Timewaster's Guide Archive
Games => Video Games => Topic started by: JenaRey on February 27, 2006, 02:44:03 PM
-
Rep David Hogue, of Riverton, has successfully taken a bill (HB257) through the Utah House that would make the knowing distribution of video games with violent content to a minor a third-degree felony. This is the same punishment as for distribution of porn to a minor.
Some of the problems with this little bill is that the definition of violent content is very broad and can be interpreted under any of the following:
* is patently offensive to prevailing standards in the adult community as a whole with respect to what is suitable material for minors;
* taken as a whole, does not have serious literary, artistic, political, or scientific value for minors;
* is glamorized or gratuitous;
* is graphic violence used to shock or stimulate;
* is graphic violence that is not contextually relevant to the material;
* is so pervasive that it serves as the thread holding the plot of the material together;
* trivializes the serious nature of realistic violence;
* does not demonstrate the consequences or effects of realistic violence;
* uses brutal weapons designed to inflict the maximum amount of pain and damage;
* endorses or glorifies torture or excessive weaponry or . .
* depicts lead characters who resort to violence freely.
Under those rules MOST games could be defined as being violent, and anyone hosting such games on their webserver, or in a store where it might be purchased by someone and shown to a minor can be prosecuted as well as parents that allow such viewing. Add to this that the basis of the bill is that video game violence leads to violent children, a fact that has still NOT been proven in any reputable study, and you have a unique situation.
I'm not saying that kids should be exposed to highly violent games. I do NOT think that's healthy for them. Then again I don't think it's healthy for adults either, but that it is a personal choice and should be left to the adult in question. As far as the kids, where are the parents? They should be monitoring what their children are playing and being a part of their lives, not leaving it to the government to mandate what can or cannot be purchased or played. With such broad interpretations in the nature of violence one could be arrested for letting your kids play "Mario Brothers". After all...someone has to stand up for those smushed mushroom guys. Right?
~J
-
I'm not a lawyer, and I don't know the specific ins and outs of this law, but I have to say I do agree with the thought behind it. There are some games, movies and activities that just aren't right for children to participate in or view. I'm all for a legal drinking age, legal age to buy cigarettes, minimum age to purchase tickets for an R rated movie. I think the same should go for video games.
Now, if you're right, and parents can be prosecuted under this law as well, then I'm not saying I agree with that. Parents should have the final say over what their children do, and just as a parent can let a child go see an R rated flick, they should be allowed to let them play GTA, however much I disagree with that notion.
But the basics behind this law--the idea that, just like movies, games need to have some sort of enforcement as to age limits--I agree with. Then again, there might be some aspect I'm missing, and I'm open to people trying to show or tell me why I'm wrong.
-
Its only a small leap from there to making selling the grapes of wrath to kids a 3rd degree felony.
-
I also agree with the spirit of the law, if not its execution. Raising a son has forced me to rethink my opinions about violent media--no matter what I think, the fact is that when he watches a violent movie or plays a violent game, he mimics that behavior almost immediately.
We've made the rule in our house that the kids can't see that kind of stuff until they're old enough to handle it; I think that most "good parents" (whatever that means) would do the same. We don't need the government to do it for us...but is it wrong if they do? The gaming industry created its own rules in an attempt to self-regulate, which they are not applauded for as often as they should be, but I'm not convinced those rules are being followed or enforced to the point that they become ultimately useful. Unless they start prosecuting me for allowing my kids to kill monsters in World of Warcraft, this law is not going to affect me--I'm old enough to buy the games I want without getting in trouble.
That said, I don't like the way this law is being handled, I don't like the spurious evidence used to support it, and I don't like the obtuse and infinitely malleable definition of violence that they have proposed. The worst definition is the one about art--that any game that "does not have serious literary, artistic, political, or scientific value" can be classified as violent. That's not only a logical fallacy (they're essentially saying that four plus red equals meat), it's ripe for abuse and wild misinterpretation.
-
Personally, I have no problem with laws requiring a rating system for video games, which already exists, and with the rating being the basis for sales. This would put video games on the same playing field as movies, music and other entertainment. I just feel like in order to do such a thing the rating has to be standardized and the issue treated in the same way that other mediums are. Currently this kind of thing feels like a witch hunt and a election platform for supposed 'family friendly' politicans instead of a real effort to help solve the problem.
