Minnesota Bill to Enforce ESRB ratings

[bean19]

According to Gamespot (http://www.gamespot.com/news/6151588.html), a bill has passed both houses of the Minnesota congress that fines both minors who attempt to buy games rated M for Mature, or AO for Adult Only, by the Electronic Software Ratings Board (ESRB) and retailers who sell these adult-rated games to children under the age of 17.

The bill, referred to as SF0785, prohibits anyone under the age of 17 from "knowingly renting or purchasing a restricted video game." It also "prohibits an owner of a retail establishment or an employee from renting or selling a restricted video game to a person under the age of 17." The maximum fine is $25.
This law seems like it could be an actual solution, unlike other bills that have used the "video games are evil" issue as a campaign platform and created bills that had no chance of surviving judicial review.

[Sl1pstream]

I don't see any problems with this. They're using ESRB ratings, which is good imo and the maximum fine isn't an insane amount, but it will make them think twice about buying the game.

[bean19]

What it might do is raise awareness of the ESRB ratings. 80% of games are purchased by adults, so most of those kids playing GTA are doing so with permission from their parents. That's really the source of the problem more than anything else.

[HarleyGuy]

Why should it be illegal and finable for a child to purchase an MA video game, but not an R rated movie or Explicit Lyric CD?

I'm all for this for games with the AO Rating and NC17/X Movies, but selective enforcement of media is NOT the answer...

Good Parenting is...

[mkelehan]

The only problem I can see with this is that it might make a T rating more desirable, so publishers will insist games get cut down to a T rating to increase potential sales. Happens in movies all the time, with PG-13 considered the sweet spot.

[Kagger]

Why should it be illegal and finable for a child to purchase an MA video game, but not an R rated movie or Explicit Lyric CD?


Exactly. I'm not a big fan of the government enforcing a rating they had nothing to do with, especially now that we see how messed up the rating system is (if you take a few letters from each file name, you get Penis, they didn't tell us that!)

[Rook34]

I live in Minnesota and I have to say, I think it's a good idea. I agree that good parenting SHOULD be the first c.o.a., but c'mon...in this day and age how often does that happen? 25 bucks is a reasonable fine, but I don't see a realistic way it can be enforced other than having an officer in the right place at the right time so most offenses will probably slip through the cracks. With luck, retailers will at least be more vigilant, but I doubt that too. They need to find a way to bring it too the forefront and let parents know this bill exists. Perhaps put it on t.v. so they and their comatose kids who do nothing but watch t.v. all day will see it...

Rook

[gzsfrk]

I have no problems whatsoever with this; it's the obvious solution that should have been pushed from the beginning in all the other states that have crafted and passed similiar legislation that left the decision as to rating the software up to a very subjective government opinion.

And to those who want to devolve to the "it's all about parenting" argument, please... it's worn out. When I send my daughter out into the world and I'm not there to protect her 24x7, I'd prefer there to be as few land mines outside my yard as possible. Why not remove the age restrictions from alcohol and tobacco while you're at it? After all, it's the PARENT'S responsibility to know whether or not their child is purchasing beer or cigarettes. Oh noes! If kids can't buy alcoholic beverages, that could be the reason why Coca Cola, Inc. hasn't released "Vodka Coke"--the market is limited only to adults. <cry>

However, this DOES raise the interesting possiblity that, if a state law requires input from a non-government agency (in this case, the ESRB), isn't the ESRB now required by law (of that state anyway) to exist? What would happen if the ESRB had a string of miserable failures, and the industry decided to scrap it and replace it with a new entity? Looks like job security for ESRB reviewers just increased significantly.

[karaokequeen3]

Makes some sense. It's sounds like they want to replicate the model in the UK, whereby BBFC rated items can only be sold to the intended age group. Still doesn't stop ill informed parents buying little Timmy a copy of San Andreas. What boggles me also is why people seem to regard game ratings differently to that of a movie rating. Parents tend to have second thoughts buying something like Reservoir Dogs for their kids, yet appear to have no hesitancy in buying something like a 15 rated game. The key here is education...

[rein]

We are all aware of games being modded after the rating. What then? Do they then follow up on all of the kids who purchased a 'T' game that is changed to 'M' and have a good ol' fashion game burning? I think the ESRB needs to be a little more consistant before a law can be in place using it as a guildline.

[Tohoya]

Yet more violations of the first ammendment... good thing to know the courts are on our side.

You guys don't understand what's at stake here. I have no problems with preventing minors from getting M rated games. If there were a gentleman's agreement among game distributors, as with movie theatres, that they wouldn't sell M games to minors, I would have zero problems with it. However, this sets a dangerous precedent. In the final sense, it demeans every creative accomplishment done by geniuses like Will Wright and Shigeru Miyamoto. It says that video games are not even speech, that they do not have first ammendment rights to freedom of the press. It says that games are intrisicially inferior to mediums like film and print. Not only does that demean the artists of this medium, it also means that video games can be censored for a variety of reasons. The game criticizes the government? Banned, after all, games don't have first ammendment rights. A game where you can play as communist russia against the United States? Banned.

[Axiom]

Restricting the availability to minors based on the ratings given by the ESRB has nothing to do with free speech or censoring game content.

Censoring content is not even in the same ballpark as what this law would be trying to do.

[Deadend]

This is singling out games. It's crap, I can't belive how many of you want to go along with this. Fines and enforcement need to come from within the industry! Like movies, a child can legally buy any movie they want, but retailers do not have to sell them a R-rated movie. This makes it illegal to sell a M rated game, but not a R rated movie. What the hell is up with that?

Also, it's a portal law, this passes, then other places will have it, but harsher.

[Jukey]

This makes it illegal to sell a M rated game, but not a R rated movie. What the hell is up with that?

QFT

[Busted_Astromech]

C'mon guys, you gotta realize that while this seems reasonable (and it's pretty much what we want the ESRB to do to stores), it's still very much unconstitutional. Games are protected under the First Amendment. The only form of entertainment whose restriction has held up under the courts is porn. And that's how the most strident moralizers try to pass game restrictions bills, by calling them 'murder porn.'

Reasonable though this is, it still crosses a founding principle of the country and will be struck down in a waste of the State of Minnesota's money. Just like all the other bills.

[MadHiro]

Restricting the availability to minors based on the ratings given by the ESRB has nothing to do with free speech or censoring game content.

Censoring content is not even in the same ballpark as what this law would be trying to do.

Except that it is in the same ballpark. It's called a chilling effect (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chilling_effect) (Wikipedia), and the fine looks to be a case of it to me. On top of that, giving any private body even the incidental power to regulate the media gives me the heebie-jeebies. I can only hope Governor Pawlenty doesn't sign it for whatever nutball reason.

[GunnyMo]

Why should it be illegal and finable for a child to purchase an MA video game, but not an R rated movie or Explicit Lyric CD?

I'm all for this for games with the AO Rating and NC17/X Movies, but selective enforcement of media is NOT the answer...

Good Parenting is...

That is exactly why laws like this are discriminatory and wrong. Politicians are merely latching onto the latest buzz topic and rolling with it. I just cannot see how a movie like Wolf Creek or High Tension are not just as detrimental, if not more so, to minors. The gore and gratuitous violence in High Tension is enough to severly fuck a minor; beating hookers in GTA with cartoony blood and characters is not even in the same ball park.

This law does not hold the PARENT accountable at all. That is where the real problem lies. What if a parent buys it for the child, changes their mind or gets pissed off at the retailer and claims the retailer sold it to their underage child? I can see that happening on day one. If this law somehow makes it through the court system I, as a retailer, would make all parents sign a waiver at the time of purchase saying that they approve of the purchase. This law could be severly abused. However, it is a wrong law.

I wonder: why do some of you agree with this law but don't cry for the same regulataions on movies and music? Why the double standard?

[lpmiller]

Well, I live in minnesota too, and this is retarded. Fining the kid? It's like fining the junkie, but leaving the dealer alone. It's arresting the john, while the street walker keeps on walking. It's worse than trying to parent for me, it's an after the fact solution. Kids got the damn game already.

We don't fine kids that see R rated movies, we don't fine kids that rent R rated DVD's, we don't fine kids for getting a hold of smokes, we don't....it's just seems ass backwards to me.

[if76]

What's wrong with you guys?

This is the EXACT same law that's been pushed in all those other states. The only difference is the punishment: $25 vs $10,000 and prison.

We let this law slide without putting up a fight and how hard would it be in a couple years to for some state legislature to raise the fine from $25 to $1000? Then to $5000 then to jail time.

C'mon people. Wake up.

[The Letter 3]

What's wrong with you guys?

This is the EXACT same law that's been pushed in all those other states. The only difference is the punishment: $25 vs $10,000 and prison.

We let this law slide without putting up a fight and how hard would it be in a couple years to for some state legislature to raise the fine from $25 to $1000? Then to $5000 then to jail time.

C'mon people. Wake up.
I don't think we're all totally asleep here. There has been some good discussion going on. ;)

Regulating M rated games is going to far. There is no precedent for this sort of media control which is why, as others have said, this bill will be declared unconstitutional if passed into law. The only precedent for media control is pornography. Therefore, the only bills that could stand as laws would be those regulating AO games. Control of this issue needs to come from the industry, as it has with movies and, to a degree, music.

[Johan]

What's wrong with you guys?

This is the EXACT same law that's been pushed in all those other states. The only difference is the punishment: $25 vs $10,000 and prison.

We let this law slide without putting up a fight and how hard would it be in a couple years to for some state legislature to raise the fine from $25 to $1000? Then to $5000 then to jail time.

C'mon people. Wake up.

