Illinois Lawmakers Vote to Ban Sale of Violent Videogames to Minors

[WastelandDan]

Ill. Lawmakers Vote to Ban Sale of Violent Videogames to Minors (http://www.nbcsandiego.com/entertainment/4544769/detail.html)

Illinois lawmakers have voted to ban the sale of violent or sexually explicit video games to minors. The measure still must be signed by the state's governor, who said the bill will make it easier for parents to protect children from "harmful influences."

Not the newest story, but still noteworthy. See you on the flip side 1st amendment.

[Evil Avatar]

See you on the flip side 1st amendment.

The 1st Amendment was never designed to allow you to sell pornography to children. No one is saying that you can't sell video games, just that you can't sell a mature rated product to someone under 17, the same kind of rules we have for adult magazines and films.

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.Which part of the first amendment do you feel has been violated here?

I don't really agree with this decision, since I hardly place video game violence into the same category as an adult film or even a "R" rated movie, but who here who has played Grand Theft Auto San Andreas thinks that someone under age 17 should be playing it or buying it? Or do you let your children say "Motherfucker" at the dinner table?

[SteveRage]

Welcome to America, relieving parents of thier responsibilty to raise thier own children for over 25 yrs.


Edit:
It all comes down to accountability. Worse case scenario; some high school kid working at Gamestop sells a mature rated game to an underage kid (who happens to be a psychopath), said kid goes on a killing spree, the media finds he owned an M rated game (which must have caused him to go nuts, not his parents-never the parents) and Gamestop gets sued. Gamestops lawyers reccomend pulling all M rated games from it's shelves and you and I get to play PG 13 games forever because lil Johnny had shitty parents. Now that's extreme, I grant you- but why are the parents never held accountable? Why do we have to legislate more and more to let parents off the hook?

[Zanzibar]

Political grandstanding. Nothing more.

Who can argue with the basic premise that M-rated games shouldn't be in the hands of minors?

[Snowmit]

Welcome to America, relieving parents of thier responsibilty to raise thier own children for over 25 yrs.

Err no. If *I* want to give my child copies of GTA, I can - that's my choice. What this does is prevent store clerks from making that decision on my behalf.

Besides, stealing looks at porn magazines and sneaking into R-rated movies is practically part of the landscape of American tradition. Now videogames get the same guerilla marketing!

Mark my words, in 10 years some famous writer will be nostalgically remembering the time that their friend stole his older brother's copy of GTA 6 and they furtively played it at a sleepover and how it changed their lives.

[AbeLincoln]

Again it's not the bill I have problem with, I agree with Evil that restricitng video game sales to minors doesn't violate the 1st amendment any more than restricting the sale of porn to minors. I disagree with how and why the bill was debated and passed. The arguments that video games aren't art, just "simulators" and therefore don't have ANY protection from the first amendment is what I don't like in this whole thing.

[bradlay]

Err no. If *I* want to give my child copies of GTA, I can - that's my choice. What this does is prevent store clerks from making that decision on my behalf.

And cooler heads prevail. Huzzah for the cooler heads.

[splatstick]

I wouldn't complain that much. It's not like cigarettes and R-rated movies are hard for minors to obtain nowadays, I honestly doubt videogames will be any different.

[bradlay]

Again it's not the bill I have problem with, I agree with Evil that restricitng video game sales to minors doesn't violate the 1st amendment any more than restricting the sale of porn to minors. I disagree with how and why the bill was debated and passed. The arguments that video games aren't art, just "simulators" and therefore don't have ANY protection from the first amendment is what I don't like in this whole thing.

It's the Illinois state senate, not the Supreme Court. Don't sweat it.

[AbeLincoln]

It's the Illinois state senate, not the Supreme Court. Don't sweat it.
Oh I'm not sweating a judical review. I'm just trying to say, good concept, bad execution.

[camberiu]

Err no. If *I* want to give my child copies of GTA, I can - that's my choice. What this does is prevent store clerks from making that decision on my behalf.