-
Generally speaking, slippery slope arguments aren't the most valid objections.
Do you object to the movie rating system?
I don't disagree with this law on principle. I have no problems with laws that prevent the selling of pornography to minors, nor ones that prevent children from seeing certain movies without guardian supervision. Many video games contain content that is very graphic. I don't have any problem with putting an age restriction on that.
However, lawmakers will need to be very specific. They could even just adopt the game industry's current rating system and say you can't sell T rated games to kids under 13 or M rated games to kids under 17-18.
-
Parker said:
But the basics behind this law--the idea that, just like movies, games need to have some sort of enforcement as to age limits--I agree with.
I agree that they need to have some sort of enforcement. I do not agree that they need some sort of government enforcement. If children are not being raised in an environment where there is a strong parent or strong parents, who will be (a) good judge(s) about what they should and shouldn't be allowed to have, play, etc. then those children are going to have choices to make regardless of how many laws you put out there. They are going to have to decide what kind of person they want to be for themselves. If children are in this situation, I would assume that we can all agree that there are far worse situations that many (I'm not saying all, or even the majority) of these kids can and do fall into. And many of these situations are illegal. As for the ones who have strong parents, the parents should set standards about what games are allowed, and what games aren't. And they should enforce those standards.
Fell said:
Unless they start prosecuting me for allowing my kids to kill monsters in World of Warcraft, this law is not going to affect me--I'm old enough to buy the games I want without getting in trouble.
It seems that most people nowadays are very quick to sell away other people's rights. I'm not saying that you are, Fell, I just picked your quote because it illustrated my point well. Many people are quick to dismiss bills that take freedoms away from other people, just because it doesn't directly affect them. And when the bill comes around to something that does affect them, the same thing happens, except they are on the other end. And that process is getting many of our rights curtailed little by little.
SE said:
Many video games contain content that is very graphic. I don't have any problem with putting an age restriction on that.
Once again, I don't have a problem with that either. But I do have a problem with the government doing that.
-
Archon said
I do have a problem with the government doing that.
So what is the alternative? It seems like a joke if there are ratings, but kids can go ahead and buy whatever they want. I'm not trying to be argumentative--I just am trying to think of what the other options are, and I'm kind of tired, so I'm hoping someone else will point them out to me.
-
I watched predator, Terminator 1& 2 and a number of other violent movies before I was 12. Ditto with playing Doom.
I've yet to kill anyone, to the best of my knowledge.
-
the problem with saying, "Yeah there should be enforcement, but not by the government" is that you are in the same sentence saying there *should* be enforcement, but we aren't going to provide any, anywhere. The fact is, there are bad parents. But game industry supporters sitting around saying "it's not my fault! It's bad parents!" is just as hypocritical as parents not doing anything about it. The argument against any sort of institutionalized enforcement ultimately says "people are going to be bad anyway, the government has no place trying to stop that." In that case, why do we bother making things like bank robbery or murder illegal? People still have to make their own choice about whether they are going to do it or not.
Now, Entropy, you've made that argument many times before. You seem to think there is some sort of substance to it that is meaningful to this sort of debate. Speach is protected because it is meaningful. REading a book, (or watching a program, or playing a game or hearing a speach, etc etc) isn't going to make you kill someone. Reading several probably isn't, unless you're an instable personality to begin with. I don't think anyone with an IQ above 2 is claiming that, so in one sense your argument is simply a strawman argument.
On the other hand, it is inarguable (ok, it is arguable, you'll just look foolish) that the media you take in has an influence on you. Arguing that it doesn't means that it's irrelevant what sort of things are said, so it really doesn't matter if it's regulated or not. I accept people who argue in light of this that it still shouldn't be restricted, but people who say that media has no effect on the viewer are simply ignoring reality.
-
Seems to me that in an ideal society violent games would be produced but they would be clearly labeled (perhaps according to the current rating scheme but it doesn't matter as long as responsible parties can tell at a glance the general nature of the game) and parents would then take care of the "enforcement" we're all talking about. Parents would be the ones deciding whether they allow their children to play "mature" games.
That's obvious.