Paranoid BS...and those who drag in movies and such, give me a break and stay focused; you're just muddying the issue to make excuses to elimate any oversight of games, so give it a rest.

Cut through the BS and here's what you have: If a game is rate M (17+) or AO, there is ONLY one reason why people would resist legal enforcement of ESRB guidelines, and that is so that consumers and retailers can FLOUT THE RATINGS and buy/sell what they please. I'm a parent, and I'm responsible for my kids, but others need to be responsible not to be assholes and sell them M or AO rated games; if I want them to have those games, I'll buy them MYSELF for them.

Big freaking deal if states want to criminalize the sale of M or AO rated games to minors; check some freaking ID (retailers) or have parents buy the M or AO games themselves for their kids, if they wish.

Chilling effect? Please...it's all about having a system that can be FLOUTED, and if laws are put into place, people can't do that as much anymore. That's the ONLY reason people oppose such laws. If there were to be a chilling effect, it would logically mean that a substantial portion of current sales are to minors of M games, which would chill developers toward such content because of lost sales. If THAT is the case, then the ESRB guidelines are, again, BEING FLOUTED.

[Busted_Astromech]

Nevermind, I just realized the fine is leveled at the consumer. That's....odd. And ridiculous. So I gues the law is, like all the others, unreasonable as well what it always was thought to be: unconstitutional, discriminatory, and wrong.

[Selar]

Won't somebody please think of the children!

[Johan]

Won't somebody please think of the children!

I think I just did...

[Busted_Astromech]

Paranoid BS...and those who drag in movies and such, give me a break and stay focused; you're just muddying the issue to make excuses to elimate any oversight of games, so give it a rest.

Cut through the BS and here's what you have: If a game is rate M (17+) or AO, there is ONLY one reason why people would resist legal enforcement of ESRB guidelines, and that is so that consumers and retailers can FLOUT THE RATINGS and buy/sell what they please. I'm a parent, and I'm responsible for my kids, but others need to be responsible not to be assholes and sell them M or AO rated games; if I want them to have those games, I'll buy them MYSELF for them.

Big freaking deal if states want to criminalize the sale of M or AO rated games to minors; check some freaking ID (retailers) or have parents buy the M or AO games themselves for their kids, if they wish.

Chilling effect? Please...it's all about having a system that can be FLOUTED, and if laws are put into place, people can't do that as much anymore. That's the ONLY reason people oppose such laws. If there were to be a chilling effect, it would logically mean that a substantial portion of current sales are to minors of M games, which would chill developers toward such content because of lost sales. If THAT is the case, then the ESRB guidelines are, again, BEING FLOUTED.

Hold on there, cowboy. There's one major reason why these laws always have been, always will be wrong: we, the United States of America, have a Bill of Rights.

The Bill of Rights is intended to prevent the whims of the people from becoming bad legislation. The Bill of Rights is not intended to be popular (just look at polls of how many Americans think provisions of the First Amendment go to far), but it is what seperates the US from the other modern democracies. Just because you want a law that would restrict sales of videogames, just because you think it would be a good idea, you can't pass it because it is unconstitutional. Period.

Introducing movies and music muddies the issue? How so? Do you honestly believe that while it may be unconstitutional to place restrictions on those forms of media that games are not deserving of such protections? Do you believe that games have no redeeming value?

I doubt you do, and you have to realize that because of those qualities any and all laws trying to restrict the sale of games will fail. They are all a waste of time and money in order to garner votes.

The true solution is for the industry to self-regulate, for retailers themselves to card for M and AO games. Luckily for you, they are getting better at it every year. Give them time, and you will have a system as strong as that of the movies.

Too slow? Too bad, because that's the only constitutional way to restrict sales.

[Tohoya]

Paranoid BS...and those who drag in movies and such, give me a break and stay focused; you're just muddying the issue to make excuses to elimate any oversight of games, so give it a rest.

Cut through the BS and here's what you have: If a game is rate M (17+) or AO, there is ONLY one reason why people would resist legal enforcement of ESRB guidelines, and that is so that consumers and retailers can FLOUT THE RATINGS and buy/sell what they please. I'm a parent, and I'm responsible for my kids, but others need to be responsible not to be assholes and sell them M or AO rated games; if I want them to have those games, I'll buy them MYSELF for them.

Big freaking deal if states want to criminalize the sale of M or AO rated games to minors; check some freaking ID (retailers) or have parents buy the M or AO games themselves for their kids, if they wish.

Chilling effect? Please...it's all about having a system that can be FLOUTED, and if laws are put into place, people can't do that as much anymore. That's the ONLY reason people oppose such laws. If there were to be a chilling effect, it would logically mean that a substantial portion of current sales are to minors of M games, which would chill developers toward such content because of lost sales. If THAT is the case, then the ESRB guidelines are, again, BEING FLOUTED.

Bullshit that's the only reason. Do you see anyone here protesting Best Buy's decision to not sell M games to minors? Do you see anyone here protesting Wal-Mart's decision not to sell M games to minors? I don't care if the stores do it. But the government doing it is something different altogether.

[Johan]

The true solution is for the industry to self-regulate, for retailers themselves to card for M and AO games. Luckily for you, they are getting better at it every year. Give them time, and you will have a system as strong as that of the movies.

Too slow? Too bad, because that's the only constitutional way to restrict sales.

Wonderful...let's wield the conversation stopper; it's unconstitutional...the Bill of Rights...self-regulation. Constitutionality is YOUR OPINION, and, frankly, if a high enough court disagrees, then YOUR OPINION will be unconstitutional. That's actually how it works, 'cowboy;' the courts decide constitutionality by interpreting our laws against our constitution. It's not beyond the pale to believe that one of these laws will be constitutional, eventually, to a state supreme court, and, eventually, to the US Supreme Court.

Abortion was "unconstitutional" for nearly 200 years in our country (not to bring up such a hot-button issue, but it is an excellent example), but in 1973 nine judges voted and the majority decided it was NOW CONSTITUTIONAL.

It's up to the courts interpretation, not yours...and my own, uncourtly and personal opinion, is that such laws ARE LEGAL, ARE CONSTITUTIONAL, and eventually, several WILL PREVAIL. The reason so many of you are hyped up about this is because you know that this will happen...if there were no chance any of these laws would prevail, why worry? Why even discuss it? If it's so easily seen as unconstitutional...go to a different thread, because this will never happen anyway!

Finally, parents need every bit of help they can get in this world, and particulary in this culture of ours. Even if I had no kids at all, I would not oppose a law which made as my only inconvenience showing ID so that parents could be assured video game retailers couldn't/wouldn't sell my little Johnny the latest gore-fest that I think they should wait til they're older to enjoy. Guys..and ladies...if you're not willing to show ID to help out parents, then I say screw you; you're part of my problem.

[Kefkataran]

Fuck yes. Leave it to Minnesota to finally come up with a SANE video game legislation bill. I would support this one hundred percent. The fines are reasonable, and it makes perfect sense.

[Busted_Astromech]

Why do you believe these laws are constitutional? I'd like to hear your reasoning so I can prepare an argument against it.

As far as I know, the only reason one of these bills can succeed in a court review is if they manage to prove to the courts that games inflict harm on children. That claim would have to be supported by evidence. And while there is evidence showing that games change how people think in the short term, there isn't solid evidence connecting game-playing to real damage to people's brains.

[Johan]

Why do you believe these laws are constitutional? I'd like to hear your reasoning so I can prepare an argument against it.

As far as I know, the only reason one of these bills can succeed in a court review is if they manage to prove to the courts that games inflict harm on children. That claim would have to be supported by evidence. And while there is evidence showing that games change how people think in the short term, there isn't solid evidence connecting game-playing to real damage to people's brains.

I appreciate your reasoned response; my opinion on constitutionality is just that; opinion. I actually don't have anything else to add to the whole argument at this point...I think I've said what I can think to say, and if I'm unpersuasive (I may very well be...that's quite possible), then so be it. I just don't see the big deal in showing ID to help parents, and if there's any chilling effect on developers, it's because current sales involve M games going to minors, in which case the current system doesn't work. If there's no sales of M rated games to minors, a law preventing their sale to minors wouldn't affect M-rated content.

Sigh.....I'm just tired and it depresses me how much of the world cares not for kids (and I'm not slamming anyone in particular when I say that...don't be offended by that, for goodness sake...I have four kids aged five and under, and perhaps more on the way).

Edit: I've actually read of evidence that games can improve cognitive ability (Discover mag had an article some time ago)...but violence and sex were not in that calculation.

[Busted_Astromech]

I appreciate your reasoned response; my opinion on constitutionality is just that; opinion. I actually don't have anything else to add to the whole argument at this point...I think I've said what I can think to say, and if I'm unpersuasive (I may very well be...that's quite possible), then so be it. I just don't see the big deal in showing ID to help parents, and if there's any chilling effect on developers, it's because current sales involve M games going to minors, in which case the current system doesn't work. If there's no sales of M rated games to minors, a law preventing their sale to minors wouldn't affect M-rated content.

Okay. I'm sorry my first response was so hostile. But I hold to my points: even if a law was something everyone supported, even if it's universally accepted as a good idea, it does need to pass these tests.

Now if you don't believe there's a specific reason that these bills are constitutional, just that they're good bills (am I right in assuming this?), it's not ever going to get past a court review.

I am against these bills not because I am against keeping minors from buying M rated games. As Tohoya said, I don't think many of us are. But I cannot support legislation that infringes on the Bill of Rights--and here I'm not using my own opinion, I'm using the opinion of the courts which have struck down all these bills before--because unless it shows demonstrable harm to children, it is speech and thus cannot be regulated.