Since you are at it, why not ban the sale candy and fatty food to minors? How about having the VCHIP on TVs enabled by default? Why not prevent kids from borrowing books in the library without the parent being there? Why not prevent anyone from making ANY decision about your kid on your behalf. We might as well start banning the sale of the Bible to minors, since I and many people find that book more harmful than any GTA game could possibly be. I certainly do not want any bookstore clerk making "religious decisions" for my kids.

If your kid buys something that you do not want him to have, that should be YOUR PROBLEM, not the tax payer's problem, not society's problem. It should not be MY responsabilty as a tax payer to be penalized with more laws and more enforcement costs due tot the fact that you can't raise your kid right. If you were worth a damn as a parent, you would tell your kid that he cannot buy GTA, and that would be the end of it. The problem is that people are lousy parents, so they want the tax payers to foot the bill for their incompetence in raising kids.

[ChunderMan]

The problem with this law is not selling "M" rated games to minors. I'm all for that. The problem is that the law does not mention anything about "M" rated games. It simply states that sexually explicit or violent games should not be sold to minors. It should not be up to the retailer to decide what is too sexually explicit or violent. Sure, usually "M" rated games are going to fit into that category. But I know of a few "T" games that would fit there as well. Plus, along with "god fearing" parents freaking out over nothing, this is going to be a major problem.

[camberiu]

MY GOD!!!! Please someone, ANYONE tell me WHERE IN THE FREAKING Constitution does it say that it is the government's job to keep porn, alcohol and mature games out of the hand of kids. Nowhere? Do you know Why? Because this is a FAMILY issue and should be dealt only by families. It is the PARENT's job to keep their kids away from smut, heavy metal, sex, big macs of whatever the hell you don't want your kid to have. Do you know why the government has this role now? Because people are LAZY. Because people are crappy parents. Because we have grown adults who can't manage their own lives, much less the live of their kids. So they loot the tax payers, but passing stupid laws like this that shift the responsabilities from the parents to the state. So they can keep watching TV and getting fat knowing that some burecrat out there somewhere is looking after their kid for them.

[Evil Avatar]

MY GOD!!!! Please someone, ANYONE tell me WHERE IN THE FREAKING Constitution does it say that it is the government's job to keep porn, alcohol and mature games out of the hand of kids. Nowhere? Do you know Why?

I know why. Because when the Constitution was written the people who wrote it couldn't envision things like mass market alcohol, DVD and magazines devoted to porn or even video games. Don't wrap yourself in the Constitution and pretend that it is a shield, it was designed to protect our rights, not shield people from the progression of technology or the changes in society and the media.

Government for the people and by the people sometimes means that they have to step in and do what is right. If you don't agree with their decisions, then you have a voice in that government and you can work to prevent those decisions or change them once they are made.

But, don't act like keeping porn and violence out of the hands of children is a bad thing. It isn't.

[splatstick]

Porn and alcohol are new inventions?

[AbeLincoln]

Just for everyone's sake you can check the full text of the bill here. (http://www.ilga.gov/legislation/BillStatus.asp?DocNum=4023&GAID=8&DocTypeID=HB&LegId=20889&SessionID=50&GA=94)

ChunderMan this is from the bill
"Senate Floor Amendment No. 3
Provides that it is an affirmative defense to selling or renting a sexually explicit or violent video game to a minor that the video game sold or rented was pre-packaged and rated EC, E10+, E, or T by the Entertainment Software Ratings Board."

I'll be the first to admit I don't know exactly what that means but from the absence of the M rating it looks like they're saying it's ok for merchants to use the ESRB as a guide and sell EC-T to minors.

Also, amen Evil, society does have the right to protect itself however it wants in addition to, but not in contradiction with, the constitution, weather we agree with it or not.

[camberiu]

I know why. Because when the Constitution was written the people who wrote it couldn't envision things like mass market alcohol, DVD and magazines devoted to porn or even video games.