But what we have here is a society where many parents (I have no idea on the relative percentage I just know it's alot) shirk that responsibility. Whether that's because "Morals" in general are changing or because the Guvmint has been trying to do this for them for so long (laws enforcing movie ratings, moralizing in public schools, etc...) that they don't think it IS their responsibility anymore is really irrelevant to the discussion. Video Games are not the root of the problem as the Jack Thompsons (right name?) of the world would have us believe. And until we return to a world where parents think of themselves as responsible for their children this problem and problems like it will continue forever.
-
3rd Degree Felony
0-5 years USP $5,000
Aggravated Assault
Poss Cocaine, Meth, etc
Burglary Non-Residence
Theft < $250 but > $1,000
Forgery of Check > $100
DUI
And Selling Video Games to kids.
Which of these things is not like the other.
At least you don't lose your right to vote in Utah for a felony. But thats cold comfort, considering a felony conviction will screw up almost any chance of getting work.
-
actually DUI is about a 4k fine in Utah I think.
-
So, here's a question I'm just throwing out for discussion.
It is not only illegal to sell pornography to minors, but it's illegal to distribute it to them at all. Is there a point, and should there be a point, where the same laws are made about extreme violence?
Look at Entropy's argument: couldn't many people say the same thing about porn? They could say "I found my Dad's Playboy Magazines under the mattress when I was twelve, but it didn't affect me -- I've never raped a woman or molest a child." I would imagine a lot of people could say that, but that doesn't mean we should legalize porn for minors.
In essence, is violence all that different from pornography? Both are a glorification and sensationalization of immorality, and both desensitize the viewer to the sanctity of humanity.
So, why is violence -- even extreme R-rated violence (with exploding heads and torture and severed limbs, etc...) -- perfectly legal to be distributed to kids? Sure, kids can't go see a movie like Hostel unless they're accompanied by an adult, but when that movie comes out on DVD, anybody can buy it, and give it to their kids to watch. Technically, if you bought a Playboy and gave it to your kids, you could get arrested.
So what's the difference? Why does society tolerate violence more than pornography? And should it?
(I honestly am not sure what my opinion on this is. I'm just asking what you guys think.)
-
And Spriggan should know.
Archon, your point about selling away the rights of others is good, but not germaine to this discussion in my opinion. I'm not saying that I don't care about kids' rights in general, I'm saying that they shouldn't have this particular right in the first place (I in fact stated that I already took this right away from my own children). My comment about how the bill wouldn't affect me was intended to mean "this bill will stop who it's supposed to stop, and still let mature adults make informed choices."
The thing about rights is, government and law imply the loss of rights inherently. That's what laws do--they stop you from doing something and by doing so improve the quality of life for you and everyone else. I'm right with you on the "government should kepp its hand to itself" issue, and I have historically voted to reduce or limit government power whenever it comes up, but this is a case where I really think that society (ie, parents) are just not doing their job. If we are willing to make laws that keep violence and sex away from children when they come in movie and magazine form, I think we should be willing to do the same when they come in video games.
-
Excellent question. I know there are biblical scholars who can demonstrate that the sins of Soddam and Gomorrah were not just sexual in nature but that a big part of it was violence. In the Book of Mormon there are many examples that show that violence in and of itself is not sinful but doing it for the wrong reasons or "glorifying in it" is.
I can't answer the question and am looking forward to seeing other people's thoughts on it. But the justification I use for watching violent movies but avoiding pornographic ones is that violence is faked and porn isn't. That doesn't address, at all, the question of whether fake violence affects me any differently than the real stuff would... but that's what I tell myself.
Sitting here thinking about it I find it interesting that the media, generally, encourages people to actually go out and have promiscuous sex but we have laws against minors viewing pornagraphy. While, at the same time, the media generally deplores people actually going out and blowing other people's heads off but we don't have many laws in place against minors viewing violence.
-
One reason might be that violence has a longer history in our society than Pornography does. Actual porn, Graphic images and such only became feasible to distribute after the advent of the camera or printing press (though cottage industries in france and england did a brisque trade in naughty ankle pictures prior to the camera.)
Violence has been celebrated in society and accesible all the way back to prehistory. You dont need a camera to see violence, though it is less common in society these days. After all when did you see a cockfight last, or a real fist fight. All you need is to go to the Hockey Rink or Football field. Keep in mind certain types of violence are still considered "manly" take Boxing for instance, or football.
Now to play devils advocate and take Ents argument a step further, what is Pornography? Is David by Michaelangelo considered porn due to its focus on the nude human form? If it isn't then why is Playboy (which has no graphic sex) considered porn?