[Sl1pstream]

This isn't going to go away and there will be laws based around videogame sales, if you want it or not.

If there are going to be laws, what's wrong with this one?

Besides, this will keep most M and a few AO from being banned and that's a good thing. Nobody's going to take this to court if they have to pay the fine because they're minors. Adults can do whatever they want, even with this law.

Next time people sue publishers about their children seeing adult content, they won't have a leg to stand on, as them or their children broke the law by buying the next Phantasmagoria.

[Heretic Machine]

I am against this law because this further degrades the rights of Americans, when we should be working to expand them.

[bean19]

Next time people sue publishers about their children seeing adult content, they won't have a leg to stand on, as them or their children broke the law by buying the next Phantasmagoria.

Hmm. . . maybe never-do-wells will start lurking outside gamestores in malls asking kids if they want them to buy them the next Grand Theft Auto or God of War game (at a price mark-up).

[Sl1pstream]

At least there will be a next GTA or next GoW without them having to remove the content to avoid lawsuits.

[GunnyMo]

Paranoid BS...and those who drag in movies and such, give me a break and stay focused; you're just muddying the issue to make excuses to elimate any oversight of games, so give it a rest.

Cut through the BS and here's what you have: If a game is rate M (17+) or AO, there is ONLY one reason why people would resist legal enforcement of ESRB guidelines, and that is so that consumers and retailers can FLOUT THE RATINGS and buy/sell what they please. I'm a parent, and I'm responsible for my kids, but others need to be responsible not to be assholes and sell them M or AO rated games; if I want them to have those games, I'll buy them MYSELF for them.

Big freaking deal if states want to criminalize the sale of M or AO rated games to minors; check some freaking ID (retailers) or have parents buy the M or AO games themselves for their kids, if they wish.

Chilling effect? Please...it's all about having a system that can be FLOUTED, and if laws are put into place, people can't do that as much anymore. That's the ONLY reason people oppose such laws. If there were to be a chilling effect, it would logically mean that a substantial portion of current sales are to minors of M games, which would chill developers toward such content because of lost sales. If THAT is the case, then the ESRB guidelines are, again, BEING FLOUTED.

So, in essence, what you are saying is you want someone else to parent your child? Would you be opposed to regulations passed that makes YOU and the retailer responsible if your child buys an M/AO game?

Funny thing is laws like this and others "safe guarding" naughty stuff from our kids do nothing but make us feel better about ourselves. Raise your hand if you never saw porn, tasted alcohol, smoked (or had the opportunity to) cigarettes, watched a rated R movie or bought/listened to Parental Warning music before you were 18. Thought so. Kids are going to do whatever we tell them not to do. Does that mean we sit back and do nothing 'cause they are going to do it anyway? Absolutley not. Being a parent means educating your children on the things you do not want them to be involved with and let them make their own choices and suffer their own consequences. It also means being there to help pick up the pieces and to help your child learn from their mistakes.

Parenting in the US has become so bad that we need the government to come in and regulate our children. We have laws protecting just about every facet of a childs existence now. Why? Because children, in general, don't respect or listen to parents or authority figures and the parents don't take responsiblity for their children. It's not the child's fault. It is our fault. Plain and simple. I can't even begin to count how many parents I see on a daily basis arguing with their children (not teenagers...children) over what they want the child to do. A child should be more afraid of what their parents will do and think than any governmental punishment that could be metered out. Sadly, the US has moved away from that and our children are suffering for it.

You want to punish retailers, fine by me, but parents should be held just as accountable. I see day in and day out so called "parents" buying M rated games for their kids after being explicitly told by the retailers you seem to hate what is in the game. I told a woman her seven year old would be able to have sex with a whore, beat her to death with a dildo and then take back the money in GTA (my exact words) and the woman did not even blink an eye. Day in and day out, my friends. Retailers aren't the bad guys.

Long winded point: you are responsible for your child not the government.

[Kefkataran]

I am against this law because this further degrades the rights of Americans, when we should be working to expand them.

How so? It just makes sure children can't purchase games they aren't supposed to be able to purchase without someone over the age of 18. And if they do, they and the seller are eligible for a fine that's small enough to be reasonable but large enough to make them not want to let it happen again. I think it's pretty good, personally. First reasonable video game legislation I've ever seen.

You want to punish retailers, fine by me, but parents should be held just as accountable. I see day in and day out so called "parents" buying M rated games for their kids after being explicitly told by the retailers you seem to hate what is in the game. I told a woman her seven year old would be able to have sex with a whore, beat her to death with a dildo and then take back the money in GTA (my exact words) and the woman did not even blink an eye. Day in and day out, my friends. Retailers aren't the bad guys.

Long winded point: you are responsible for your child not the government.

If parents want to buy the game for their kid, they should be able to. It may be stupid and a bad idea, but if you've warned them about it, that's all you can do.

[Johan]

GunnyMo...you didn't even read my post, it would seem. Of course parents are responsible; how the hell is it a hardship for me, or any other parent, to ask you to dig out an ID card? If you see that as something you can't tolerate, you are either:

1. Extremely selfish OR
2. Aware of the fact that kids already buy them and want it to continue OR
3. Extremely lazy.

We require ID's for all kinds of things; if this is too much of an imposition upon you, then the rest of my response is un-postable, since kids could be reading this!

I'm done...flame for or against me all you want...I've said all I can, and if you're against any kind of legal limit on such sales, you probably always will be...and I think you're wrong.

[GunnyMo]

I never said I was against any legal controls. I ID people left and right at my store and ensure my staff does the same. Will some slip through the cracks? Sure but I know I've done my part. What I am against is the singling out of video games as the end all, be all of evil in America. If we are going to governmentally regulate the ESRB then the MPAA and RIAA should also be right there in the same laws. I think music by 50 Cent and Lil Flip is much more detrimental than a kid buying Halo (M Rated), don't you agree?

The point of your post, which I read, seemed to be that retailers just want to FLOUT (your caps) the ratings systems and sell M rated games to whomever walks in the door. That was what you said and that is what I responded to.

[BigJonno]

Laws regulating the sale of videogames to children (or any other form of media, for that matter) will not cause the collapse of society. Talk to anyone in any of the dozens of other countries where these laws are present and people have just as much, if not more, personal freedom than the US. The only way this will be resolved without a Comics Code Authority type situation is with responsible legislation before it gets out of hand.

We have legally inforcable ratings over here (for the retailer, with very large fines and possible prison sentances) and we came up with GTA. 'Nuff said.

[GunnyMo]

I'll say it one more time:

Laws have to cover all forms of entertainment and not just one if they are to be fair and just. You can't regulate video games at a governmental level and not include movies, music, and books.

[askheaves]

Took me almost an hour to realize that Minnesota Bill isn't referring to a person...

[Johan]

The point of your post, which I read, seemed to be that retailers just want to FLOUT (your caps) the ratings systems and sell M rated games to whomever walks in the door. That was what you said and that is what I responded to.

Give me a break and read my post. I said, "consumers and retailers can FLOUT THE RATINGS." If you take it personally, as a retailer, you are reading with bias. Open your eyes and read my actual post in its entirety and feel free to disagree...with what I actually said, not what you think you read.

Edit: Also, typing in all CAPS WITH RED LETTERS does not make your argument any more convincing; it just pushes others' posts onto the next page, and makes me think you're compensating for a lack of compelling argument for your position.

[Tohoya]

Wonderful...let's wield the conversation stopper; it's unconstitutional...the Bill of Rights...self-regulation. Constitutionality is YOUR OPINION, and, frankly, if a high enough court disagrees, then YOUR OPINION will be unconstitutional. That's actually how it works, 'cowboy;' the courts decide constitutionality by interpreting our laws against our constitution. It's not beyond the pale to believe that one of these laws will be constitutional, eventually, to a state supreme court, and, eventually, to the US Supreme Court.

Abortion was "unconstitutional" for nearly 200 years in our country (not to bring up such a hot-button issue, but it is an excellent example), but in 1973 nine judges voted and the majority decided it was NOW CONSTITUTIONAL.

It's up to the courts interpretation, not yours...and my own, uncourtly and personal opinion, is that such laws ARE LEGAL, ARE CONSTITUTIONAL, and eventually, several WILL PREVAIL. The reason so many of you are hyped up about this is because you know that this will happen...if there were no chance any of these laws would prevail, why worry? Why even discuss it? If it's so easily seen as unconstitutional...go to a different thread, because this will never happen anyway!

Finally, parents need every bit of help they can get in this world, and particulary in this culture of ours. Even if I had no kids at all, I would not oppose a law which made as my only inconvenience showing ID so that parents could be assured video game retailers couldn't/wouldn't sell my little Johnny the latest gore-fest that I think they should wait til they're older to enjoy. Guys..and ladies...if you're not willing to show ID to help out parents, then I say screw you; you're part of my problem.


Uhm, no. Courts have ruled on this issue many times before, and almost every time in favor of the video gaming industry (only one exception comes to mind, which was later overturned by a higher court).

Michigan law, nearly exactly the same as this one, unconstitutional: http://www.gamespot.com/news/6147061.html

Similar Washington law held unconstitutional: http://importance.corante.com/archives/005035.html

Similar Illinois law, held unconstituional:
http://www.theesa.com/archives/2005/12/judge_halts_unc.php

A judge in San Jose appears about to rule a similar law unconstitutional: http://abclocal.go.com/kgo/story?section=local&id=4167864.

Can't find the one that was the exception, but I do remember that it was in Missouri and was later overturned by one of the circuit court of appeals.