Funny, in those days they DID have prostitution, gambling, alcohol and tabacco. pagan rituals and so forth. Do you see ANYWHERE on the Constitution that it was the government's job to keep any kid away from those things? It was a private matter. Again, if your purpuse is for the government to keep bad things away from kids, why stop and mature games and porn? Why not comics (they are violent), why not ban Thor, since he teaches our kids to "worship pagan gods"? Why not ban toy guns, maniature tanks, etc... Since we are protecting kids from violence, any US Army ad that is displayed on a show watched by minors should be a felony. I WANT THE SECRETARY OF DEFENSE IN JAIL RIGHT NOW FOR EXPOSING KIDS TO VIOLENCE!!! Fuck, let's ban EVERYTHING. Since the key to happiness and utopia is to simply ban shit, let's ban it. We have crime and violence simply because we don't ban enough shit. We all know how safe and peaceful South Central was before the arrival of video games. The statistics that say that youth crime is on a all time low are all lies. Games cause youth violence, it is in the bible people!!!!


There should be NO ONE who can decide what my kid should have access to or not BUT ME. No one else should have any say (either yes or no) on what my kid should or should not be able to purchase, or watch, or see.

If you trust your kid to the state, you might as well trust everything else. Why do we need free enterprise after all? If the government can look out for our kids, fuck, they can look out for everything. Let's all be communists. All hail the new Nanny state USA!!!!

Land Of Brave, home of the free....what a bunch of hog wash.

[Heretic Machine]

If you can't monitor your own kids gaming habits, then you phail at parenting. Whether or not he buys a game should be irrelevant, as he should be in YOUR home while he's playing it, where YOU should know about it.

But on a side note, violent video games have no effect on children. Sheltering them from the outside world, however, does.

[bradlay]

MY GOD!!!! Please someone, ANYONE tell me WHERE IN THE FREAKING Constitution does it say that it is the government's job to keep porn, alcohol and mature games out of the hand of kids.

Well, aside from the constitution we do have a number of set laws. These laws are passed by government bodies that attempt to write them based on social standards, and of course, what they sometimes wish to be social standards. Relax. Your copy of The Guy Game is in the mail.

If you trust your kid to the state, you might as well trust everything else. Why do we need free enterprise after all? If the government can look out for our kids, fuck, they can look out for everything. Let's all be communists. All hail the new Nanny state USA!!!!

Land Of Brave, home of the free....what a bunch of hog wash.

Why not get more upset about the billions of dollars wasted every year on a pointless drug war? This is just a state government adopting into law the standards the game industry SET FOR ITSELF. This is not George Orwell we're talking about.

[splatstick]

Heyyyy now, everyone. Arguing about politics doesn't make friends. Arguing about new systems and calling everyone a "fanboy asstwat" does. Can't we just get back to that?

On a side note, it's sort of hard to get pissed at the legislators we elect. They're looking out for their best interests, i.e. popular opinon so they'll be re-elected. If everyone else in the world wanted anarchy, they'd be all for it. Blame the soccer moms who drive five under the speed limit on the highway, blame the old people who haven't played a videogame ever but they heard 'news stories' that these horrid things make the kiddies kill each other, and blame your ignorant ass friends for not voting. If this offends you so much, write a letter to your representative. Believe it or not, they'll probably read it. There's studies that show each letter they receive represents a certain amount of people that didn't write yet have the same opinion. Bitching on a message board isn't going to do anything but piss everyone off.

[camberiu]

Why not get more upset about the billions of dollars wasted every year on a pointless drug war?


Who says I am not?


This is just a state government adopting into law the standards the game industry SET FOR ITSELF. This is not George Orwell we're talking about.

I strongly suggest you read The Road To Serfdom (http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0226320618/qid=1117670643/sr=8-1/ref=sr_8_xs_ap_i1_xgl14/102-6345197-0432920?v=glance&s=books&n=507846) by the economist Nobel prize winner F.A. Hayek. He makes a very compelling case against these "innocent laws" to protect the "common good".

