent or sexually explicit game to someone under 17.

I don't really see anything wrong with this, we already do it with movies so why not games? With graphics becoming increasingly realistic why shouldn't video games follow along that same line?

:::krets.net:::

quote:

---

Rep. Mary Lou Dickerson, the bill's sponsor, said she tailored the bill to withstand a constitutional challenge by focusing on the state's interest in protecting the lives of law enforcement officers.

---

... so according to Rep. Mary Lou Dickerson, violent videogames put the lives of law enforcement officers in danger !? hmmmm interesting...

Guns dont kill people - people kill people. Same goes for violent video games IMHO.

They are trying to blame ANYTHING THEY CAN for high crime rate in the country, while the answer is in very ideologies they keep trying to promote, and not in the amount of guns or computer games sold to kids.

Its like blaming toy-cars for traffic accidents and DWIs

You know what? Whenever something bad happens, the goverment, media (or whoever) try and find a scapegoat. Now, with the 80's and 90's and the 21st century bringing about heavy metal music, shock rockers like Marylin Manson and Alice Cooper, violent video games like GTA3 and Mortal Kombat, they've finally found one.

And it's cheap. They've tryed to do it over and over again, repeatedly, and they get shot down every time for the simple reason that their accusations are false. I mean, I'll take myself as an example. I play GTA3, Mortal Kombat, listen to heavy metal music (not MM or Alive Cooper, but metal music) and generally enjoy pointless violence. As long as it's pixelized, digitalized etcetera. Seeing a real dead person, really, gives me the chills, and seeing things like gore in a car accident is truly sickening. And, really, I don't feel decensitized because of this. And the entertainment industry didn't have to edge it on to me either, which is how decentizitation works. The first computer game I played was Doom. Was I shocked at what I saw? No. Was it exciting? Fuck yah, but that doesn't mean the because my girlfriend dumped me or I'm getting bad grades that I'm going to go steal guns and shoot my teachers and classmates.

Maybe we should start looking at the real problems, such as fatherless homes (I think that the statistic was 56% in America, but correct me if I'm wrong) and ignorant, uninvolved parenting. Maybe it's lack of a mother figure, or a society that demands perfection. Really, these are the issues that I think are causing this, and the problem is that no body want to adress them, because their either (a) afraid of offending people or (2) their a hard issue to tackle.

[edit]

And there were killers far before the introduction of the media,.

[/edit]

[This message has been edited by counterfeitbacon (edited 05-22-2003).]

hardcore music forever! i'm not violent!

*sings*
"i want to drown you in a sea of your own blood! .... " - remembering never....

I don't know about this. I'm of two minds. I generally hate censorship in any forms but I don't have an issue with allowing parents to do their jobs.



.:[ Never resist a perfect moment ]:.

But then all your doing is allowing the parents to do what the stores are doing.

I don't see the point. I mean, the kids that are going to kill people, games or not, are going to kill people. Either way, your sensoring them, and (in my opinion) helping to bring up a sheltered socieity.

Actually my argument is not so much that games are creating homicidal maniacs (afaik there is no evidence to support this) but that games have become much more mature in their content.

Hmm how to put this. I'm not entirely against a 12 or 13 year old kid watching something that's relatively explicit sexually. ( I question whether many should but that's not the point I'm trying to make) But I think it's important if they do that the parents are aware of it and explain the dangers, risks and responsiblities involved in sex. Same sort of attitude goes for games of a violent nature. Allowing kids of any age to get any game is I think a bit reckless.



.:[ Never resist a perfect moment ]:.

Are you saying that, before I play GTA3, it should be reviewed by my parents?.

I am with counterfeibacon....


when I was 8 I already watched uncut movies like Conan the barbarian, Friday 13th, blah blah blah.....with sex scenes whatever...you name it, I saw it all when I was a kid.....and look at me, I am a good boy

now why should games, especially when they are even not real flesh and blood should be banned or any diffrent?....jeez many states are becoming very hypocritic.....I am sick of it

quote:

---

Are you saying that, before I play GTA3, it should be reviewed by my parents?.