The reasononing is this: the first ammenment: "Congress shall make no law... abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press." Preventing minors from recieving such material abridges the freedom fo the press, since it limits where their speech can be said. It's that simple, and nearly every court decision agrees with me. I just hope we get a ruling from the supreme court at osme point to settle this issue once and for all.

[Johan]

Uhm, no.

Uhm, you're wrong...I can quote you two centuries of court decisions saying discrimination and/or segregation were constitutional as well (look at education decisions by the Supreme Court if you want proof...Brown vs. Board of Ed finally overturned the concept of separate being equal). Constitutional simply means a majority of the particular court at the time supports a law, and courts change. If not, we would still be living under Puritan laws and conditions...

Regardless, I still say anyone who is against a law fining a consumer who purchases an M game when they're under 17, and which would thus require ID checks, is a conspiracy theorist (our freedoms are going away..omg) or a lazy-ass who won't dig out their damn wallet for ID in order to help me help my kids.

[Kefkataran]

Took me almost an hour to realize that Minnesota Bill isn't referring to a person...

Hahaha. Minnesota Bill is a good man. And quite the enforcer.

[GunnyMo]

Hahaha. Minnesota Bill is a good man. And quite the enforcer.

lol wait...are we in a Western thread here or the endless debate on game legislation thread? That is funny.

[Heretic Machine]

How so? It just makes sure children can't purchase games they aren't supposed to be able to purchase without someone over the age of 18.

Who says that they aren't supposed to be able to purchase it? The ESRB just says that SOME parents might not want their kids to play it. That's all the ESRB says. Personally, I was doing much "worse" shit than playing GTA when I was a kid, and I never turned out to be a violent psychopath.

Kids are people too, and America's policy on treating them like animals is unacceptable. As it is, they have about the same rights as my guinea pig. That, my friends, is bullshit. I thought so back when I was eight, I thought so when I was sixteen, and I think so now that I'm twenty-one.

[Kefkataran]

Who says that they aren't supposed to be able to purchase it? The ESRB just says that SOME parents might not want their kids to play it. That's all the ESRB says. Personally, I was doing much "worse" shit than playing GTA when I was a kid, and I never turned out to be a violent psychopath.

Kids are people too, and America's policy on treating them like animals is unacceptable. As it is, they have about the same rights as my guinea pig. That, my friends, is bullshit. I thought so back when I was eight, I thought so when I was sixteen, and I think so now that I'm twenty-one.

That, my friend, is an overexageration. I totally see where you coming from, and I was lucky enough to have a mom who restricted when she thought I needed to not do something but wasn't overly restrictive and hardcore or whatever. So I mean it still comes down to parents. But I don't see what you're saying as that good of a point for why this bill isn't good. It puts more control in the hands of the parents to decide.

[Heretic Machine]

That, my friend, is an overexageration. I totally see where you coming from, and I was lucky enough to have a mom who restricted when she thought I needed to not do something but wasn't overly restrictive and hardcore or whatever. So I mean it still comes down to parents. But I don't see what you're saying as that good of a point for why this bill isn't good. It puts more control in the hands of the parents to decide.

Because it isn't adding rights, it is taking them away. Taking them away from people who can be held responsible for murder, but not for picking out their own video games, appearently.

[Karmakin]

Gunny Mo got it perfectly If you're going to make the argument about limiting things, beyond the first amendment rights, you also have the concept of Equal Protection. And that rule is pretty simple, when it comes to this sort of thing.

You can't do anything that wouldn't be acceptable to a library.

Note how books have no rating system. The only reason you have ratings on video games and movies, is cooperation by the industries. The music industry took a much easier path.

None are government mandated.

But I'm going to take this in an other tack, just so you guys know what this is about.

The people who are in power? They hate us. They despise us. They think we're a bunch of slackers and morons who are going to be the downfall of Western Civilization. Ironically enough, they're also scared that some day we're going to wake up and realize that there are actual fixes to issues, and not the fear-mongering that keeps incumbants in power.

But we're fighting back. See the campaign to get Lieberman off the ballot in Conneticut for a good example. It'll take time, but we're fighting the good fight. Maybe we'll win, maybe we'll lose.

But at least we're fighting.

[nonchalance]

Talk to anyone in any of the dozens of other countries where these laws are present and people have just as much, if not more, personal freedom than the US.

Except that those countries generally have similar laws in place for movies, if not for music as well.

[dojoteef]

Johan123, you seem quite adamant that this law pass namely to help parents with their children, correct?

I have a few questions for you then:

How does this stop a child from going over to a friend's house and playing these games? Imagine the friend's parents are more lenient and in fact buy the games for them.
How does it stop them from getting someone else to buy the game for them? For example, a friend's older sibling.

I postulate that these are in fact just as valid as a child actually going to the store and purchasing the title.

But let's consider that a child is able to purchase a game that the parents believe they should not have. The parents need to have an active role in their child's life. They need to be involved enough to know what their child does. In which case the parent would soon find out about these games, take them away, speak to the child about not purchasing those games in the future, and then adequately punish the kid. Also staying involved is the answer to the questions I mentioned above. Anyone who claims otherwise is not fit to be a parent.

As for the law itself. I am completely against it. Many have already stated the case quite eloquently and I will leave it at that.

[LilAbner]

I'm perfectly ok with this, and retailers should be too. The only retailers who would be against this are the ones selling M/AO games to minors.

[Rook34]

I think it's funny when people ask other people after seeing a thread like this "Do you want the government parenting your children"? The people that care about a statement like that and especially the answer are good parents, but you gotta remember, not everyone is as good or cares as much. Stupid people (and stupid/uncaring/negligent parents) do exist and this bill is for them. Again though, most shouldn't worry, life will continue as normal because something like this will never get the funding or support. Do you really think that the local police department is going to pull cops from the streets and set up sting operations wherein they tag a bunch of minors for a measly 25 bucks each? That's laughable and would make a funny Penny Arcade comic considering the far more worse things in this world they stop every day instead.
Bottom line, regulations NEED to be in place to keep adult content away from minors or 'impressionable youth'. I think we all agree on that, at least. I say let them try, and I hope it doesn't prove to be a waste of my tax dollars.

[GunnyMo]

Well said, Karmakin. I only threw books there as an example of a form of entertainment that seems to be exempt from this kind of governmental regulation. My arguments are that if they pass these laws they have to include other forms of entertainment and not just games. It's pointless to governmentally regulate games and not do the same to even more graphic forms of entertainment like movies and music.

I am a retailer and strictly enforce the ESRB at my store. Hell, I even made a Grandma in a wheelchair get out of the car to come in and approve the purchase for her 12 year old grandchild. I kid you not. The best part? She was not upset in the least bit. She thanked me for not selling the game without her approval.

[Heretic Machine]

Bottom line, regulations NEED to be in place to keep adult content away from minors or 'impressionable youth'. I think we all agree on that, at least.

Have you not read my posts yet? I don't agree.

[Tohoya]

Well said, Karmakin. I only threw books there as an example of a form of entertainment that seems to be exempt from this kind of governmental regulation. My arguments are that if they pass these laws they have to include other forms of entertainment and not just games. It's pointless to governmentally regulate games and not do the same to even more graphic forms of entertainment like movies and music.

I am a retailer and strictly enforce the ESRB at my store. Hell, I even made a Grandma in a wheelchair get out of the car to come in and approve the purchase for her 12 year old grandchild. I kid you not. The best part? She was not upset in the least bit. She thanked me for not selling the game without her approval.

The books are a good point. I remember a big part of the hot coffee controversy was that ti was a trojan horse- people didn't know that there was explicit sexual content on the disk. In that regard, books are far more egregious. Has anyone here read George R.R. Martin's A song of ice and fire, starting with A game of thrones? Great fantasy books, but I got a hold of them when I was 13... and it had several explicit sexual scenes, including a rape. My cousin was even younger when he started reading them. Neither of us had any idea that there was sexual content in them. Of course, we weren't exactly scarred for life, but if the trojan horse argument is a valid one, books are the more egegious offender.

[Sl1pstream]

Are they forcing you to keep selling these games to kids? Just refuse, can't be that hard.

[Rook34]

Have you not read my posts yet? I don't agree.
So Perigon, let me get this straight, You are against a law that thwarts minors from purchasing obviously adult content, am I right? Let me make a assumption about you then : You do not have kids.
Trust me, you see the world differently when you do.
The thing is, this bill is not in any way trying to censor said games, so how is it degrading kids' rights? Can children buy cigarrettes or alcohol? No. I don't see this as any different. Certain laws are in place to protect us, not take away rights, they are there to protect us (or chidren in this case) from themselves.
I'd like you to explain how you think it's o.k. then that they can buy violent games. I'm going to guess at your retort: 'It's parenting that is at fault and retailers.' I would agree. But it's obvious that many don't care enough to get involved in their kids' lives. Do we want the government in our lives? Of course not. This bill doesn't penalize those who parent well. And if you treat M rated games like you would any other adult things, I.E. cigarrettes, pornography, alcohol, then how is this taking away any kid's rights? Unless of course you want little kids to be playing violent media as a parent, then this bill is for you.
Obviously yes, a lot of us enjoy or enjoyed violent games as kids and we never killed anyone or are psychopaths. And I'm not saying games are the reason why up until a few years ago there were never any Columbine incidents, but wouldn't it be better to take precautions on as many fronts as possible?
So, fine, you enjoy violent games, cool. SO do I. But as a parent I would take any help possible to make sure my daughter wouldn't be playing some of the same games as I until she were old enough to understand.

[Heretic Machine]

So Perigon, let me get this straight, You are against a law that thwarts minors from purchasing obviously adult content, am I right? Let me make a assumption about you then : You do not have kids.
Trust me, you see the world differently when you do.