[bradlay]

A state legislature is pretty much a worthless institution. With the exception of California, all state budgets are set in stone, with maybe 1-2% left for the legislature to fuck around with. The rest of the time they introduce bills that look good to their constituents on a headline or 15 second TV news blurb. That's where this bill came from and it would most likely die under any sort of real scrutiny. If you're so upset about it do something. But seeing as my pot dealer moved away two years ago and I still haven't replaced him I'd appreciate it if they ended the drug war first. Kthx.

[outontheporch]

i think it makes sense not to allow a 13 year old to buy the playboy video game...

[if76]

According to cnn.com this bill lets stores deem what is appropriate for kids under 18. I imagine most stores won't set the standards very high unless they want their employees fined.

[if76]

i think it makes sense not to allow a 13 year old to buy the playboy video game...

Does it? What about Victorian art? A lot of boobies in those paintings.

[RMan]

There should be NO ONE who can decide what my kid should have access to or not BUT ME. No one else should have any say (either yes or no) on what my kid should or should not be able to purchase, or watch, or see.
This is just silly. Look, as stated before, a child's access to ANYTHING is not being restricted, it’s just being filtered through their parents (at least that is the effort). It’s just another place where we draw the line between what should be acceptable for a child to judge, and what is not. For instance, almost everyone would agree that putting cigarette machines in school lunchrooms would be bad, but your argument implies that this should be allowed, because children should make these types of decisions on their own. Thankfully, few parents think the way you do and the laws reflect this.

As far as the constitution is concerned, I think it’s a generally brilliant document and well designed, but the idea that it was timeless and perfect from the beginning is highly naive. After all, we have the bill of rights as well as all the other amendments, which were adopted because things needed change or clarification. The constitution serves us, not the other way around, and when change is needed to adopt then it should be made, period. Of course, making those changes is where it gets really tough, but that’s another matter.

[LilAbner]

See you on the flip side 1st amendment.

What an idiotic comment. I can still buy violent video games, even in Illinois.

[WastelandDan]

I view it as a breach of the first amendment in the sense that the first amendment not only protects the right to freedom of speech, the ability to print and say something without being censored by the government for personal and political reasons, but also the freedom of content. I mean, what exactly can be considered "adult", and therefore inappropriate content? It's very, very few games that have any nudity at all and violent/adult language, which would appear for example in a game such as GTA3, is something that occurs everywhere. It's no longer something that can be considered gratuitous.

I agree that young children shouldn't be purposefully exposed to certain things, but this law does nothing but take away responsibility from the parents. Don't want your kids playing GTA or Escape from Butcher Bay? Then pay more attention to what they're doing. It's the responsibility of the parents, not the game sellers. It's not like they're selling guns or hardcore porn, they're selling videogames.

[mister_slim]

Well, aside from the constitution we do have a number of set laws. These laws are passed by government bodies that attempt to write them based on social standards, and of course, what they sometimes wish to be social standards. Relax. Your copy of The Guy Game is in the mail.
Actually, I think The Guy Game was pulled off shelves, because one of the girls was underage.
Does it? What about Victorian art? A lot of boobies in those paintings.
I have been swayed by your gross oversimplification. Obviously you are correct.

[bradlay]

Actually, I think The Guy Game was pulled off shelves, because one of the girls was underage.

HOW DARE THEY! If underage girls want to shake their rumps what kind of psycho facist is gonna tell 'em they can't! If I want to tape said rump shaking then that's MY BUSINESS. If Uncle Sam doesn't like underage girls he can go back to commie russia!

/sarcasm :p

[Heretic Machine]

HOW DARE THEY! If underage girls want to shake their rumps what kind of psycho facist is gonna tell 'em they can't! If I want to tape said rump shaking then that's MY BUSINESS. If Uncle Sam doesn't like underage girls he can go back to commie russia!

Maybe dumbass girls should stop getting completly fucking wasted in an ocean of horny men, thus allowing theirselves to be taken advantage of. I'm so sick of people acting like those stupid sluts are victims, if they feel bad after their parents see them naked when the latest Girls Gone Wild tape comes out, then maybe they'll know better than to do it next time.