-
To answer Mustard's question in part, the US restricts porn more heavily than violence simply because it is far more taboo in our culture than violence is. In Europe they put on billboards what the US will hide behind the counter of seedy drug stores.
On a similar note, I remember reading an article about a movie that got slapped with an NC-17 rating because it ended with a sex scene; the director took it back, reshot a new ending in which the couple were instead savagely murdered with a chainsaw, and the ratings board gave it an R (for those outside the US, R is far more lenient than NC-17).
As to why we're so much more prudish about sex than violence, I couldn't tell you. I can say agree with you, however, that I'd prefer us to be more prudish about violence rather than less prudish about sex.
-
I have to vote with Fell here. and I love the irony that Skar brings up.
I don't know that porn doesn't have such an ancient history. There's plenty of erotic art from the 18th century and further back. No, they didn't have pictures, but they drew it a lot. and we're not just talking ankle pictures. Go ahead and poke fun at our predecessors a century or two ago for being prudish, but they weren't, even in the Victorian era (famous for being prudish). Prostitution was a much more acceptable trade and employing a prostitute hasn't always had quite the negative connotation it does now.
Anyway, which is a worse sin? Murder or rape? I don't know that I can actually call that one, murder cuts off your chance to do anything else in your life but rape has some savage consequences. I know people who are way screwed up and can't think of much else besides how they were molested previously. I don't know any murder victims, but I imagine on the other side they have their psychological issues too.
In the long run, I'm for the regulation, just not badly formed regulation.
-
There's actually a long history of porn, particularly among the ancient Romans before they were crushed by barbarians. And many art historians do consider a lot of ancient greek and roman art to be porn. Many also consider some artists from the renaissance and 18th century to be purveyor of porn. It's one of those topics that art historians argue a lot about. To be fair, anyone has a right to take any work of art and say it is porn.
watched predator, Terminator 1& 2 and a number of other violent movies before I was 12. Ditto with playing Doom.
I've yet to kill anyone, to the best of my knowledge.
That's a faulty argument. You are just one person and are not a representative sample of how others might react. People have different libidos and different levels of aggression.
So one person views porn and doesn't commit any crimes. Another person views the same porn and then rapes women and molests children. On a societal level, is the rape and abuse of the victims an acceptable price for the freedom to view porn?
What we do know, nearly all sex offenders have habitually viewed porn at some point before commiting their crimes. We know the thoughts people have correspond with their behavior. We know that the thought people have can change their body chemistry and structure of their brain.
On an individual level, it not logically correct to say that every person who views porn will become sex offenders. But some will. There are many variables involved, such as any personality disorders they might have, social situation, mental illness, physical problems, and opportunity. It's a multifaceted problem. Yet, if you can reduce any variable, such as the availibility of porn, then the problem will be reduced.
-
In Europe they put on billboards what the US will hide behind the counter of seedy drug stores.
*nods happily*
-
the problem with saying, "Yeah there should be enforcement, but not by the government" is that you are in the same sentence saying there *should* be enforcement, but we aren't going to provide any, anywhere. The fact is, there are bad parents. But game industry supporters sitting around saying "it's not my fault! It's bad parents!" is just as hypocritical as parents not doing anything about it.
I see what you are trying to say, but I don't think you could call that hypocrisy in this case. You are saying that it is hypocrisy for someone to say that someone should clean up the streets, and then not pick up the garbage that they see. Though they don't have a responsibility to start, they gain one by saying that someone should. However, this situation is different. Not only is it not the government's responsibility, it is not their right. By passing this law, it is like taking everyone you see and forcing them to pick up garbage, whether they littered or not. Obviously, most of these people will not appreciate being forced into this, and although you will have cleaned up the litter, you will have done so at the expense of their freedom to choose their own actions. In certain cases, this is deemed a necessary evil in order to protect citizens from theft or bodily harm. However, to keep people from the media is a different story. This is not like killing, or stealing, as I hope everyone agrees. Therefore, the government has no excuse to interfere with the way people live their lives. Do I think kids should be given porn? No. Do I think that they should be allowed to watch movies, or play games with excessive violence in them? Not until they are ready. But like Voltaire said, "I may disagree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it." Like I already pointed out, if a child can not rely on their parents to guide them in decisions as basic as this, then they will most likely have to make their own decisions about drugs, gangs, and such. Trying to limit their access to certain video games seems pretty superfluous at that point. You may get them out of the pot, but if they survive the fire, they would have survived the pot anyway.