---

Absolutely.

That's what parents are there for. That's our job.

I have a hard time with these types of situations, becuase I am very opposed to censorhsip. However, having played GTA, I am outright appalled at the notion of young children playing this game.

quote:

---

I mean, the kids that are going to kill people, games or not, are going to kill people

---

And while in part that is true, it is obviously very true that the things a person is exposed to play a large part in their personality and behaviour. A person who constantly sees gratuitous violence without ever having any kind of guidance will inevitably develop a more violent personality and become more detached and desensitized.

We limit what movies and CD's children can buy, how can this be seen as any different?

If a parent believes their child should be playing such games or viewing such movies, they are free to go ahead and purchase them. There is no infringement of rights there...it's life.

Parents *need* to have the level of involvement required by such laws, and should not feel burdened by them.

I just dont get it.....why in Europe there is no laws agains media violence?

....America is becoming annoing

Actually that's not true. I understand German laws are relatively strict (more so than the US) regarding video game content.



.:[ Never resist a perfect moment ]:.

Hmm...Really, Bit? I ordered Return to Castle Wolfenstein and GTA3, along with HL: Opposing force from Germany over eBay for $60. I think that the sticker on the box said something like 14 and over, whereas in the US it's 18 and over.

--

Not being a parent, I don't know how it feels, but I feel that I, myself, am a fairly non-violent person. I know the risks associated with playing games like GTA3, and know when something becomes good or bad, and would stop if it actually started to affect me. You see, I think that if my parents knew half the stuff I did, I wouldn't be doing it, gamewise and musicwise, but I personally don't think that they should get involved in that area of my life unless they start to notice changes for the worse in my behavior.

I know parents of kids 14-16 years old in my school who won't let their son/daughter (it's public school, non-religious parents) go and see The Matrix Reloaded because it's rated R. Now, you have to respect that their parents are taking an active role in their life, but there becomes a point where parents should and shouldn't have a role to play in their kids life.

And why should my parent (who know I play GTA3, just not what's in it) have to censor me? IT doesn't make sense, because I think that if your mature enough to play the game and understand the themes, and the reprocussions of the themes portrayed, then you should be able to play the game (watche the movie, read the book, listen to the music etcetera). On the other hand, people that say: "I can handle it," or go around and abuse the game shouldn't be able to play it.

I'm all for it!

I'm against censorship but I think this is different. Many of us know that computer games constantly get blamed for violent crimes weather or not that are actually the cause. Just because I played doom when I was 12 and I have yet to go on a shooting rampage with a shotgun doesn't prove anything. I don't know if video games does or doesn't have an effect on the way we act in the real world but that's not the point.

When was the last time you heard of an R 18+ rated movie being blamed for some kid's mental problems causing him to go on a killing spree? Maybe a cartoon but not an 18+ rated title.

Video games have yet to get a strict 18+ rating and I think it's about frig?n time! (ESRB has an ?Adults Only? rating but I?ve never seen it used in Australia, even then it only suggests that persons under 18 should no use the software, nothing strict ? www.esrb.org) Then we can finally have stupid amounts of violence and sex in out games without having to worry about them being ripped from the store shelves or postponed at import pending review and censorship. GTA3 was a prime example of this in Australia; it was released for a week before it was removed from the shelves and a ?censored? version then replaced it. If we had a strict 18+ rating then this censorship wouldn?t have happened.

The point is, we need strongly enforced ratings like this to avoid censorship. Studies already show that over 90% of people actually purchasing computer games are 18 or over (www.idsa.com - Interactive Digital Software Association ) so for that 10% of consumers under 18 that actually want to play explicit games then they'll just have to ask their parents or their older siblings to get it for them.

In any event, I think a strongly enforced 18+ rating for video games will help to curb the number of heads in the angry mobs of soccer mums trying to burn violent computer game developers at the stake.

