Post: Clinton, Lieberman and Bayh's Game Bill is About Sanity, Not Censorship
Clinton, Lieberman and Bayh's Game Bill is About Sanity, Not Censorship
This morning, Common Sense Media’s Washington Director April Delaney joined Senators Hillary Clinton, Joseph Lieberman and Evan Bayh at a press conference announcing the introduction of the Family Entertainment Protection Act, a bill that would restrict the sale of ultra violent and sexually explicit video games to minors.
Common Sense has worked closely with the Senators on this federal legislation for a simple reason: video game violence is a public health concern for kids and families.
Dozens of studies have shown that people who play violent games experience increased aggressive thoughts feelings and behaviors. The American Association of Pediatrics has even issued a statement that violent video games account for a 13 to 22 percent increase in violent behavior among adolescents. As a parent, I want to raise my kids in a safe media environment where I know what kinds of content they can access. This bill puts parents in the driver’s seat and ensures that they know exactly what their kids are buying and playing. It’s ultimately a bill that promotes informed parental choice.
We respect the right of game producers to exercise their creative vision. But it would be foolish to ignore the findings of leading medical and psychological researchers about the effects of extreme violence on the young. This legislation confirms our commitment to sanity, not censorship. Common Sense is proud to support this federal initiative on behalf of kids.
There are 58 replies to this post
Date: December 17, 2005
Sad. I thought you guys were about sanity, not content-based censorship designed to destroy a burgenoning entertainment medium. Please. The average age of a video game player is thirty years old. What is it going to take for you to recgonize that, Jim? Did you even read the court decision tossing that anti-video game law in Illinois? It cuts through the rhetoric and exposes those dozens of studies that you mentioned for what they are- junk science. Heck, even Jack Thompson, an anti-video game lawyer who's so extreme that he was even censured by the National Institute on Media and the Family, thinks this won't stand if passed into law. You know something? He's right. Content-based regulation will never survive a First Amendment challenge, Jim. Like I said in another post, this happens every generation, where a new, burgeoning entertainment medium gains popularity and is instantly demonized by people who just don't get it. First it was comic books, then it was rock music, now it's video games. It never stops.
If I sound harsh, then maybe I am, and I apologize for that. It's just maddening that after such content-based regulation is constantly thrown out as unconstitutional, wasting taxpayer's money in the process, that politicans would get the hint. Oh, and one more thing, Jim. The video game industry is still waiting for your apology over your sweeping and slanderous generalization that most female video game characters are prostitutes. When will you apologize already?
Link: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/
Date: December 17, 2005
Junk science? Like the kind of 'junk science' put out by horribly unreliable institutions like the University of Michigan: (http://www.umich.edu/news/?Releases/2005/Dec05/r120505). Or the kind of 'junk science' that uses functional Magnetic Resonance Imaging? (http://newsroom.msu.edu/site/indexer/2532/content.htm). No, the research doesn't say that playing video games is going to make all kids go out and shoot their classmates... but isn't it just intiutive that, yes, if you spend all day beating people on the screen, you might get the idea that beating people in real life would be cool too? I'm a mother, and this law makes sense to me.
Date: December 17, 2005
Um, okay. Let me explain something here, and it's simple. Correlation does not equal cessation. Those sample studies are way too small to mean anything. And if you would read the Illinois decision (link provided), you'd see that the science does not stand up to the scrutiny that you think it would stand up to. That's why I call it junk science. ma'am.
If nothing else, you should be offended by this law, because it's basically saying that you're a bad parent and that you need the government to become a nanny state. Tell me, what's so hard about reading the ESRB content descriptors? Nothing. There shouldn't be anything confusing about a M for Mature rating and content descriptors mentioning intense violence, use of drugs, use of alcohol, language, and mature sexual content, I hope. It all comes down to knowing the ratings system, that's all.
And one more thing. If people are making a massive ruckus about Grand Theft Auto, what about Need for Speed: Most Wanted? It has as much disrespect for police officers as GTA, and in MW, you have to initiate police chases, destroy police cars, rack up a bounty, evade the police, cause wanton destruction and engage in illegal street races. Oh, wait, there's no killing, so it can fly under the radar. The hypocracy is killing me. I'm going to have to call out Jim on that, too.