[splatstick]

Not to get off topic, but GGW WAS busted for handing out X and other party drugs to encourage girls to play along, which doesn't make them innocent by any stretch of the word.
Also, according to your logic gross sexual impostion is okay because the girl should have know better than to get drunk in the first place...

EDIT: What was this topic about again?

[Heretic Machine]

Also, according to your logic gross sexual impostion is okay because the girl should have know better than to get drunk in the first place...

Yup, that's basically the idea. Don't get so drunk that you're easily manipulated when you're around a bunch of horny men you don't know. I'm sorry, I shouldn't assume people have common sence.

[splatstick]

There's no c in sense, and it's a two way deal. Yes, the girls should have known better, but that doesn't make the people who are taking advantage of them better people.
For the record, I see no problem in talking drunk girls into making out with each other. That is a service to all humanity.

[bradlay]

Yup, that's basically the idea. Don't get so drunk that you're easily manipulated when you're around a bunch of horny men you don't know. I'm sorry, I shouldn't assume people have common sence.

AND WHAT'S THE DEAL WITH ALL THESE LAWS AGAINST UNDERAGE DRINKING!

[Heretic Machine]

but that doesn't make the people who are taking advantage of them better people.

Being a bad person, and being responsible for someone else's mistakes are two entirely seperate things.

[splatstick]

When was the last time you had to worry about having naked pictures taken of you when you drank? Or raped, etc. etc.?
This is absolutely insane. This is like using the logic "She shouldn't have dressed like that, she was asking for it."
Anyways, I digress. The topic is VIDEO GAMES.

[Heretic Machine]

When was the last time you had to worry about having naked pictures taken of you when you drank? Or raped, etc. etc.?
This is absolutely insane. This is like using the logic "She shouldn't have dressed like that, she was asking for it."
Anyways, I digress. The topic is VIDEO GAMES.

Ya, it sucks that I can't run a one-person KKK rally through Harlem too, life isn't fair sometimes.

[GrinR]

BANG! No more violence in Illinois!

[splatstick]

Yes, you're right. People should be able to kill other people for expressing their personal opinions regardless of how ignorant. People should also be able to take pictures of underage girls because their parents should have known better than to let her go out unsupervised.
Responsibilty of the individual is a good thing, and we need it. But it doesn't work in this case. Bad idea for her, but the only thing you could say she "deserved" was a night in the drunk tank at the local police station. That's all getting drunk really warrants, not public humiliation.

[splatstick]

BANG! No more violence in Illinois!
Oh, yeah. So, um, is this any different than not letting kids into R-rated movies at theaters, or what?
Seems sort of logical.

[Heretic Machine]

That's all getting drunk really warrants, not public humiliation.

Why not? If you get so drunk that you can't control yourself you've officially crossed the line of partier, into the realms of a risk to yourself and others. Once you're that wasted, you might just hop behind the wheel of a car and kill someone without even thinking. You might fall off a balcony, or drown out in shallow water (as many people have in such Spring Break shin-digs). If you're so fucking stupid as to let yourself get into a condition where these things not only can, but have a relativley likely chance of happening to you, then it's your own damn fault.

Ya, if someone rapes you they should get punished. But if you start willingly taking off your clothes for the camera, that's your responsibility and your problem. It's all about what -you- are willing to do. Rape is forced on a person, stripping is not.

[splatstick]

Shit, I thought you said stripping was hot and I was about to say at least we agree on something.
If you get fucked up enough to do something ON YOUR OWN ACCORD then you are at fault. When people exploit this and try to CAUSE you to do something when you're intoxicated (a condition that you cannot make legally binding agreements in, etc.) it's a whole different ballgame. Look, we're off topic as shit, we're not going to convince each other and we're boring everyone to death by talking about lame shit.
You think you're right, I think I'm right, I can live with that. If you really want to keep going with this, we can do it in another place (i.e. AIM). Deal?

[Heretic Machine]

But it's not off topic. This topic about personal responsibility, and how we're slowly loseing it.