Fell:
That's what laws do--they stop you from doing something and by doing so improve the quality of life for you and everyone else.
I would like to note that that is what they are supposed to do, but that usually isn't what they do, especially in this day and age.
but this is a case where I really think that society (ie, parents) are just not doing their job. If we are willing to make laws that keep violence and sex away from children when they come in movie and magazine form, I think we should be willing to do the same when they come in video games.
I agree that many parents aren't doing their jobs. And that is unfortunate. And I feel bad for the children who grow up with bad parenting. Be that as it may, the children still decide for themselves who they want to be. And if they grow up to be violent criminals, that is even worse. But that is more prominent in families with bad parenting, with or without video games or magazines. And think about this, if the parents are irresponsible enough to allow their children material that is not appropriate, isn't it likely that they will be irresponsible enough to provide an accessible source for exposure to sex and violence? A horror movie left in the VCR. A stack of Playboys under the bed. I would think it pretty likely. Sad, but these kids have to make choices that lead them to become the adults they want to become. They are going to have to grow up quickly. I am sure that many of them grow up to become regular people who are nice enough. That is wonderful for them, and it is their responsibility that they got there. If they make choices that make them into a murderer or a rapist, that is their responsibility too.
42:
That's a faulty argument. You are just one person and are not a representative sample of how others might react. People have different libidos and different levels of aggression.
So one person views porn and doesn't commit any crimes. Another person views the same porn and then rapes women and molests children. On a societal level, is the rape and abuse of the victims an acceptable price for the freedom to view porn?
42, two things. A) If a person is fragile enough to be set off by something like that, then they are going to be set off. It is only a matter of when. There is no way that you can shield a person from being exposed to this sort of thing forever, especially if they aren't being protected by their parents. B) Many people are being killed every day by people who believe that they are killing for their religion. If we decided, as a society, to outlaw the sale of Bibles and Korans there would be far fewer killings. Is it our responsibility to outlaw Bibles and Korans?
-
It boils down to the fact that we are all fallible. If we all did what was best all the time, if we were all perfect, than we wouldn't have to have all the laws that we have. But we can't seem to govern ourselves.
You would think people would be intelligent and have enough social awareness to not do things like bring guns into schools, murder children, or rape women. Obviously not, so we have laws against those things.
Anyways, you can find some crime stats aaaaat: nationmaster (http://www.nationmaster.com/cat/cri)
The U.S. and the U.K. are violent places to live.
-
I see what you are trying to say, but I don't think you could call that hypocrisy in this case. You are saying that it is hypocrisy for someone to say that someone should clean up the streets, and then not pick up the garbage that they see. Though they don't have a responsibility to start, they gain one by saying that someone should. However, this situation is different. Not only is it not the government's responsibility, it is not their right. By passing this law, it is like taking everyone you see and forcing them to pick up garbage, whether they littered or not.
The problem with this analogy is that you are saying that since you don't wnat to force people to do it, you should have an institutionalized system to do it (we do in fact have that.
I agree. Since people aren't taking care of things on there own, we have no where else to turn but to the government.
Your essential argument (I know that the above isn't what you meant, so let's not go down that path) is that the government shouldn't try to stop everything from going to hell. And since people can choose to make society go to hell on their own, we shouldn't try to stop them. And they're going to do it anyway, so we shouldn't try.
That sounds incredibly pessimistic and blase about societal ills. If that's not how you feel (because it *is* what you're arguing) what do you suggest we do about these problems if we don't have any sort of restriction on it?
42, two things. A) If a person is fragile enough to be set off by something like that, then they are going to be set off. It is only a matter of when. There is no way that you can shield a person from being exposed to this sort of thing forever, especially if they aren't being protected by their parents.
Wrong. It's not a question of fragility. Nor is anyone destined to do something just because they have a predisposition to do it. We are helping to remove influences that would push them to a predisposition, thus enabling them to avoid it in the first place.
B) Many people are being killed every day by people who believe that they are killing for their religion. If we decided, as a society, to outlaw the sale of Bibles and Korans there would be far fewer killings. Is it our responsibility to outlaw Bibles and Korans?