Link: http://www.mediacoalition.org/legal/esa%20bla
Date: December 18, 2005
"Correlation does not equal cessation?" I think you meant to say "correlation does not equal CAUSATION." But your error points out your ignorance of the research. Read those two studies I posted. neither are correlational. They are controlled experiments. And they are not mentioned in the Illinois decision because they are brand new.Did you read that study from MSU? That is hard science. When you play a violent video game, your brain starts lighting up in aggressive patterns. Yes, the sample is small, but the data is very high quality. And NO, thank you, I don't think this law means the government doesn't trust my parenting. But I have a son whose friends' parents don't always pay as much attention to these kinds of things as they should because they are so busy. This law does exactly what you say parents should be doing, Ferrariman. It makes them pay attention to the content descriptions. Has your kid ever come home froma friends house having played a game you wouldn't have approved of? If so, this would make more sense to you?
Date: December 18, 2005
What does "correlation does not equal cessation" mean?
Anyway, you miss the point of the law entirely (yet again), Ferrariman. The law does not create a 'nanny state.' It gives parents a tool to make sure that they have control over what games their kids are playing and buying. Why are you so offended by the idea that 13 year old kids shouldn't be able to walk into a store and buy Manhunt?
Date: December 18, 2005
Where was all of this in the news on Friday and Saturday? I guess the Patriot ACT and Bush spying on America sort of took the spotlight. I'm sure we'll hear more about this in the future though.
Date: December 18, 2005
SallyPA, Stetson- if that logic holds true, then if I play Project Gotham Racing 3 (which I should be doing in a couple of days when I get my Xbox 360 I won off of eBay yesterday), I should be going faster on the highway and ignoring speed limits. I don't think that will happen anytime soon. I should know the difference between obeying the rules of the road and destroying them in a digital Ferrari. It's a simple matter of knowing the difference between fantasy and reality, and good parenting will ensure that. And if nothing else, read the link I've provided. The researchers can't even defend their science! My statements stand.
Stetson- great way to demonize a person who disagrees with this proposed law. Tell me, how often do you see a 13-year old go into a Best Buy with $60 in hand and buy a copy of Quake 4 without their parents knowing? There are so many problems with that line of thought that it's laughable. Where did the kid get that money? You should know that the National Institute on Media and the Family's "shopper stings" are based on a couple of dozen stores from the Minneapolis area- nowhere near the representation of the entire retail chains of America. And the NIMF has rebuked efforts by the video game industry to collabrate on improving the ESRB. What does that tell you? The NIMF, like Common Sense Media, want to destroy and demonize the video game industry, with juunk science, unconstitutional laws and a lunatic lawyer intimidating and belittling gamers.
One more thing. Ever hear of Jesus Castillo? He was convicted on obscenity laws for selling an adult comic book to an adult, and the prosecution didn't offer anything other than a closing argument that basically said that comic books are for kids. Is that the America you want?
(If you don't know what I'm talking about there, go to cbldf.org and look it up.)
Link: http://www.fepproject.org/commentaries/ftchea
Date: December 18, 2005
Im brand New here to MediaFamily.org But i have a few things to say on this Matter of these waist of time Bogus Bs wanna be censorship Crap...Parents it is Your Job as a parent to Make sure games Like grand theft auto and Manhunt Do not Get into Your child's hands..and Half the time the parents just go and Spend 60 dollars on a game because the child cries and cries till the parent Caves in which In return all that does is show the kid "hey i can whine and maon and complain for a hour or 2 and i'll get what i want" yea thats a great way to raise your child there..as for SallyPa Honesly Ma'am I suggest you do your research on things before you Open your mouth and show Ignorance..Because i am a 25 year old adult i am a college student and i play and own all 3 grand theft auto's i also Own the game Manhunt which is probably Rockstar's most violent game ever Produced...In fact I play all these games while listening to The Artist Hilary Duff..I have gotten well over 85000 Kills in Grand theft auto san andreas..In fact i play that game quite often and i Run people Over and shoot them and do every thing you can in the game while listening to my music...