[splatstick]

I agree with personal responsibility in the sense that this outraged me: A man bought a new RV, went driving on the expressway, and walked to the back to make a cup of coffee. His car went off the road, and he successfully sued for a shitload of money because the RV's manual did not say it didn't have an autopilot. That sort of shit is out of control.
I agree that videogames do not lead to violence, and it is ridiculous to think so.
But what you're missing about the whole thing (GGW included) is that these are MINORS. Minors don't have the same constitutional protection we enjoy, and in most cases are not held to have the same personal responsibility. For example, a girl has never drank before (as she is 16) and has no idea what she can handle. She drinks excessively simply because she doesn't know it takes time for the alcohol to reach your system, and the whole time 20-something frat-boys keep shoving drinks at her. Welcome to college. See something wrong with this picture?

[Evil Avatar]

For example, a girl has never drank before (as she is 16) and has no idea what she can handle. She drinks excessively simply because she doesn't know it takes time for the alcohol to reach your system, and the whole time 20-something frat-boys keep shoving drinks at her. Welcome to college. See something wrong with this picture?

I take it you are upset because you weren't invited to the party. Don't worry, it happens to gaming geeks all the time. Just buy the Xbox 360 and those frat boys will want to be over at your dorm playing Madden 2006 every night. ;)

[splatstick]

Hah, actually I can't walk into frat houses because hearing Dave Matthews Band makes me burst into flames. No joke.

[ReaverX]

I don't have a problem with the thinking behind this ban, believe me I don't think under-age children should be playing mature rated titles. What I DO have a problem with however, is that some stores (to avoid the consequences of such a ban) will simply stop selling mature rated titles all together. It happend before (http://wired-vig.wired.com/news/business/0,1367,38651,00.html) (Sears and Wards) and will most certainly happen again, it's just a matter of time.

[Heretic Machine]

Here is the problem: M rated games =/= R rated movies. If anything, most M rated games might be a PG-13 sort of thing. Now sure, an eight year old doesn't really need to be playing GTA. But if you're thirteen or fourteen, what's the problem? I played the original GTA back when I was twelve, and I didn't kill anybody.

[Lint of Death]

For a moment I thought you meant that you didn't kill anybody in the game. I was thinking, "Did you just grab an empty car and drive around?"

[AbeLincoln]

My whole support for this comes from the idea that it'll satisfy politicans the media, and soccer moms, and if anything put more responsibility on the parents. Maybe times have changed, and there always are special cases, but when I was 12 I didn't ever have $50 of my own to spend, so it's not like this changes much. What it would do if actually implemented correctly is point the finger from the "irresponsible" games industry to the irresponsible parents or friend's parents or uncle or whoever purchased the game and let the unbalanced little dude play it before he shot up his school. It's wishfull thinking but I'm trying to look on the bright side.

[splatstick]

So the problem isn't the law, it's the rating system? I can sort of see that. The dreaded AO rating is like the NC-17... theaters are scared to show them, so they get a limited release...
Why can't videogames just use the more familiar movie ratings? I think most people would be a lot more comfortable with it.

[Hg-203]

I’ve got to agree I think that this is very equitable to underage drinking. It isn’t a law that underage kids can’t play these games; it just says they can’t buy them. This does nothing more then help parents with their families. If a kid really want to pick up Halo 2, seeing how it’s an M game, and said kid’s parents felt that while killing things isn’t bad, but something sex based i.e. playboy’s sim game would be bad, the parent could go with the kid to buy Halo 2. I also agree with ReaverX’s fear of retail stores not carrying a game because it won’t sell enough units to be profitable, if Wal-Mart decides not to stock any M games then it really puts publishers in a rock and a hard place because if one of the major retailers wont stock it, it wont sell enough units to justify development.

[SMES]

Im not reading this whole thread, but the begining was like "why not prohibit this and that while yer at it???"

Anywho, so I just wanted to point out that I think technically it's illegal to sell anything to a minor because minors are not usually allowed to enter into binding contracts, and a sale is a binding contract of sorts isn't it? I'm a bit rusty on my comercial laws.