Ya, right now I'm unbiased.

The thing is, this bill is not in any way trying to censor said games, so how is it degrading kids' rights? Can children buy cigarrettes or alcohol? No. I don't see this as any different. Certain laws are in place to protect us, not take away rights, they are there to protect us (or chidren in this case) from themselves.

If you take away their right to buy a video game, then they can't ever be held responsible for anything again. It's as simple as that. You cannot say that they can make the decision to kill, and not be able to make the decision to play the new Super Mario.

I'd like you to explain how you think it's o.k. then that they can buy violent games.

Because playing violent games has never, ever, been proven to do anything negative to a human being. You are making arbitrary decisions based on half-assed pseudo-psychology, and all-too-common parental mythology. From the age of ten my parents raised me as someone who is trust worthy and responsible, thus they raised someone who is trust worthy and responsible. That is how it works.

What happend to the kids who had their lives ruled by their parents? Oh, well most of them ended up moving out at the age of eighteen, getting on drugs, getting pregnant shortly after and then getting married. Now their quality of life is even less than that of their parents'.

And if you treat M rated games like you would any other adult things, I.E. cigarrettes, pornography, alcohol, then how is this taking away any kid's rights?

Not even remotely the same thing. And yes, there is no reason they shouldn't be able to buy pornography. Are you telling me that seeing sex is going to do something negative to a twelve year old? How? Why?

Obviously yes, a lot of us enjoy or enjoyed violent games as kids and we never killed anyone or are psychopaths. And I'm not saying games are the reason why up until a few years ago there were never any Columbine incidents, but wouldn't it be better to take precautions on as many fronts as possible?

Go hide in a bunker somewhere then. Stop fucking with other people's lives.

So, fine, you enjoy violent games, cool. SO do I. But as a parent I would take any help possible to make sure my daughter wouldn't be playing some of the same games as I until she were old enough to understand.

I would like your child to be taken away and put into a home where she can properlly grow and experience life as a person, rather than as a pet.

[gzsfrk]

Ya, right now I'm unbiased.

Perigon, seriously... I've read all your posts in this thread, and you're doing nothing but living in a world of TheoryCraft.

Come back here and post your results once you have kids and have raised them with unlimited exposure to porn, snuff films, alcohol, drugs, and sexual experimentation. Of course, I wouldn't wish THAT failure of parenting on any child; I fear the results should a progressive, idealist jackass like you ever procreate.

"Now Jimmy, if you drink Daddy's beer, I'm warning you ahead of time that it won't be good for you, and even though you'll feel funny for awhile, and it might actually seem fun for a bit, you'll regret it later when you're vomiting and have a pounding headache. Oh well--I tried...." <sips own beer>

[Heretic Machine]

Perigon, seriously... I've read all your posts in this thread, and you're doing nothing but living in a world of TheoryCraft.

I'm saying we shouldn't take away people's rights based on guessing about what causes violence.

Come back here and post your results once you have kids and have raised them with unlimited exposure to porn, snuff films, alcohol, drugs, and sexual experimentation. Of course, I wouldn't wish THAT failure of parenting on any child; I fear the results should a progressive, idealist jackass like you ever procreate.

Did you ever look at porn before the age of 18? Did you ever have a sexual encounter before the age of 18? Did you ever drink before the age of 18?

Most normal people would answer yes to all three of those things. They would then say that they'd never want their kids to do it. Why? Because that is, appearently, bad for them. How do they know that? Dr. Phil told them so.

[Rook34]

Perigon, you are incapable of carrying an intelligent debate without resorting to namecalling. Children are not always ready to make those types of decisions - their brains are radically different from adult brains and cat scans have proven this. I don't know enough about you to say if you are well formed or not and I don't care. But to say you are unbiased is, obviously by your post, quite untrue. Children are not always ready to be as responsible as you think they are.

O.k., I'll bite and be suckered into another debate with you. Let's start from the top.
1)For starters, I'm sure glad you haven't procreated yet.

2) You said: "If you take away their right to buy a video game, then they can't ever be held responsible for anything again. It's as simple as that. You cannot say that they can make the decision to kill, and not be able to make the decision to play the new Super Mario."

(What? Yes they can, you give them responsibilities they can handle. Like do their chores, feed the dog. As a parent it is YOUR job to protect your children.Let me pull that out one more time t emphasis it..:

IT IS YOUR JOB AS A PARENT TO PROTECT YOUR CHILDREN

Letting them play violent games desensitizes them to violence (that part IS true and could be viewed as harmful depending on how you think), and if anything I want my cihld to learn empathy.)

3) You said "Because playing violent games has never, ever, been proven to do anything negative to a human being. You are making arbitrary decisions based on half-assed pseudo-psychology, and all-too-common parental mythology. From the age of ten my parents raised me as someone who is trust worthy and responsible, thus they raised someone who is trust worthy and responsible. That is how it works.
What happend to the kids who had their lives ruled by their parents? Oh, well most of them ended up moving out at the age of eighteen, getting on drugs, getting pregnant shortly after and then getting married. Now their quality of life is even less than that of their parents'".

(And how is what you just said NOT an arbitrary, half assed opinion? You claim that kids' who's parents ruled their lives ended up with a worse life? Lol! You are so young... I know now why my parents did what they did and I love them more for it. I was not a pet, and neither is my daughter. Lack of discipline and letting kids do whatever the hell they want is NOT helping to make a well formed adult. It is a lack of parenting. Oh, and to say that violent games hasn't ever been proven to do anything negative to a human being, well, that depends on what you are measuring. Desensitation, lack of remorse, an increase in aggressive behavior afterwards - hmm... interesting... You be the judge. No wait....that isn't a good idea I don't think)

4) You said" Not even remotely the same thing. And yes, there is no reason they shouldn't be able to buy pornography. Are you telling me that seeing sex is going to do something negative to a twelve year old? How? Why?

(It is the same thing. There may be a correlation as to why strip clubs are often in bad parts of town. Again, it's an issue of desensitation, a breakdown of morality on so many levels ranging from religious to just plain decency. Teach children the basics, let them know that sex is fine, but you don't need to fucking flaunt it - that IS for animals.)

5) You said "Go hide in a bunker somewhere then. Stop fucking with other people's lives."

(Get the fuck out of this thread and quite retarding the world around you.)

6) Finally, you said" I would like your child to be taken away and put into a home where she can properlly grow and experience life as a person, rather than as a pet. "

(I already answered this, but let me ...aw the fuck with it. I'll let others flame you.)

[Heretic Machine]

Perigon, you are incapable of carrying an intelligent debate without resorting to namecalling. Children are not always ready to make those types of decisions - their brains are radically different from adult brains and cat scans have proven this. I don't know enough about you to say if you are well formed or not and I don't care. But to say you are unbiased is, obviously by your post, quite untrue. Children are not always ready to be as responsible as you think they are.

You can say that they aren't ready to make those types of decisions? Because scientists can't yet. Their brains are different, sure, but we have no idea about what those differences mean. You certainly don't. And as for bias, what is my bias? What do -I- have to gain?

O.k., I'll bite and be suckered into another debate with you. Let's start from the top.
1)For starters, I'm sure glad you haven't procreated yet.

Ya, what with all my name-calling and mud slinging.

2) You said: "If you take away their right to buy a video game, then they can't ever be held responsible for anything again. It's as simple as that. You cannot say that they can make the decision to kill, and not be able to make the decision to play the new Super Mario."
(What? Yes they can, you give them responsibilities they can handle. Like do their chores, feed the dog. As a parent it is YOUR job to protect your children.Let me pull that out one more time t emphasis it..:

IT IS YOUR JOB AS A PARENT TO PROTECT YOUR CHILDREN

Letting them play violent games desensitizes them to violence (that part IS true and could be viewed as harmful depending on how you think), and if anything I want my cihld to learn empathy.)

Can you prove that? Scientists can't. You're guessing again. There is a good portion of the population who would say the same thing about black people, I guess we should just go ahead and take away their rights too.

I'm done with your post. Learn to format it to be readable.

[nonchalance]

Ya, what with all my name-calling and mud slinging.

I'm not going to bother with the rest of the argument, because both sides seem to be incapable of seeing shades of grey, but I'm just going to note that pretty much the nastiest thing to say to any parent is something like this:
I would like your child to be taken away

[Heretic Machine]

I'm not going to bother with the rest of the argument, because both sides seem to be incapable of seeing shades of grey, but I'm just going to note that pretty much the nastiest thing to say to any parent is something like this:

Ya, well it is true. He thinks his daughter will be incapable of human thought until after the age of eighteen.

[Rook34]

I'm not guessing Perigon. If you read ANY medical journals you would know that it indeed desensitizes them to violence. Gosh, could that be why the military uses games? NO, couldn't be THAT!

And as far as what you have to gain? Simply to be right I think and not look like a fool at this point. My agenda is a little better than yours -I look out for my families well being.

In the end, it's your opinion and opions are like fuck holes - everyone has one. One day you may see things differently. Whether that be how I see things now or something different even still. Either way your opinion will change one day. (And I'm sure it will be much better than what you've currently brought to the table)

[nonchalance]

Ya, well it is true. He thinks his daughter will be incapable of human thought until after the age of eighteen.

Gee, we wouldn't want to descend to mud-slinging and hyperbole, would we?
That would mean we were just having a bitchfight, rather than arguing a point!

[nonchalance]

I'm not guessing Perigon. If you read ANY medical journals you would know that it indeed desensitizes them to violence. Gosh, could that be why the military uses games? NO, couldn't be THAT!