I truly believe all this law does and or will do is simply give parents the Option to go ahead and file Bogus Lawsuits because they were too stupid too bother to look at the rating on a game before they went and bought a M rated game (which in the first place if ur child is 13 years old why are you putting your child in danger and in a sense that can be looked at as child neglect and child abuse)
I truly Wish you people would learn to do your research on things like this before you spout off..These laws do nothing at all but Bring In Censorship which you People dont seem to Mind at all..I wish that they would just make video games a 18 and up market considering That the average age of a gamer now is 30 years old..Minors only make up 20 percent of the Market now for games so Losing a few million wont be a Loss to a Billion Dollar Industry..But Of course then the anti gamers will Just say "well you are taking away the first amendment rights of Children to play something that has been for them since the Nintendo"
Which is once again bs lies..20 years ago video games were for children when nintendo made the Nes..games have evolved since then and are mainly a adult market so it is Very Simple Parents either do your research which will take a whole *gasp* 5 minutes of your time..and if you dont want to do that then simply tell your children that if they want to own a video game system to wait till they are old enough to get a job and by it themselves...By then they should have more commen sense then some of the People that Belive a Law like this would even work...
this Post may be looked at as going off and in a way yes i am Going Off because im sick and tired of this Crap..Politicians are waisting time and Money on something that isnt any Of their damn business...it is only the business of the parents who have Children who play video games...I am not a parent yet because i am..Im sick and Damn tired of people Thinking Because i Play Grand Theft Auto that i will just snap and go and kill people...Its Utter Stupidity and that type of stupidity eventully Breeds into Hatred..Which Is Fine with Me if The anti gamers want to think a 25 year old who does nothing but stay home go to college work a part time job and help take care of my roomates mom is a cold blooded Killer cause i own grand theft auto then Meh Think what you want i'll just go back to listening to hilary duff and enjoying My Games...
In closing..Parents do your reseach if your child wants a video game..If you dont want to do that research then i suggest you call Authorties and tell them your to busy to be a parent...that will solve Your Problem Right There..But Dont think you have the damn right to take away My Right as a Adult to play a violent video game Like Grand Theft Auto.
Like the name of the site Try using some Commen Sense
Date: December 18, 2005
People Go and say all the time that research has Been done that proves that Playing VIolent Video games goes and messes with the Brain so that Kids (and for some reason to u people adults now) Turns them into a cold blooded Killer...Fine I would like to see that Research i would like someone to provide a Link that shows this Research and that it shows That Children Who Play Grand Theft Auto will want to go out and Kill People In real Life because they did it in the game...Though im wondering what a child is doing with a game like grand theft auto...Thats right the parent purchased it for the child and i question what type of Narcotics That parent is obviously On If they Bought a game for their Child called GRAND THEFT AUTO..
Grand Theft Auto 3 and Vice City And without a doubt San Andreas were never Designed For Children..Unless Your Idea of a child is someone who is 17 years old then Yes apparently a 17 year old is a child...I always Enjoy that Jack Thompson mentality that If you enjoy Video games then regardless of your age you are a "child"
the other thing i find quite hilarious is that the anti gamers Believe that It is Required to Kill cops in Gta they also believe that you are Required to beat and rape women and children in the game also ( i find that someone thinks a game will have rape in it Just a bit more disturbing then Gta itself)..
If you want to kill Cops In Gta it is OPTIONAL..Just like if your son wants Gta you have two choices you can either buy it for them and show them that all they have to do is Complain and whine and you will fork over 60 dollars just so he will shut up...Gee Great parenting Right there..or here is a second Option..You take him and *Gasp* you walk out of the Store..
Parents if you want to be a parent then do your job and research a game before you buy it for your child and if your to lazy to do that then i suggest calling social services and tell them you dont feel like raising your child im sure they will take care of it....
Use commen sense parents its not that difficult...
