Another softball game violence interview

[if76]

IGN.com (http://www.ign.com) interviews California politician Leland Yee about the bill he's backing to make the sale of violent games illegal to minors in his state. The interview (http://ps2.ign.com/articles/634/634229p1.html) is about as hard-hitting as an episode of The Today Show.
Yee: In a movie theater, if you walk in with an under-age child, there are all kinds of glares, whispering -- there may be someone so offended that they get up and see the manager and say, "there's a child seeing an adult movie." You can be sure the manager is going to come in and escort the child out and reprimand the parent. When you go into a video [game] store, you walk up as a young person, you pull that game off the shelf, you pay the money, you walk out --
The logically questionable comment above is just one example of the many of such claims made that the interviewer fails to challenge. Maybe he's so dumbstruck to be interviewing someone who doesn't program pixel-shaders for a living, he forgot about his journalistic duty.

[milkaxor]

If you walk into a rated R movie with a kid people aren't concerned about the kid seeing the movie they are concerned about the kid being a jackass and making the movie going experience unenjoyable. Well I am, at least.

[Morrolan]

It's I-G-N. IGN! What do you expect?

Realistically, Yee wouldn't have done the interview without setting down some ground-rules with the interviewer. This is a politician, not a nerdy coder.

[Sammael]

So this jackass is admitting that his child may or may not be a thief. Fantastic. If he is so worried about someone secretly giving his kid a violent video game, maybe he should be more concerned that someone may give his kid the HIV. Honestly, it was always easier to get into an R rated movie than it was to get a violent video game. When is the last time you heard of a theater getting fined?

And what about all of those kids that saw Passion of the Christ? WTF???? Grrr.... Just because the movie is supposed to be about Jesus, doesn't mean the subject matter is fitting for children. So the rating meant nothing that time around... nice. I hope he gets convicted of child pornography.

(in case you can't tell, this shit gets me really angry.)

[TrackZero]

Yee: In a movie theater, if you walk in with an under-age child, there are all kinds of glares, whispering -- there may be someone so offended that they get up and see the manager and say, "there's a child seeing an adult movie." You can be sure the manager is going to come in and escort the child out and reprimand the parent.

Uh, what? The ratings system is there to help parents decide, not to enforce it upon adults. If I bring a kid into a movie, I'm choosing to let him watch it. Whether in the theatre or watching it on video, it makes no difference.

I've never seen a parent be told their child had to leave if they brought them into an R rated movie before.

Edit: Heh, I got a good laugh at the "glares, whispering" comment as well. So now we're just supposed to bow to public opinion of what people think we should expose our own kids to? Great.

[if76]

The simple fact is that parents are allowed to bring children into R rated movies. This is the mpaa rule (not a law mind you). Even if parents complained to a theater operator about it, they'd have no basis legal or otherwise to throw the kid out.

Asuming Yee was talking about a NC-17 movie (which sexual profanity laws and mpaa guidlines prohibit under 17 year olds from seeing), then he'd have a case. Of course then it's his analogy that is an issue because content present in an NC-17 movie would never appear in an M rated game in the first place.

NC-17 ratings only apply to sexually explicit material. This reflects laws in the united states that restrict SEXUAL material from being seen by the public. A movie can be as riproaringly violent as it wants (the passion) and it will still get an R rating from the mpaa.

There's no such law in the US restricting violent media in any way shape or form.

You'd think that an interviewer might bring some of this stuff up.

[bobbler]

What the hell planet is this guy from?

I've never seen a movie where a manager came into a theatre and told the parent that they should remove their kid -- I'd wager that any movie theatre manager that did that would probably be out of a job shortly after.

Does he not realize that the rating system lets parents decide? No theatre employee is going to "reprimand" a parent for choosing to allow their kid to see any movie.

Politicians just get dumber and dumber.

[Nintendo Revolution]

"Yee: In a movie theater, if you walk in with an under-age child, there are all kinds of glares, whispering -- there may be someone so offended that they get up and see the manager and say, "there's a child seeing an adult movie."

Are we talking about an X Rated movie? Probably not. R-Rated? Umm, nobody questions anybody (except these type of people who wouldnt even watch it themselves). If the parent is there, it's their decision to let their child see it. I've never seen anything been done like explained above.

"When you go into a video [game] store, you walk up as a young person, you pull that game off the shelf, you pay the money, you walk out -- "

That's bullshit. I work at GameStop and we are forbidden to sell M Rated games to those under the age of 17. If I am unable to detect the person buying the game's age, I ask for his card. End of story.

This is just getting rediculous.

[KarmaGhost]

I think you guys may be focusing too much on this one particular quote. It's a stupid one, but if you read the article, you may find that he's not such a nutter.

If people want to limit what games can be sold directly to children/young teens, that's fine by me. As long as it doesn't have an effect on the content of the games that I play. From what I read, Yee has no intentions of having violence or any other kind of content banned from video games.

[Nintendo Revolution]

If people want to limit what games can be sold directly to children/young teens, that's fine by me. As long as it doesn't have an effect on the content of the games that I play. From what I read, Yee has no intentions of having violence or any other kind of content banned from video games.

Erm. Agreed.

[if76]

If people want to limit what games can be sold directly to children/young teens, that's fine by me. As long as it doesn't have an effect on the content of the games that I play. From what I read, Yee has no intentions of having violence or any other kind of content banned from video games.

Well that's just the thing, this law will effect the content of the games you play (assuming you play adult videogames). Companies will be less likely to make games if stores are less likely to carry them. Stores like Walmart won't carry these games if their employees can get fined or possibly jail time for selling them.

Now to be off-topic for a second, I didn't see this guy site any evidence that videogames can cause harm even to little kids. Where's the justification for this law?

[Savok]

The logically questionable comment above is just one example of the many of such claims made that the interviewer fails to challenge. Maybe he's so dumbstruck to be interviewing someone who doesn't program pixel-shaders for a living, he forgot about his journalistic duty.
Just like a real journalist!

[Goronmon]

Now to be off-topic for a second, I didn't see this guy site any evidence that videogames can cause harm even to little kids. Where's the justification for this law?
The justification is the face-time that politicians get for stuff like this...

[mister_slim]

I think Yee is wrong about voluntary regulation. It has done wonders for pollution control.

Anyway, that quote is silly, but Yee does seem to understand that some games are intended for adults, which is a positive step. I don't have a problem with him more clearly defining what ages can purchase M games.. I don't live in California, though.