That's extremely unlikely. There were more deaths due to religious strife before religious books were commonly available. In fact, the more educated the population gets about the source of their religion, the less likely they are to go along with violent enforcement of that religion. Thus mandatory enforcement of things like LDS seminary or Catholic Catechism would actually reduce violence. I'm not saying it would eliminate. There are still those crackpots who think they should bomb abortion clinics. But on the whole, most religious violence comes from groups where only a few are well educated in their theology and seek to control an uneducated population.
So no, removing religious texts wouldn't help. But restricting violent and pornographic material would.
-
I see where you're going, Archon, and I agree with a lot of it, but in the end I think your arguments really do boil down to fatalism--we can't protect kids from harmful influences, so we shouldn't try. I simply don't believe that. If I have misinterpreted you, please set me straight.
-
What I take from Archon's arguments is that VideoGames are not the root of the problem. Parents who don't do their jobs are. So rather than treating a symptom we should be trying to cure the disease. That's a sticky wicket though because, in this case, curing the disease would involve mucking about with parent's freedoms, namely, the freedom to be irresponsible with their children and/or deciding for them what is and is not irresponsible. What is needed is a societal shift toward honor and duty rather than convenience and indulgence. How do you promote that shift? I have no idea.
I think what Archon is saying is that making it illegal to distribute violent video games to minors is like mopping the floor of the bathroom without turning off the faucet on the overflowing sink. Sure you're cleaning up the water; you're getting lots into the bucket, but...it's kind of pointless.
I don't agree one-hundred percent because I think violent video games are damaging to young children in the same way that porn and cigarettes are (long term addictive/desensitizing effect) but who says I'm so right that it's worth using the government to enforce it? As far as I'm aware there aren't any convincing studies that demonstrate the detrimental effects, like there are with porn and cigarettes.
-
There are a good number of studies in process on the nature of violence, particulariliy as it relates to video games, but nothing solid has been returned.
Both violence and sexuality are slippery paths because they are both of dual natures as has been discussed here. IE: When is violence defensive vs offensive and when is the nude figure art vs porn? I think there is a good amount of responsibility that has to be placed on the shoulders of the parents to regulate what is brought into the home and how their children are trained to respond to such issues. However, in my opinion, putting appropriate ratings in place and legislating sales according to those ratins is appropriate and a step in the right direction. I still don't think it should be upto the government to define the values of our young people, but it doesn't have to be made any easier to accquire inappropriate materials either.
-
I tacitly agree with that, but what happens when the punishment is totally above and beyond the nature of the crime. I mean honestly is selling a video game the same as possesion of cocaine? Or aggrevated assualt? The punisment has to be reasonable too. I mean I used to work in a convience store, accidentally selling beer to a minor (which can happen even when you check an ID) is only a 500 dollar fine and a misdemeanor on first offense. Im cool with that, as the penalty gos up with repeated violations. If the penalty were $1000 to $5000 dollars, a felony conviction and possible jail time on a first offense then Id fight that tooth and claw. Essentially as I read it that is the sentencing guideline, and its patently ridiculous. In addition the owner of the store won't be accepting any responsibility for selling said games, because he's going to hold a 3 minute meeting for his staff and just say dont do it. What will happen is that some clerk will hurry, not check an ID and get busted by an undercover cop in a sting. It happens all the time in the convienence store world for alcohol. I havent met a clerk yet who would willingly sell beer or wine to a minor, but accidents happen. I also know that the clerk usually gets fired when that happens (because a store isnt willing to chance its liquor liscense). But since it isnt a felony the clerk can usually get another job. Getting a job with a felony conviction on your record is almost impossible. You cant join the military, or work for the federal government. Most people see felony and immediately shut their ears to the cause. they think that said person is a liability. If you leave out your conviction and it comes up in a background check,... fired. So its a choice of working low paying crap jobs with other hoods, or spending thousands of dollars you dont have to get it rescinded. And even then you may not be able to do it.
Felony charges are outrageous, and given the broadness of the definition of violence everyone in utah should be outraged. Frankly its a crappy law and apparently written by idiots.
I Mean the CSI computer game falls under those guidelines or super mario brothers, or pac man (after all he eats all those ghost people).