For fuck's sake.
The military uses games to teach clear-thinking under pressure, quick reflexes, and execution of strategy when under fire.

Is no-one on this fucking site capable of seeing both sides of any argument?

[Rook34]

And exactly when did I say that my daughter is incapable of human thought until after 18? My job is do raise my daughter along the path of morality, decency, empathy, and respectfulness. The same things you claim to be. You are misconstruing the most basic concepts here.

[Heretic Machine]

I'm not guessing Perigon. If you read ANY medical journals you would know that it indeed desensitizes them to violence. Gosh, could that be why the military uses games? NO, couldn't be THAT!

Oh wait, you get medical journals? Are you a doctor? Because most people don't subscribe to legitimate academic journals unless it applies to their profession, since their price tends to be quite a bit higher than that of a magazine. Oh, and what exactly were these articles doing in medical journals? Shouldn't they be in psychology journals? It's not exactly the same thing. But I'm sure you knew that, right? And I'm sure these aren't the same half-assed articles that pop-up everytime Jack Thompson wants some ammo, right?

And as far as what you have to gain? Simply to be right I think and not look like a fool at this point. My agenda is a little better than yours -I look out for my families well being.

If I just wanted to be "cool" I would of went along with the popular opinion. Much like you seem to do.

In the end, it's your opinion and opions are like fuck holes - everyone has one. One day you may see things differently. Whether that be how I see things now or something different even still. Either way your opinion will change one day. (And I'm sure it will be much better than what you've currently brought to the table)

Good job trying to say that you are right and I am wrong without being TOO obvious. Too bad you continue to deviate from the topic without supplying any evidence. Where is my evidence? I don't need it, I'm not trying to steal rights from people for no good reason.

[Rook34]

For fuck's sake.
The military uses games to teach clear-thinking under pressure, quick reflexes, and execution of strategy when under fire.

Is no-one on this fucking site capable of seeing both sides of any argument?

Nonchalance,
Yes, that's partly the reason. The other is the one I brought up. Desensitizing is part of the training. I support our military and I'm glad they do what they do to protect our freedom, but it IS the truth! But you also have to be 18 to be in the military...

[HALO 32]

yea i live in Minnesota...but im also 17 so i dont really care

[Tohoya]

The thing is, this bill is not in any way trying to censor said games, so how is it degrading kids' rights? Can children buy cigarrettes or alcohol? No. I don't see this as any different. Certain laws are in place to protect us, not take away rights, they are there to protect us (or chidren in this case) from themselves.

Cigarettes and alcohol are not protected speech. That's exactly what we're fighting against: if this thing gets past the courts, video games become alcoholl and cigarettes under the law instead of protected speech.

[QUOTE=Rook34I'd like you to explain how you think it's o.k. then that they can buy violent games. I'm going to guess at your retort: 'It's parenting that is at fault and retailers.' [/quote]
Yes, that's it precisely. If we can't get the parents to listen up, we can get the retailers to. Write letters, start a petition to get gamestop and others to not sell M games to minors. Only byuy video games at places like best buy and wal mart that won't let minors buy M games; I have no problem with that. Just don't trample on the first ammendment to do so.

[Rook34]

Oh wait, you get medical journals? Are you a doctor? Because most people don't subscribe to legitimate academic journals unless it applies to their profession, since their price tends to be quite a bit higher than that of a magazine. Oh, and what exactly were these articles doing in medical journals? Shouldn't they be in psychology journals? It's not exactly the same thing. But I'm sure you knew that, right? And I'm sure these aren't the same half-assed articles that pop-up everytime Jack Thompson wants some ammo, right?

(No, but my brother is. And if you think you're so smart and want to try to say that the articles aren't in there then why don't you dig through the internet and prove me wrong.)

If I just wanted to be "cool" I would of went along with the popular opinion. Much like you seem to do.

(Unpopular opinion isn't always correct either. Any example of this I'd bring up would be changing the subject and you would call me on it to try to look intelligent.)



Good job trying to say that you are right and I am wrong without being TOO obvious. Too bad you continue to deviate from the topic without supplying any evidence. Where is my evidence? I don't need it, I'm not trying to steal rights from people for no good reason.

(How am I deviating from the topic? And as far as supplying evidence I don't need to. Ovverrall, built into every one of us, our moral fiber, is the sense of right and wrong, good and evil. If you feel it's o.k. to let your kids watch violent content, play violent games, look at 2 people fuck eachother, etc, then you go right ahead. Watch how fast the state will take away your kids so they can "experience life and be a healthy adult" somewhere else.

[Rook34]

(regarding prior post of mine... sorry, still learning this posting thing on this site. some of my topics were mixed in.)

[Rook34]

Cigarettes and alcohol are not protected speech. That's exactly what we're fighting against: if this thing gets past the courts, video games become alcoholl and cigarettes under the law instead of protected speech.


Yes, that's it precisely. If we can't get the parents to listen up, we can get the retailers to. Write letters, start a petition to get gamestop and others to not sell M games to minors. Only byuy video games at places like best buy and wal mart that won't let minors buy M games; I have no problem with that. Just don't trample on the first ammendment to do so.

You're right. But it's not censoring the game at all so how is this trampling the first amendment? It's only limiting who buys the game, which is fine. It would be a perfect world if retailers did what you asked. I wish it were that way.

[Heretic Machine]

(How am I deviating from the topic?

By attacking me instead of defending your attack on human rights.

And as far as supplying evidence I don't need to.

Then go fuck yourself and get out of the topic.

Ovverrall, built into every one of us, our moral fiber, is the sense of right and wrong, good and evil. If you feel it's o.k. to let your kids watch violent content, play violent games, look at 2 people fuck eachother, etc, then you go right ahead. Watch how fast the state will take away your kids so they can "experience life and be a healthy adult" somewhere else.

Thank you for finally outting yourself as a fascist. You aren't for allowing more control by parents to raise their kids the way they want, YOU are for forcing parents to raise kids the way YOU want. This bill is just one step along the path to your dream of a sanatized America. Now take your handful of posts, and your shill account, and get out of here.

EDIT:


You're right. But it's not censoring the game at all so how is this trampling the first amendment? It's only limiting who buys the game, which is fine.

I say that no one should be able to watch Fox News. I'm not saying they can't continue to air, I'm just saying that no one should be aloud to watch it.

That's not a violation of freedom of speech, right?

[lpmiller]

I am a dad, and it's my decision, alone. Not the states. Not at all. I can manage to keep my kids away from those influences in a reasonable manner. I'm not sure why some here, who are so busy flouting that they know more because they are parents, are pretty much saying they need the help.

You guys don't seem to get the law. It charges the kid. It doesnt' charge the retailer. It won't actually stop anything, but it might just increase piracy and theft. This is a feel good bill that doesn't, in fact, do anything productive.

[Rook34]

By attacking me instead of defending your attack on human rights.

You've done far more attacking than I.

Then go fuck yourself and get out of the topic.

Awww.. I made you mad... I'm absolutely horrified by what I've done.


Thank you for finally outting yourself as a fascist. You aren't for allowing more control by parents to raise their kids the way they want, YOU are for forcing parents to raise kids the way YOU want. This bill is just one step along the path to your dream of a sanatized America. Now take your handful of posts, and your shill account, and get out of here.

Making assumptions again? I guess you don't know what's right and wrong, good and evil as your response to mine indicates. All I said is that deep down we, as a uhman species know and this is how you respond? Nice.

EDIT:



I say that no one should be able to watch Fox News. I'm not saying they can't continue to air, I'm just saying that no one should be aloud to watch it.

That's not a violation of freedom of speech, right?

Stay on topic already and at least make an effort to keep it about games and this bill. Beisdes, we are talking about adult content vs. letting your kids watch it. Again, quite misconstruing my points and pulling crap out of context.

Ah forget it.

Tell ya what. I'll agree to disagree. I'm going to not post to you anymore because I think that you are incurable, wrong, and have nothing of importance to add. On top of that, it's like arguing with Woody Woodpecker.
Seriously, lets just stop this. We are both going to continue to call eachother names and no one wants to read this crap anymore. We've both offered our pints and defended them as we see fit.

Go ahead and flame me one more time out of fairness since I just did you, but don't repond to me anymore. I won't be reponding to you either.

[Heretic Machine]

You've done far more attacking than I.



Awww.. I made you mad... I'm absolutely horrified by what I've done.




Making assumptions again? I guess you don't know what's right and wrong, good and evil as your response to mine indicates. All I said is that deep down we, as a uhman species know and this is how you respond? Nice.



Stay on topic already and at least make an effort to keep it about games and this bill. Beisdes, we are talking about adult content vs. letting your kids watch it. Again, quite misconstruing my points and pulling crap out of context.

Ah forget it.

Tell ya what. I'll agree to disagree. I'm going to not post to you anymore because I think that you are incurable, wrong, and have nothing of importance to add. On top of that, it's like arguing with Woody Woodpecker.
Seriously, lets just stop this. We are both going to continue to call eachother names and no one wants to read this crap anymore. We've both offered our pints and defended them as we see fit.

Go ahead and flame me one more time out of fairness since I just did you, but don't repond to me anymore. I won't be reponding to you either.

Thanks, now don't come back, shill.

[Rook34]

I am a dad, and it's my decision, alone. Not the states. Not at all. I can manage to keep my kids away from those influences in a reasonable manner. I'm not sure why some here, who are so busy flouting that they know more because they are parents, are pretty much saying they need the help.

You guys don't seem to get the law. It charges the kid. It doesnt' charge the retailer. It won't actually stop anything, but it might just increase piracy and theft. This is a feel good bill that doesn't, in fact, do anything productive.