Ratings should be followed. For games *and* movies. I think it's absurd that we *don't* have laws enforcing them.

German Laws regarding violence (especially in Video games, but also films) are very strict...they even have a governmental department to 'regulate' it. Films have most of the really violent content cut out, and games get ratings...and some are changed for the German Market (like Resident Evil, for example).

quote:

---

, but there becomes a point where parents should and shouldn't have a role to play in their kids life.

---

Yup, when you're 18 and can move out and support yourself. Amen, more power to you.

What you have to understand, CFB, is that there is a *huge* difference between how mature the average teen thinks they are, and how mature they actaully are. It is a parents responsibility to try to do what is best for their child.

What's best is often *not* what the child thinks is best.

quote:

---

The point is, we need strongly enforced ratings like this to avoid censorship

---

Exactly. As I said before, nobody's rights are being infringed upon here. When you are an adult, you can do whatever the hell you would like.

=)




[This message has been edited by DL-44 (edited 05-23-2003).]

And I never said a teen couldn't have the game. What I am saying is that if they want the game, their parents should be the responsible party. If a theater lets an underage person into an R movie they'll get in trouble. Retailers should have to live up to the same expectations.

:::krets.net:::

Seems like a very common sense law to me.

The reality is that its a parents job to monitor their children. This law simply enables the parents to take a more active role in their childrens lives and get a first hand view of what it is their children are doing. The law doesn't prevent children from playing these games, merely buying them. While perhaps violence in video games plays absolutely no role in violence in real life, many parents might still object to children playing these games if they knew what the content was.


Jestah

cfb- There is a big difference between censorship and restricting access to material. They aren't forcing the game developers to remove material from their games. When you are old enough, or have the parental consent, you can purchase the full game as the developers intended it to be. If a parent thinks its okay for their kids to be playing violent games, then that's fine. But, children growing up without parental guidance will seek guidance in other ways. And usually it is less than favorable guidance at that. I'm not saying that video games are the cause of all our woes, but I can't deny the possibility that under certain conditions they may have an undesirable influence.

I'm a big fan of video games... including the violent ones. Would I allow my future children to play them? Probably not until I think they are old enough and mature enough to understand the difference between real life and the fantasy of video games. That is a parent's job. I certainly wouldn't allow my six-year-old to play GTA3. When they are 12 or 13-maybe. And I wouldn't call it censorship. I would call it responsible parenting.

I never understood why stupid laws and legislation seek to caccoon and protect us from images of death, violence and sex, for so many years, then yet all of a sudden, one day when I reach a certain birthday, I am permitted to watch, tastes, lick and suck all that I come into contact with: I am allowed view all kinds of intensely gross material: ingage in an orgy, play the most violent blood, hate and world destroying games that exist, watch the most vicious and frightening images and movies (while being sold pop corn and Coca- Cola of course) and all because I am one hour older... and because I have a plastic ID presented by my government. And at 18 I can join the army of that government and play war games for real! There is no transition, no preparation: it's a case of nothing.. then everything all at once... (well thats not exactly true, almost every cartoon I ever saw as a child seen contained violence and every super hero in every movie is a thug and a killer), and sex is everywhere too... hmm. So we are subtly raised on violence and sex everywhere you look but we are told we cant see a film or play a game.

...It's all so retarded... so hypocritical again... but what else can you expect from you know who...

[This message has been edited by Xpirex (edited 05-26-2003).]

Once again you make a very black and white summation of what is an issue with many shades of grey.

It's not about not allowing children to see.

It's about letting PARENTS decide what their children should see. It's THEIR choice. Not the govnerment's, and certianly not yours.

And once again, you seem to make the issue someone else's issue "your stupid laws...". If you don't like laws the way they are, get off your ass and get involved in the decision making process. =)

Or is this simply another mindless "fault-finding in America" episode?