Im not saying the game industry shouldnt be regulated, but its hardly a hop from forbidding the sale of Video games to minors, to forbidding selling D&D novels to kids, or Roleplaying games and miniature games. Or Comics, because lets face it most male boys play spiderman or superman and have seen a comic at one point. Why just focus on video games and not TV shows. Children are far more likely to emulate violence seen on TV. I dont know how many kids hurt themselves pretending to be ninja turtles but there sure were a lot more painful playtimes in my neighborhood when the cartoon was released. Frankly I think a law this focused on one industry is not only short sighted but deluded and misinformed. Certain types of media are apparently appropriate for violence, while others arent. I dont think I can say it enough to focus on one industry in the face of violence in dozens of others is just wrong.
-
I also think for the small stores in the industry this kind of legislation would be a kiss of doom, since it would mean running the risk of getting snagged on a huge violation if somehow IDs weren't checked, or just deciding not to carry the games at all. The later is possible, but so many of the top selling games have at least a T rating that these shops would have to be able to suck up the financial loss of not having the games on the shelf. It's not a pretty choice for game sellers, since the game publishers aren't being fined for creating the content, just the resellers that distribute it. Also, how do you regulate internet sales? Does a parent get hit with the punishment if their child purchases a violent game from a website that is outside of the state? Or is that just a loophole around the issue, further taking business from local gamestores and causing more problems?
-
I have a lot of homework to do, so I can't really provide the thorough answer that I would like to right now, but I would like to touch on a couple things.
To SE: In regard to the question of religion, I tend to disagree. Yes, there was a lot of religious warfare, the Crusades being a prime example. But, I think that more people have been killed after the popularization of the printing press. I am hesitant to use the Holocaust as an example, because in that case the Jews were more of an ethnic group, but in the Middle East right now, in Ireland there is the Protestants and the Catholics, etc. And I think there is a difference today. The prime reason I said that there would be less killings is that conversions to those religions would be severely hampered. If people do not have access to the religious texts of these religions, it is far less likely for them to join those religions, thereby adding another body, and possibly countless more in later generations, that might later take part in these conflicts.
The problem with this analogy is that you are saying that since you don't wnat to force people to do it, you should have an institutionalized system to do it (we do in fact have that.
No, we don't. We have an institution that forces other people to do it. And that is not better, in fact it is worse, because whereas people can fight against someone like me trying to tell them to do something, you can't fight against our government.
We are helping to remove influences that would push them to a predisposition, thus enabling them to avoid it in the first place.
But SE, you are missing the point I am trying to make. Some people are not seriously affected by these things. Some are. Therefore, I should think that it would follow that these people would have a predisposition to be affected. Something in their person reacts to what they are seeing. And that is going to happen sooner or later anyway. The only way to stop them from being affected would be to take away the thing in their person which would be affected, which would be difficult. In effect, the only person who could achieve that through humane means would be the person themselves.
As a sidenote, I freely admit to being blase. I don't have a whole lot of faith in humanity, and I think that our society is very close to toeing its way over some very dangerous lines.
To Jena:
Both violence and sexuality are slippery paths because they are both of dual natures as has been discussed here. IE: When is violence defensive vs offensive and when is the nude figure art vs porn?
So who should decide? Would you really trust our government to decide that for you?
To Fell: I don't think the government can. I do think that the parents, and, if not the parents, then other people close to the child can. This means grandparents, teachers, and especially friends. Among others, but you get the idea.
To anyone I missed, sorry. If you really want me to answer a question or respond to something, refer me back to it.
-
In the middle east right now, places with high education are less violent. YOu don't honestly think that all those people who are fighting are well educated, can you? On top of that, much of the intra-region violence is ethnically rather than religiously motivated. Not all, but much.
More wholesale conversions happened when people weren't reading the Bible. So your argument is still faulty. Remember, you can't look at the invention of the printing press as the start of wholesale education about religion. Even after that, books were still incredibly expensive and books only became more common much later (y'know, when the Catholic Church stopped encouraging all the presses be destroyed).
The only aberration I can think of to this rule is Ireland. One exception doesn't disprove a general trend though, and my understanding is that most of the violence is as much, if not more, politically motivated (get those Brits out of Eire!) than religious. (Brits are typically Protestant, the Irish Catholic).