Good lord, you don't think I'm attacking you do you? *shakes head*

I'm not for government control over our parenting. There are some people who do need it though. That is what I'm saying. I'm not flaunting anything, only trying to offer a viewpoint to someone who may not have seen the other side of the coin. And my prior posts I said effectively the same thing. It's a good bill that wont possibly work because it will be impossible to enforce.

[Zechs01]

This is stupid as hell im glad i dont live in minnesota :D

[Kefkataran]

Is no-one on this fucking site capable of seeing both sides of any argument?

I'd like to think I am.

This is stupid as hell im glad i dont live in minnesota

And we're glad not to have ya, buddy.

[Zechs01]

Lol, like i was serious :rolleyes: , all i was sayin is that laws like that are hard to enforce they serve no real purpose if a kid wants something like that they will get it you can't stop them.

[nonchalance]

Lol, like i was serious :rolleyes: , all i was sayin is that laws like that are hard to enforce they serve no real purpose if a kid wants something like that they will get it you can't stop them.

That's a retarded argument.
If I want to break into the house next door I can, and you can't stop me.
What you can do is punish me for it afterwards, and hope that deters others from doing it.

I'm against this particular law - I think anything applied to video games should also be applied to movies, but I also think there's stuff children shouldn't generally be exposed to that adults should be allowed to buy.

[Zechs01]

You can buy anything off the internet, if you order a video game then there is no way for them to check everything that goes through the mail, or check every person who buys a video game, and how does what I said apply to someone breaking into someones house im talkin about an infraction not about a felony.

[Kefkataran]

Lol, like i was serious , all i was sayin is that laws like that are hard to enforce they serve no real purpose if a kid wants something like that they will get it you can't stop them.

Actually, I think you're right there.

What you can do is punish me for it afterwards, and hope that deters others from doing it.

I think he meant something more along the lines of -- if a kid REALLY wants a game rated M and his parents won't buy it, theoretically he could get any 18 year old to buy it and then give it to him. This law doesn't really cover things like that.

You can buy anything off the internet, if you order a video game then there is no way for them to check everything that goes through the mail, or check every person who buys a video game, and how does what I said apply to someone breaking into someones house im talkin about an infraction not about a felony.

Well, you're going to need a credit card to buy 99% of internet stuff, though. Good point, though.

[shnastybiznastic]

Won't somebody please think of the children!
I thought we were trying to stop child pornography...

[Mason]

Lol, like i was serious :rolleyes: , all i was sayin is that laws like that are hard to enforce they serve no real purpose if a kid wants something like that they will get it you can't stop them.
Both sides are wrong here; these laws aren't helping to protect kids, they're helping to protect game makers. Remember the litany of lawsuits following Columbine? Enforcing the ESRB codes serves to shield game companies from frivolous claims of liability when little Johnny Maladjusted decides to stabify his friends after playing a few rounds of Knifin' Around: The Game.

And unlike the film industry, game companies have relatively few friends in the media or DC, so like it or not, they're playing by different and harsher rules. Sorry, that's life. The disparity will diminish over time, as games are big business and that's the one thing to which our government consistently listens.

Honestly, any level of government validating the voluntary and industry-controlled ESRB system is a good thing for everyone. They usually just threaten to supplant it with a federal system.

[Kefkataran]

when little Johnny Maladjusted decides to stabify his friends after playing a few rounds of Knifin' Around: The Game.

Seriously, though, that's a game I'd buy.

Your post is dead on, Mason. Wish I could've worded it that way.

[OUX]

So basically they set up a law that if kids choose to can eat the cost on a $20 greastest hits title and pay closer to the original price with $45? Thats awesome I wish I was a kid again I can imagine the big release dates when me and my friends would play "EB roulette " (thats what we called it back then) and take turns buying the game to see if one of us got caught. *sigh* My imagined childhood did so much better than my real one.

[Sl1pstream]

It's not an added cost. They just pay the fine and lose the game.

[OUX]

.....Stop fucking with my childhood...;)

[Zechs01]

Well, you're going to need a credit card to buy 99% of internet stuff, though. Good point, though.
well you could go down to EBgames or GameStop and buy a giftcard which most giftcards you can use on the internet.

[bean19]

So basically they set up a law that if kids choose to can eat the cost on a $20 greastest hits title and pay closer to the original price with $45? Thats awesome I wish I was a kid again I can imagine the big release dates when me and my friends would play "EB roulette " (thats what we called it back then) and take turns buying the game to see if one of us got caught. *sigh* My imagined childhood did so much better than my real one.

No. Kids who are caught won't get to keep the adult-rated games. They'll just get the fine.

[bean19]

well you could go down to EBgames or GameStop and buy a giftcard which most giftcards you can use on the internet.

Then the kid has to somehow get the mail before his or her parents see it.

At some point, the parents do have to be responsible for supervising their children. Sure, put up roadblocks so that it isn't easy, but if a kid goes to this much trouble, I don't think any sane parent is going to say that the government or the retailer are at fault. They simply have a crafty, deceptive child.

[Zechs01]

Can you even buy AO rated games ive never seen one.

[Sl1pstream]

Wasn't San Andreas AO after the re-rating?

[Kefkataran]

Can you even buy AO rated games ive never seen one.

Yeah, they exist, it's just that most game retailers (especially big chains like Wal-Mart, Target, etc.) won't carry them. Don't think there's been many (any?) AO releases on console, but there definitely are some on PC if you dig around the dirty corners of the internets.

Wasn't San Andreas AO after the re-rating?

Yeah, but that got changed fast after they re-released the game with the "BAD STUFF!!" editted out.

[Rook34]

Both sides are wrong here; these laws aren't helping to protect kids, they're helping to protect game makers. Remember the litany of lawsuits following Columbine? Enforcing the ESRB codes serves to shield game companies from frivolous claims of liability when little Johnny Maladjusted decides to stabify his friends after playing a few rounds of Knifin' Around: The Game.

And unlike the film industry, game companies have relatively few friends in the media or DC, so like it or not, they're playing by different and harsher rules. Sorry, that's life. The disparity will diminish over time, as games are big business and that's the one thing to which our government consistently listens.

Honestly, any level of government validating the voluntary and industry-controlled ESRB system is a good thing for everyone. They usually just threaten to supplant it with a federal system.

This is the funniest post I've seen. So who would be the main character? It would have tp be a Ninja because that's what ninja's do all day: they fly, and sometimes they stab. (realultimatepower.com reference).

I still don't think this bill will do much, but it's a step. I'd rather have my favorite hobby controlled in a manner that doesn't take away from it, only minors (which most parents wont let them have adult content anyway so it really shouldn't matter to most). Why? Because then it truly does make it the responsibility of the parents and they wont have a bunch of Liebermans running around on a witch hunt.

[MadHiro]

This is the funniest post I've seen. So who would be the main character? It would have tp be a Ninja because that's what ninja's do all day: they fly, and sometimes they stab. (realultimatepower.com reference).

I still don't think this bill will do much, but it's a step. I'd rather have my favorite hobby controlled in a manner that doesn't take away from it, only minors (which most parents wont let them have adult content anyway so it really shouldn't matter to most). Why? Because then it truly does make it the responsibility of the parents and they wont have a bunch of Liebermans running around on a witch hunt.

If this bill is a step, it can only be a step in the wrong direction. Video Games are protected speech, and laws like this that seek to enforce governmental regulation of said speech is unconstituional. I believe you were the person who was harping on the fact that the constituionality of a law was only an "opinion", and that said opinions could change depending on the composition of the sitting Court at the time. While this is true, mercifully in many cases, the support of the First Amendment (outside of seditious speech) has been fairly consistent and has only granted broader protection as the past century has progressed.

If, heaven forfend, the law somehow passed judicial review, it wouldn't even protect you from the stupidity of the Libermans and the Clintons that run amok; they will simply find new avenues of attack, new things to harp at the industry about. It is important to remember that the last thing on their minds is actually combating "video game violence", but instead the increase of their standings in polls and public popularity. By finding a hot-button topic and pushing for all they're worth, they are engaging in the worst kind of politics. I can't see how this law can be defended as a shield against the actions of these charlatans, though my reasoning can best be supplied by the words of Benjamin Franklin, "Those who would give up Essential Liberty to purchase a little Temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety."

How am I deviating from the topic? And as far as supplying evidence I don't need to. Ovverrall, built into every one of us, our moral fiber, is the sense of right and wrong, good and evil. If you feel it's o.k. to let your kids watch violent content, play violent games, look at 2 people fuck eachother, etc, then you go right ahead. Watch how fast the state will take away your kids so they can "experience life and be a healthy adult" somewhere else.

Morality is hardly "built into us". It is inherited from the culture surrounding us, most strongly from the ones immediately surrounding us. It is hardly an omnipresent, unilateral concept that imposes some God-given gradient of right and wrong across actions. As a parent, you may think it is wrong for a fourteen year old boy to see a naked lady; my parents, for instance, did not. You might not want your children to play violent video games; my parents didn't have a problem with it. Trying to impose your personal views of morality on others robs them of their liberty; an action that the Constitution was created to prevent.

As a minor aside, I'm a little offended on behalf of my parents at the insults that appear to be leveling at the parenting skills of those whose beliefs differ from yours. My parents were fantastic, and I credit my success as a human being largely to their efforts at raising me.

[Kefkataran]

Holy shit. It's MadHiro... have you check your PM?

[Rook34]

If this bill is a step, it can only be a step in the wrong direction. Video Games are protected speech, and laws like this that seek to enforce governmental regulation of said speech is unconstituional. I believe you were the person who was harping on the fact that the constituionality of a law was only an "opinion", and that said opinions could change depending on the composition of the sitting Court at the time. While this is true, mercifully in many cases, the support of the First Amendment (outside of seditious speech) has been fairly consistent and has only granted broader protection as the past century has progressed.