I'll tell you what cfb and Xpirex as soon as you come up with a nice easy "Maturity Level" test that we can give teenagers (like a driving test) then we can just get rid of that stupid age restriction. Otherwise as relatively arbitrary as it is we're just going to have to live with that solution.



.:[ Never resist a perfect moment ]:.

Dl it seem that we are talking about different things here again. I did not say that children shoulds have complete freedom... (where the hell ate you reading that!!!) but why are we creating a society where they need so much protection in the first place?? A place that is so hostile and unconducive to the raising of kids?
I agree that it's the role of the parents to raise and protect their children from the external ills of the world. Not the governments.. but the government tries to undo all that works and investment in a single minute at the various ages of consent.

I don't know what your reading mate? I am saying though that the government does not really give a dam about children and you know it. It's all policy rhetorics and games that they are playing... But when ever I seem to have a poke at your government you get a bit peeved. It seems as though you are one of those blindly proud patriots who keeps defending his misguided acts in some ditant war or goverment capacity. Sorry, I have no repect for veterans... Well it's not my fault that your government seriously suck right now cos they really do big time. If it was a dictatorship I would understand but you come from a so-called democracy, that means YOU are responsible for your government.. so yes I blame you.
But that is not the subject here is it ..ok another time...



[This message has been edited by Xpirex (edited 05-26-2003).]

quote:

---

I did not say that children shoulds have complete freedom... (where the hell ate you reading that!!!)

---

Uh....I didn't say anything about that either What the hell are you reading (smoking)?

I also never said anything about the government caring about a damn thing. My point is that such laws allow parents to do their job instead of reverting to censorship of the material.

quote:

---

But when ever I seem to have a poke at your government you get a bit peeved. It seems as though you are one of those blindly proud patriots who keeps defending his misguided acts in some ditant war or goverment capa

---

Now my turn again to ask - what the hell are you reading??

I have in most cases come out very squarely against the actions of my government. "blind patriotism" is about the furthest thing from me...

What I get peeved at is your seemingly continual insistance that american society is the big evil while the rest of the world is hunky dory. You paint a picture that highlights every littlest flaw in america, and neglects the problems of the rest of the world.
And you do it all with the attitude of "it's everyone else's problem so I'll just sit here bitching but not doing anything"

Which covers your last point as well - you blame me. You blame us. You blame everyone, because blame is easy and convenient.

It was either Popular Science or Scientific American that had an article written by the editor that made a point something like this: We've created so many laws for our "protection," and out childrens "protection," that in 10 years, we'll be bringing up children that will be able to do nothing besides go to school, eat, sleep, repeat.


[This message has been edited by counterfeitbacon (edited 05-26-2003).]

~sigh~

you still miss the point CFB.

This is all about allowing PARENTS - whose job it is to responsibly raise you - to make the choices on what types of things you are exposed to on a regular basis.

Now, it is a very valid point - and one that I often talk about - that many parents shelter their children far to much to the point of it being counterproductive and dangerous.

But there is a huge difference between making a competent decision that maybe your 8-year old isn't ready for GTA and turning your child into a helpless twit who doesn't know anything about the world.

Do you really think that a game like GTA (or other such games/movies) actually teach children about the real world? That they get a valid perspective on violence from such things?

No, I don't.

And parents DO have the right to. As long as you live under their roof, eat their food and wear clothes that they bought for you, they should be able to censor what you do.

Very good points, DL.

Cfb- Again, this is not about censorship. It is about restricting access to material. I know it seems like a fine line, but these are two separate issues.

quote:

---

There is no transition, no preparation

---

sure there is, that's why we have PG-13

quote:

---

I know parents of kids 14-16 years old in my school who won't let their son/daughter (it's public school, non-religious parents) go and see The Matrix Reloaded because it's rated R. Now, you have to respect that their parents are taking an active role in their life, but there becomes a point where parents should and shouldn't have a role to play in their kids life.