More wholesale conversion (and violence!) occurred when "well meaning" Christians entered "pagan" lands and forced them to join, rather than sharing scriptures with them and encouraging them to join peacefully. Legitimate missionary work, traditionally, has not been the source of much violence, with the ocassional exception of the missionaries being killed themselves. Thus removing their tools will not help reduce violence.
I think you'll find that after the Reformation, which winds down, coincidentally, as printed scripture becomes more available, religiously motivated violence drops, except in those religions where the government is a theocracy and the people are not well trained in their own religion.
I don't think I missed your point at all. Parents, even good parents, can't always tell if their kids are going through a phase or if they have a serious imbalance. I spent a year in high school where I suddenly started listening to heavy metal, watching some rather violent films, and generally making changes to my lifestyle. This was a phase. To the untrained parent, however, signs of someone actually going instable would be quite similar. What would you rather think about your child? That he's a crazy psycho or he's just exploring new realms during his adolescence? So no, I don't think that people always have someone near who can help them. But restricting access to triggers *will* help.
As for trusting the government. Ours is of, by, and for the people. I don't trust it unilaterally, but saying I don't trust it completely means I don't trust people. Thus, if I don't trust the government, I don't trust the people to do it on their own (they sure as heck aren't now, are they?). The government is a little more reliable in it's capability to enforce it. As a people we just need to make sure the law is reasonable. This one has consequences are not. But the spirit of regulation certainly is.
-
There's been a long and storied history of protestant-catholic violence in Britain. Still goes on in glasgow, after the two teams play games.
-
religious warfare is nothing new, but athiest and non-religious types aren't exempt from violence against those who don't believe the same things they do either.
One of my (now former) students burnt down a church the other day becuase of his hatred for all things religious.
So the whole religious war argument is kind of mute, because a lot of violence has a root in differing beliefs.
-
Moot. Sorry, that's a pet peeve.
-
Update: The bill has been defered indefinately at the Utah Senate level. There were issues of higher concern to deal with and the constitutality of the bill is still in high question. So, I suppose, it's still a wait and see.
-
I think I expected that.
-
I am hesitant to use the Holocaust as an example, because in that case the Jews were more of an ethnic group, but in the Middle East right now, in Ireland there is the Protestants and the Catholics, etc.
This was interesting and, being removed from the conflict, I'm going to defer commenting on it in favor of a question. In the UK and Ireland however...do people consider this to be a religious conflict still? That was never my understanding at all.
As far as the legal issue goes, the felony nature of the law as well as the fact that I can't tell whether Mario Brothers (any version) is on the list of 'violent' video games is more than a little disturbing. I can see where I would like the bill to go. Some games such as Grand Theft Auto went way over the line, but were heavily distributed and purchased anyway, and that bothers me almost as much. I'm sure there's been even worse games since. Does anyone know what the GTA series was rated by the video game industry?
-
GTA is rated M, which will get folks carded in some stores. I know our local WalMart won't sell M or AO games to a minor and they check ID. AO (Adults Only) is the only harsher rating and it's given very rarely.
-
So the current rating system could get used for any sort of bill like the one they're considering, rather than making another attempt to define what violence is...
Except for the fact that the agency deciding ratings has nothing to do with the government.
At least there is some enforcement at some venues.
-
GTA is an interesting environment to just explore by the way, taking out all the violence and issues. Its fun to just drive around and listen to the radio, which is just bizarre.
-
And some of us enjoy the violence.
/me goes on to become the poster child for video-game-related warcrimes, or something.
-
so you mean to say your playing civ iv.
-
Yeesssss...
-
A felony to sell a violent video game? LOL, that is just stupid. Any law against this I think is not needed and pretty lame, if a distributor was doing something wrong there is already a zillion other laws they could be charged under.
-
GTA is an interesting environment to just explore by the way, taking out all the violence and issues. Its fun to just drive around and listen to the radio, which is just bizarre.
I must agree. I played this a bit during downtime overseas. My friends all laughed at me because for the first couple of sessions I compulsively followed the rules of the road. I stopped at stoplights and waited until they were green. I stayed off the lawn and in the right lane. But then I realized what I was missing and started running people down. Woot!
-
It's actually surprisingly good fun to play games like GTA and just see how long you can go without commiting a crime on the roads. It tends to be really hard, due to my only vague road knowledge, and the fact that you can't see very well.
Plus, I drive like a sociopath even when I try not to.