Link: http://www.gamergod.com/article.php?article_i
Date: December 18, 2005
Ferrariman:
Yes, Craig Anderson's research has been roundly rejected by the courts as an insufficient basis for these laws, and he has done a less than impressive job of defending his methodologies and findings. But Anderson's research is far less sophisticated than either of the studies SallyPA mentioned, neither of which have been presented to a judge. You might exercise some caution in dismissing the entirety of the research before the most current studies have been considered.
As for your concern about nationally representative sampling in the studies and the 'shopper stings,' I think you again demonstrate an obsession with rejecting anything that might support the notion that playing violent games isn't great for kids, no matter how valid. How, might I ask, do you think the researchers would fund such a nationally representative study, which would cost hundred of thousands of dollars? I doubt the video game industry is interested in underwriting such a thing. More importantly, though, just because a sample is small does not mean it isn't valid and reliable. Even advanced medical trials start out with small samples as the basis for more research in the future. Despite their size, the Michigan and MSU studies are good science. That is a fact.
I think you continue to overstate the intent of the politicians and advocacy organizations that support these laws. It is in no one's interest to "demonize and destroy" the video game industry. Video game makers produce some of the most engaging, visually stunning entertainment available today, and provide thousands of well-paying jobs in the process. But some of the content game makers produce is intended for adult use only. These laws would simply ensure that parents are the ones to decide what is right for their kids to be playing.
These laws represent a significant threat to neither the video game industry nor American democracy.
Take a step back, stop being reactionary, and try to put yourself in the shoes of a parent, and not of a video game maker.
Date: December 19, 2005
If I put myself in the shoes of a parent, I'd take the effort to actually look at the ratings and descriptions, make an informed decision, and teach my children the difference between fantasy and reality. I don't see what's so hard witht that, nor do I see why video games sould be treated differently than other forms of media. It may be a slippery slope fallacy, but if this law is passed and it survives constitutional scrutiny, what's going to stop retailers from pulling M-rated games off their shelves? Nothing, if the wording of the law is impossibly vague. That's where the threat lies, sir.
Ever hear of the International Game Developers Association? If not, I provided a link for you.
Link: http://www.igda.org/censorship/points.php
Date: December 19, 2005
I want to take issue with the headline of this blog post. Even if one thinks this censorship is justified or preferable in some way, it's still censorship. Do those who let such blatant spin pass do so for political expediency or because they really buy the notion that if one justifies censorship then it's no longer censorship? Let's at least call it what it really is.
Date: December 19, 2005
The wording of the federal law is quite clear: it prohibits the sale of M and AO rated games to minors. If it fails constitutional scrutiny, it won't be because of vagueness. Please read the federal statute.
And try again to explain to me why retailers would pull M rated games from their shelves if this law passes? They have a huge audience of adult gamers who buy millions of dollars worth of the product each year. Closing up shop would be a impressively inept response, don't you agree?
Stop blowing this out of proportion.
Date: December 19, 2005
Fyodor, do you think magazines like Penthouse and Hustler are unfairly censored because 12 year olds can't walk into a story an buy them? Give me a break. No content is being censored. This is about age restrictions, which are put in place all the time.
Date: December 19, 2005
"Closing up shop would be a impressively inept response, don't you agree?"
Are you familiar with the concept of "the margin"? This measure will likely lower sales for retailers. For most of them, that will only mean lower profits. For those on the margin, ie those who are doing poorly or at least poorly enough to consider doing something else, closing up shop could very well be the most rational response.
Now, one does not have to worry about that if one feels that is less problematic than the status quo. But again, let's own up to the reality of the situation instead of pretending you can have your cake and eat it too.
Date: December 19, 2005
Anonymous,
I'd say age restriction is a form of censorship. But I'll take your point that some may see a distinction. If the headline had addressed that clearly rather than dismissing the entire issue of censorship on the implied grounds of the preferability of this measure, I would not have said anything.
Date: December 19, 2005
Allow me to be more clear about why age restrictions are form of censorship. It is because it is clearly because of the content that the age restriction is triggered. This is about restricting legal access to something based, yes, on content.