---

you're right, at that comes at a point when a child is able to choose wisely for themself, which generally happens after they move out on their own and screw up for a while i totally agree with DL on all this, as a kid you're going to inherently do things you're told you're not supposed to do or can't do, that's just natural. the job of a parent is to monitor what their kids take in. does that mean you're censoring things on their behalf? absolutely, that's your right as a parent. this doesn't necessarily have anything to do with whether games cause violence or not (i don't think they really do personally) but simply that mature content in other forms is rated and enforced, why not in games? a friend of mine had GTA and we checked it out, it was entertaining in a sick kinda way but certainly nothing i think a 12/13/14 year old should be playing.

chris


KAIROSinteractive

I have a sort of add on to the topic, what about the parents that let thier kids watch and play these violent games/movies without any regard to the psycholgical harm that might be done. I must have seen kids as young as 12 playing a demo of GTA at the local software store, all the while thier parents (I assume that they were, either that or a sitter/guardian) just stood there and watched.

The same goes for movies, there were about 20 kids under 13 and over 6 at the showing of Matrix: Reloaded at the 11PM showing that I went to. If the parents are showing thier kids things like that (Not that Matrix was the worst thing thatthey could have seen.) don't they think about the future mindset that they might have toward those things. Anyway, just my $0.02 on something related to the topic.



When we confront the truth about ourselves, we will never know if it is the truth or another layer of lies that surrounds us like the air we breathe.



[This message has been edited by Rauthrin (edited 05-27-2003).]

Well, there's always a down side to any good thing.

The down side to living in a country wher eyou are free to do just about whatever you want, is that every one else is too.

When people are free to decide things for themselves, some of them will inevitably make bad decisions.

But then again, who is to judge which decision is right? <- That's pretty much the point of it all.

Ok DL-44 you won some points there... I am glad you said that, I find it reassuring.

I don't actually smoke anything DL, but you implied that I said children shoud be able to see anything. I did not. But I am very glad to be mistaken about you being a blind patriot.

I can't help but focus on the US system because they have shoved themselves in everyones' face and they believe they have the god given right to dictate and run the planet and consequently their actions are global. They are crossing the sea to force their way on everyone. You have never heard me say the rest of the world is a rose garden but this is a different matter competely. (I don't know where you got that from)

"nuff said"

If it's restricted, then people will just find other ways to get it.

Ok, one more time, in case anyone missed it:

This is not about the government dictating. This is about the government putting the control back in the hands of parents. The alternative to this is the government actually censoring and restricting such material.

And of course, far more frightening than the government's actions are society's actions. Far too often in such cases parents will complain about such things, as it means that they will actually have to be a little more involved. Too many people want to be controlled, to be spoonfed, to be coddled and told lies.

Totalitarianism is more likely to be built by the people than imposed upon them....

I'm going to bump this back up because something just happened to make this relevant again

Courts Strike Down Video Game Ban

Quick recap of the above article. A St. Louis ban on selling video games to minors was struck down as a first ammendment violation.

Now the interesting thing about this (and a new perspective for me). Apparently the only thing that is historically unprotected by the first ammendment is obscenity, which allows for controls on the sale and distribution of only those media deemed as obscene. (generally porn). Therefore it is illegal to ban media because of excessive violence and other unsavory aspects.

I find this interesting because I never saw this issue as a first ammendment issue. I had (apparently mistakenly) assumed that this sort of control was acceptable



.:[ Never resist a perfect moment ]:.

<Moon Dancer raises an eyebrow>

Hmmm. Now, I'll be the first to admit that I am by no means an expert on Constitutional Law, but I really think that ruling is a stretch. The First Amendment doesn't say anywhere that obscenity is exempt from proctection under freedom of speech. As bitdamaged stated, this is one of the few categories historically unprotected by the first amendment. Historically meaning that though not written it is generally accepted that this type of material be restricted, and in some cases, (like child pornography) banned outright. Thus, if the video game industry is making the argument that restricting access to this type of media is unconstitutional based on historical precedent, then the entire rating system for games, tv, and the motion picture industry is unconstitutional. I have a hard time believing these people (the v.g. industry) is really concerned about their First Amendment rights. I am more inclined to believe that they feel these laws are going to hit them hard in the pocket books by removing a large portion of their consumer base.