If, heaven forfend, the law somehow passed judicial review, it wouldn't even protect you from the stupidity of the Libermans and the Clintons that run amok; they will simply find new avenues of attack, new things to harp at the industry about. It is important to remember that the last thing on their minds is actually combating "video game violence", but instead the increase of their standings in polls and public popularity. By finding a hot-button topic and pushing for all they're worth, they are engaging in the worst kind of politics. I can't see how this law can be defended as a shield against the actions of these charlatans, though my reasoning can best be supplied by the words of Benjamin Franklin, "Those who would give up Essential Liberty to purchase a little Temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety."



Morality is hardly "built into us". It is inherited from the culture surrounding us, most strongly from the ones immediately surrounding us. It is hardly an omnipresent, unilateral concept that imposes some God-given gradient of right and wrong across actions. As a parent, you may think it is wrong for a fourteen year old boy to see a naked lady; my parents, for instance, did not. You might not want your children to play violent video games; my parents didn't have a problem with it. Trying to impose your personal views of morality on others robs them of their liberty; an action that the Constitution was created to prevent.

As a minor aside, I'm a little offended on behalf of my parents at the insults that appear to be leveling at the parenting skills of those whose beliefs differ from yours. My parents were fantastic, and I credit my success as a human being largely to their efforts at raising me.

That's fine, good for you. I believe I said in one or maybe even a few of my posts that it depends on the child. (And if not, I meant to but was too busy being attacked and trying to defend my comments from being taken out of context.) Some are ready for that sort of thing, some are not. It's the opposite end of the spectrum, albeit the very end of the opposite end that I have a problem with. Why subject individuals to something that they may not be ready for, possibly forming malformed ideas from just for the sake of doing it? I would rather have them wait until they are old enough to make informed decisions and analyze a given issue from as many angles as possible. Again, in the end, that is your opinion and I am glad that you at least respectfully and tactfully responded, unlike others. My opinion differs and that is how I wish to parent and that's all there is to it. Your parents chose a different route that they felt worked for them and that's fine. You feel good about it too, cool. It was not my intention to call any names or insult others parenting skills. At this point, many of my posts on this thread have been so warped, taken out of context, etc. that nothing I say at this point really could get my point across, so even though we agree on some fronts, it will still be eschewed by others so I'm not going to try anymore.

I suppose so long as our kids don't grow up and kill people, lose themselves in addictions, and don't become a burden on society, well, then who cares how we got there. Not necessarily what I want to say, but who the fuck cares at this point anyway.

Being that I consider myself religious (although not necessarily belonging to any one doctrine or faith), I do believe that yes, we DO all possess right or wrong instincts but they can be pushed out by society. It is the opposite of what you think, but it's a matter of faith ad my faith doesn't require you to believe what I do so I'll consider that point moot.

I agree with you that politicians always have personal agendas and you can only trust them to stay their path so long as it is currently popular to do so. I just don't see the big stink about this bill. IMO, being that I plan to parent differently than your parents did it wont affect me or mine one bit.

So, to each their own.

Again, thanks for not attacking. Well, at least mostly..

[dojoteef]

Being that I consider myself religious (although not necessarily belonging to any one doctrine or faith), I do believe that yes, we DO all possess right or wrong instincts but they can be pushed out by society. It is the opposite of what you think, but it's a matter of faith ad my faith doesn't require you to believe what I do so I'll consider that point moot.
I have to say I am always annoyed when people make these faith based decisions without looking at science. Often times you can come up with a convincing argument that actually includes reasoning that explains the science in the light of your religious views. For example if you believe that a supreme power created the universe and you have some strict atheist that says it just happened in the big bang, a logical response is: "What caused the big bang? As far as science is concerned there is no definite answer to that question. You choose to believe the universe came into being from nothingness, I choose to believe a supreme being came into being from nothingness and caused the big bang. Until science can prove otherwise our beliefs are equally valid."

On that note, children definitely goes through stages of development and acquisition of morality. This has been shown through numerous studies. Psychologists main contention in this field is the exact stages of development, hence there are number of theories: Piaget's Theory, Kohlberg's Theory, Domain Theory, etc. To believe a specific morality is intrinsic to the nature of humans is close-minded to say the least. In fact you could just look at the morality of different cultures to see morality could not be intrinsically dictated.

[nonchalance]

On that note, children definitely goes through stages of development and acquisition of morality. This has been shown through numerous studies.

This might be nitpicking, but many psychologists don't believe in stages, and rather in a continual development. Vygotsky or the behaviourists would be good examples.

Also, there ARE elements of morality that are part of all cultures. Theft is always bad, murder is always bad, adultery is usually bad, and so on. Of course, pornography is one of the things that varies, as is the age at which children are exposed to alcohol and other "adult" things.

[Kefkataran]

Theft is always bad, murder is always bad, adultery is usually bad, and so on. Of course, pornography is one of the things that varies, as is the age at which children are exposed to alcohol and other "adult" things.

Careful when you say "all" cultures. "Most" maybe, but there's not much of anything that translates across ALL cultures everywhere at all times.

[nonchalance]

Careful when you say "all" cultures. "Most" maybe, but there's not much of anything that translates across ALL cultures everywhere at all times.

There could be exceptions, this is true.
But I'm unaware of any culture that considers theft from those within the culture as bad. (edit:read "good". Damn.)
Ditto murder.

I'd certainly be interested in contradictions, though.

[Kefkataran]

There could be exceptions, this is true.
But I'm unaware of any culture that considers theft from those within the culture as bad.
Ditto murder.

I'd certainly be interested in contradictions, though.

I'm assuming you meant "any culture that considers theft from those within the culture as good". I don't know of any specific examples off the top of my head either but it seems like that there's probably some cultures that praise self-defense and glory and even battle as much as to applaud fighting and killing others. I'm obviously talking barbaric levels of society here, but still.

[Rook34]

I have to say I am always annoyed when people make these faith based decisions without looking at science. Often times you can come up with a convincing argument that actually includes reasoning that explains the science in the light of your religious views. For example if you believe that a supreme power created the universe and you have some strict atheist that says it just happened in the big bang, a logical response is: "What caused the big bang? As far as science is concerned there is no definite answer to that question. You choose to believe the universe came into being from nothingness, I choose to believe a supreme being came into being from nothingness and caused the big bang. Until science can prove otherwise our beliefs are equally valid."

I'm not going to explain what I believe and what I don't. I'll simply suffice to say that I attempt to come to terms and decisions with things in as best an equal light as possible. Science and religion can exist hand in hand but depending on opinions and the fact that none of us for sure know any of the big mysteries, (i.e what happens when we die, how did the universe come to being, etc.), certain viewpoints will invariably be different from person to person. Ah variety, it is the spice of life. So I agree with you on your points.

On that note, children definitely goes through stages of development and acquisition of morality. This has been shown through numerous studies. Psychologists main contention in this field is the exact stages of development, hence there are number of theories: Piaget's Theory, Kohlberg's Theory, Domain Theory, etc. To believe a specific morality is intrinsic to the nature of humans is close-minded to say the least. In fact you could just look at the morality of different cultures to see morality could not be intrinsically dictated.

It's your opinion I'm close minded, then fine. I think there is only so much we can analyze with what we see and not everything can be seen. I suppose it's the same as having 'faith', or 'hope' . Neither can be measured or seen, but the results from either can change everything. You have your opinion and I have mine and that is that.

[Zechs01]

I dont think religion has anything to do with video games, but i could be wrong.

[Rook34]

I dont think religion has anything to do with video games, but i could be wrong.

Again, you are right. Unless you're playing games like Legacy of Kain. :) Where it's on the forefront later in the series. Ah, good games those.

Strangely though, this is not a typical thread and it seems anything goes here. I did not originally expect to go into as much detail as I did about things.

[Johan]

I can't believe this thread is still alive...and the zigs/zags (uh...not the wrapping paper) it's taken since I left it what seemed like a lifetime ago. I still say it's inevitable that one of these laws limiting game sales will eventually survive judicial review...whether you agree with such a law or not, in our litigious society, everything ends up in the courts, and all you need is a majority of either a conservative or liberal court to get what effectively becomes judicial legislation, rather than interpretation. Courts seem to be 'passing laws' more often than ruling on their constitutionality nowadays. A conservative court might support such a law limiting game sales involving minors, in the same way that a liberal court in MA legislated gay marriage (another contentious issue, yes....but an example of how courts can change things by a simple majority...the tyranny of five, you could call it, if the Supreme Court either supports or rejects any given law, and those on the opposite side resent five people ruling for millions, understandably).

[Zechs01]

The way i see it, is that its the parents and the childs decision not the governments, also if someone is screwed up enough to believe that videogames are real their parents should of done something and the videogame companies should'nt be liable.

[Shifteh]

Max 25 bucks? Wouldn't it be more worthwhile to just do it anyway and take the occasional fine?

[Kefkataran]

Wouldn't it be more worthwhile to just do it anyway and take the occasional fine?

That's 25 bucks to the person selling the game, not the store. Sure that'd work fine for big chains, but for the clerk behind the counter?

[Rook34]

I think we all know it won't last long and it will be impossible to enforce. Local police wont waste their time.

[Kefkataran]

I think we all know it won't last long and it will be impossible to enforce. Local police wont waste their time.

Maybe not local police in the Twin Cities, but the smaller town you go to, the more desperate police are to find anything to waste their time on. Trust me.