[MattSaettler]

Oh, yeah. So, um, is this any different than not letting kids into R-rated movies at theaters, or what?
Seems sort of logical.

Because there is no LAW banning minors from seeing R-rated movies.

This makes a BIG difference.

[Heretic Machine]

It isn’t a law that underage kids can’t play these games; it just says they can’t buy them.

I don't know how it is in othere states, but here it is illegal for a minor to purchase, possess, or consume alchohol. It doesn't matter if their parents hand it to them, it's illegal.

Smoking is different, however, minors just can't buy cigerettes.

[RMan]

Because there is no LAW banning minors from seeing R-rated movies.
This makes a BIG difference.
Not sure if there is no law, but all the theaters I've been to don't let minors in to see R-rated movies, so if what you say is true then the only difference is that theaters are more responsible and didn't need a law imposed on them. Law or not, the result is the same, so the difference of which you speak could hardly be called big.

[TrackZero]

I don't really agree with this decision, since I hardly place video game violence into the same category as an adult film or even a "R" rated movie, but who here who has played Grand Theft Auto San Andreas thinks that someone under age 17 should be playing it or buying it? Or do you let your children say "Motherfucker" at the dinner table?

I'd say kids 14 and up can handle the GTA level of violence and interpret it in context. (I'm only refering to GTA here, not "violent" games in general.) In my experience, I would say anywhere from 13-15 is really where kids can handle lots of bloody violence as entertainment without supervision.

But as always, parents are in charge of their kid until they're 18, so it's ALWAYS their responsibility, not the kids themselves, or the media. Though this legisation is the same mentality that once had the clerk at the video store call my mom when I was 14 and trying to rent that Wayans brothers comedy "Don't Be a Menace to South Central While Drinking Your Juice in the Hood", since it was rated R. Which, for lack of a better term, was just retarded. (Note: When I got the video home and showed my mom what it was, she also agreed that the clerk was retarded.)

The problem is that the rating system will start giving harsher ratings on games as the stereotypical bible-thumping parents complain that their Billy (age 16) brought home Halo 2 from EB Games. It only takes a few screwballs to ruin it for the rest of us. Which is why I'd rather leave the ratings system un-enforced and let parents raise their own damn kids.

[TrackZero]

I don't know how it is in othere states, but here it is illegal for a minor to purchase, possess, or consume alchohol. It doesn't matter if their parents hand it to them, it's illegal.

Smoking is different, however, minors just can't buy cigerettes.

Shitty, in Canada you can drink or smoke, etc, as long as you're on your own property. You just can't go purchase said items while underage.

[RMan]

The problem is that the rating system will start giving harsher ratings on games as the stereotypical bible-thumping parents complain that their Billy (age 16) brought home Halo 2 from EB Games. It only takes a few screwballs to ruin it for the rest of us. Which is why I'd rather leave the ratings system un-enforced and let parents raise their own damn kids.
Interesting, so are you suggesting that Halo 2 will get a harsher rating than it's current MA 17+ (You realize an age restriction of 18 would be meaningless since they’d be an adult). If the person is 16, and their parents do not want them to have it, then they shouldn’t have it. If it worked correctly, and parents had to buy/approve the games that are rated too high for their children, then that makes more active and aware parents.

If you mean even more games will get a mature rating, I’m sure that will eventually happen since video game violence is clearly more harmful than movie violence (or this should be clear), but it still doesn’t change the fact that it’s promoting active parenting rather than the hands-off approach we have now.

[Varsity]

Err no. If *I* want to give my child copies of GTA, I can - that's my choice. What this does is prevent store clerks from making that decision on my behalf.
This is exactly what laws are about, you see: to protect the innocent from the irresponsible, and sometimes the irresponsible from themselves.

[WastelandDan]

This is exactly what laws are about, you see: to protect the innocent from the irresponsible, and sometimes the irresponsible from themselves.