Please note that nowhere in these laws regarding video games have the creators been asked to remove material. This is not an infringment of First Amendment rights. The way I see it is something like this... There are legal ages in this country in which people are allowed to purchase tobacco & alcohol. These items can be seen as unhealthy, (esp. tobacco, but alcohol when abused) but once the general population reaches that age of "responsibility" they can make the choice to use these products. In the privacy of your home, you can allow your children to smoke, or consume alcohol. Why should it be any different for violent and/or obscene media, regardless of the type? If there were actual censorship being suggested, then yes I would be more sympathetic to the V.G. industry. The alcohol, tobacco, and movie industries have all learned to deal with restricted access to children; it's time for the v.g. industry to grow up and understand that their first amendment rights are not being impinged.

The ratings system for motion pictures, the "parental advisory" stickers on CDs and the ratings on video games are not laws or the creation of laws. They are self-imposed regulation by the industries in question not by the federal or state government. After the Supreme court found that the States and Cities had the right to control childrens exposure to "obecene material," the MPAA created the ratings system. This was done to keep the states and localities from doing exactly what the State of Washington did...create their own regulations. If that had occured the industry might have to deal with hundreds of different laws on what is approprite for children.

You can release a movie in the US without a rating, just good luck getting it shown, because the National Association of theater owners enforces the system. For those of you who want to read more about this here is a link to Jack Valenti's article about the history of the system. The parental advisory labels on CD's came from Tipper Gore's PMRC hearings in the 1980's. The RIAA capitulated and created the system, again to prevent legislation. Record stores set their own policy on how its enforced. Some Cities and states may actually have their own laws, but these are the exception- not the general rule.

So Xpirex, after looking at WS's and Drac's posts about German and Australian govenmental censorship, I'd say the good ole USA is quite a bit more free than the rest of the world. The US government isn't telling you that you can't see the movie or listen to the CD- the MPAA, the RIAA, the theatres and possibly some states are.

The problem is "violence" doesn't fall under the "obsenity" exemption to the First Amendment, at least for now. The court has been historically very conservative about limiting freedom of speech.

The St. Louis law is simply a bad law. First, the lower court tried to argue that video games, because they are a new medium, are not a protected form of speech. I love the 8th circuit's response:

quote:

---

If the first amendment is versatile enough to "shield [the] painting of Jackson Pollock, music of Arnold Schoenberg, or Jabberwocky verse of Lewis Carroll," We see no reason why the pictures, graphic design, concept art, sounds, music, stories, and narrative present in video games are not entitled to a similar protection.

---

The court also stated that St. Louis did not provide enough evidence to show "psychological damage" to children who played violent video games. Here is the decison. It makes for some good bathroom reading.

My problem with the Washington Law is that it has a stupid standard- violence against police. That takes no account as to context, Enter the Matrix is as bad as GTA3. And games like Splinter Cell and Ghost Reacon are suitable for an eight-year-old. In addition, who's going to moniter these games and provide a list to stores. There's a code in place use that.

I'm not going to continue the arguement of whether parents should censor their children, DL-44 and others have already stated all the reasons why they should. I think the Video game industry and retailers need to accept the responsibility of being a major entertainment medium. Use and enforce the code they have in place, to keep children, like CFB , from getting around their parents decisions.

The Government needs to stay out of it.

-tiki

[This message has been edited by tikigod (edited 06-04-2003).]

[This message has been edited by tikigod (edited 06-04-2003).]

here's what i don't get: in one article the guy is quoted as something to the effect of "we're glad to see that games have the same constitutional rights as film". the thing is, films ARE rated and theaters DO regulate who they sell tickets for movies with certain content to. why are games different in this respect? or different than say selling "adult" magazines?

chris


KAIROSinteractive