That said, I recognize that minors don't necessarily enjoy the full rights of 'consenting adults.' But they're still people, as are the makers and sellers of the products being restricted.
Date: December 19, 2005
i think half these problems would go away if some people finally realized that video games are no longer a kids toy they are now a adults Toy or hobby or whatever u wanna call it...we still arent living in the 1980's when the Nes was popular..get with the times People
Date: December 19, 2005
Fyodor: I agree with your clarification. I was simply trying to counter Ferrariman's contention that if this law goes through, M rated game publishers will have no place to sell their wares and will go belly up. This is clearly not the case.
Yes, if a mom and pop video game shop is only surviving by selling M rated games to kids, they are going to be in trouble. This does not cause me undue concern -- they need to be in another business anyway.
Date: December 19, 2005
if a mom and pop video game shop are selling M rated games just to get by then yea they should find another business..It seems to me that these politicians want these stores to not carry M rated games at all..in fact i remember hearing a while back of some group telling rockstar that they should only sell their games in pornshops....
Date: December 19, 2005
Nice. I love it when people try and kill my industry and take my job away.
By the way, you want some statistics? How about these from the US Department of Justice.
http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/gvc.htm#Violence
It shows that violence has actually GONE DOWN since the introduction of the Playstation game console.
http://thesins.blogspot.com/2005/07/anger-clintons-folly.html
That is my original post on this subject and there are lots more at the main page.
http://thesins.blogspot.com
Link: http://thesins.blogspot.com
Date: December 19, 2005
Sinsblog- welcome! Nice to see you. Love your blog.
To everyone else who's blinded by the "do it for the children" crowd, let me quote Judge Richard Posner in his decision killing the anti-video game law in Indy (pun fully intended):
"Violence has always been and remains a central interest of humankind and a recurrent, even obsessive theme of culture. To shield children right up until the age of 18 from exposure to violent descriptions and images would not only be quixotic, but deforming; it would leave them unequipped to deal with the world as we know it."
Checkmate.
Date: December 20, 2005
Sex is also "a central interest and a recurrent, even obsessive theme of culture." And yet we feel free to censor it all the time. Why is it okay to block depictions of sex and not violence?
Date: December 20, 2005
because morons Like Jack Thompson and parents like sallypa believe that or think that no violence was around until grand theft auto was made...oh and to the guy who said they are trying to get u out of a job they are..they dont give half a ratt a** that a lot of developers have families to them the kids can just starve that way they dont have to parent their own child
Date: December 20, 2005
ferrarimanf355, Thanks for the plug. Please visit often!
HilaryDuffGta. I know they are gunning for my job/company, I just don't think they think of it that way.
HilaryDuffGta mentions the lawyer-that-shall-not-be-named which reminds me that there are really two types of pro-censorship people involved.
I call the first “The Zealots”. Like the lawyer-that-shall-not-be-named and, it seems the owners of this site. They are of the misguided belief, perhaps driven by fundamentalist religious rhetoric, that kids are really buying these games and turning into killers and rapists. The zealotry blinds them from any argument or reason. It is not worth the electrons to discuss anything with these people.
The second group I call “The Opportunists”. All 3 senators here fall into this group. All think that are going to be the next President of The United States and are grasping at anything that will give them some support among the mouth-breathing “RedState” people. These are the ones that need to be taught a lesson. The only care about racking up votes from the dimwitted among the first group in order to gain the power they crave. They care about my daughter about as much as they care about my lawn, at least until she is old enough to vote.
Remember the Democrats are the defenders of “Civil Liberties”. Only the kind of liberties that will get then elected, I guess.
This brings me to a point that I have not seen made before. These Presidential hopefuls have been chasing the youth vote for a number of election cycles, how does this help them with 18-25 year-olds? How does it help them with the IPod people?