Having this law in place won't make any parents or guardians less irresponsible. All it does is serve to pass the buck. Irresponsible parents will now say "it's not my fault, the game store shouldn't have sold it to them" should a problem arise from the kid playing a mature rated game. This isn't a problem that needs to be solved with a law. A rating system was already in place for the games so it's not as if there was no effort being made, but to make it a punishable crime to sell a videogame to a minor is ridiculous. It's not booze, it's not cigarettes, it's not firearms, it's electronic entertainment. Playing a violent videogame or watching a violent movie will not make a child violent unless there's been a distinct lack of fundamental education on the parental level. If you instill in your kids even some basic rules, don't swear, don't pop a cap in Jimmy, then it just shouldn't be an issue.

The sole purpose of this law is to appease the overanxious Dr. Phil watching innately irresponsible parents and at the same time make the politicians approving it look good for the media in the process. Videogames are the new multimedia villain, and this just feeds into that viewpoint.

[TrackZero]

If you mean even more games will get a mature rating, I’m sure that will eventually happen since video game violence is clearly more harmful than movie violence (or this should be clear), but it still doesn’t change the fact that it’s promoting active parenting rather than the hands-off approach we have now.

Clearly more harmful than movie violence? What in the world are you talking about? Columbine? Dude, that was a bunch of fucked up kids with parents who didn't do their job, they didn't need the media to go where they went.

[Heretic Machine]

Clearly more harmful than movie violence? What in the world are you talking about? Columbine? Dude, that was a bunch of fucked up kids with parents who didn't do their job, they didn't need the media to go where they went.

They also put a bunch of preppy bullies in their place. You screw with the wrong people long enough, bad things happen, that's how the world works.

[Varsity]

Having this law in place won't make any parents or guardians less irresponsible. All it does is serve to pass the buck.
I value real events (such as a game not being sold to minors) over any accusations people might make. It's all very well taking the moral high ground, but it only goes so far before reality starts to diverge from it.

[Furious Wang]

Yeah. The "simulator" argument is a slippery slope. But aside from that I have no problem with banning of sales to minors. Clearly the retail industry cannot police itself when money is involved.

Video Games are more harmful to children (and many adults) than violent movies. You can't possibly argue that a game that actually *lets you make the decision* to kill someone/something doesn't have more of an impact than the simple depiction of said act on a screen.

Just as movies are worse than a single picture, video games are worse than movies.

Anyway, I imagine the majority of people who have problems with the intent behind this ruling are either libertarians whose opinion is not worth considering, minors themselves, or young adults with no children of their own.

[ÜberJumper]

They also put a bunch of preppy bullies in their place.

WTF Perigon.

[RMan]

Clearly more harmful than movie violence? What in the world are you talking about? Columbine?
No, I wasn't referring to that. Furious Wang already made my point pretty well, but I'll add that a movie also allows you to have distain for the violent act you see, while a video game is much less likely to produce that result since you are the one doing it. Add in the fact that by the end of a violent video game you’ll likely have killed more people than all the Lethal Weapon and Die Hard movies combined, and it’s a pretty compelling argument. I know that the people here like games, but you have to start being honest and objective about these things or nobody will listen to your arguments.

[MattSaettler]

No, I wasn't referring to that. Furious Wang already made my point pretty well, but I'll add that a movie also allows you to have distain for the violent act you see, while a video game is much less likely to produce that result since you are the one doing it. Add in the fact that by the end of a violent video game you’ll likely have killed more people than all the Lethal Weapon and Die Hard movies combined, and it’s a pretty compelling argument. I know that the people here like games, but you have to start being honest and objective about these things or nobody will listen to your arguments.

Honest and objective..

So where's the proof?

I've heard a couple people hear say "it's obvious that..." games cause violence... but then why are there no scientific studies to back that up?

We're talking about censoring something here.. that should be done just because people (even the majority of people) feel it's a good thing to do.

The law (courts) require a clear benefit in order to do these kinds of things. And if there is no proven harm, there can be no clear benefit.

(summarizing law-type stuff)