Link: http://thesins.blogspot.com
Date: December 20, 2005
A couple things:
First, who is overreacting here - 1.) parents like me who would prefer that their teenaged kids don't have ready access to games where they can brutally beat homeless people (The Warriors), or 2.) the people who work for video game makers and think that the industry is going to implode if teens aren't allowed to purchase M-rated games. Have a little more faith in your profession. Mature video games will still be produced in mass quantities if this law passes. And assuming you are decent at what you do, you should have jobs.
I also want to address the "parents should do a better job checking the ratings issue." I have a 15 year old son. He has a PlayStation2 and a part time job which provides him some disposable money. There are times when he is at home alone because both me and my husband work. What is to stop my son from buying a game I wouldn't approve of playing it while he is home alone. Yes, we tell him about the things we don't approve of - but I'm assuming you all were 15 once and remember what that was like. If his friends are playing a certain game, he is going to want it whether we approve or not. I don't trust video game retailers not to sell him M-rated games because they have done it before. What is the solution to my problem, Sinsblog, Ferrariman and HillaryDuffGTA? Would you prefer that we get rid of the PS2 altogether? Would that be better for your job security? I think you should direct some of your unhappiness about this law at the VIDEO GAME RETAILERS, not parents and the senators. If they did a better job of carding people, this wouldn't be an issue.
Date: December 20, 2005
Yes, I was 15 once, and I played plenty of M-rated games. While my parents didn't exactly care for the content of many of them, they realized that I wasn't going to go out and rip someone's head off, or burn them with a flamethrower. It shouldn't be up to anyone but the individual to decide what is appropriate for their kids. The rating system should be used as a guideline for suggested ages about the level of content.
SallyPA-the last thing I want to do is criticize your parenting. However, I do know that if you place those kinds of restrictions on a 15-year-old, the more you forbid him to own the game, the more he will desire it, and act out and test your limits to obtain it. Despite what politicians say, parents don't have to follow their kids around 24/7 like superheroes in order to be good parents. All they have to do is teach their kids right from wrong, what is morally acceptable (to me, moral absolutes arise when your behavior has the ability to have a profound consequence on someone else), and what their family values as far as ideology. If a parent lets his/her kid play a game with graphic violence, but lets the kid know on no uncertain terms that the violence is illegal, dangerous, and morally reprehensible and is not what the family condones, and puts it in an appropriate context, then that parent has done their job.
Good parenting is not raising your kids in a bubble and waiting until they reach 17 to cut the umbilical cord. Good parenting is talking to your kids about media, distinguishing the values it presents from the values you embody, making sure they understand this distinction, allowing them enough trust and freedom so that they can truly understand the discernment, rewarding them for behavior that falls in line with the values of their family and society, and punishing them for behavior that does not (and when I say behavior, I mean in real life, not on a computer screen). This does not involve superheroic efforts or exhausting mobility or constant spying. It involves common sense, mixed with what you want to teach your kids is right and wrong and enough good faith that they can act this way.
Date: December 20, 2005
SallyPA,
I see you are serious. It’s hard to imagine but, there it is...
How about I put it this way:
Who is overreacting here?
1) The people that want to deny game developers their right to self expression and shift the burden of parenting to the industry and retailers because to do otherwise would cause 4 year olds to be forced to buy GTA and play for 8 hours a day.
Or
2) The little guy with zero political clout worried that his Chess or Mahjongg game will have to pass a review board in order to make it to market. Given that, he worries about his job and future.
I assume you are a good mom and have taught you 15 year old well. It will not be long until he is out in the world as an adult. He will be driving next year and voting in 2 or 3 years. If you did your job, as I assume you did, than you have little or nothing to worry about. Only the lazy and uncaring parent that suddenly has TV cameras in their faces because the brat shot up a school really has to worry, but then again, they wouldn't worry much anyway.
Games are simply an easy target for the lazy parent. “My kid wouldn’t have shot up that school if he didn’t have an XBOX in his room. Never mind the neo-Nazi posters on the walls and the websites authored by him that says he want to kill people.” When I was a kid it was D&D, today we have GTA to blame for the ills of bad parenting.
Link: http://thesins.blogspot.com
Date: December 20, 2005
Mr. Blond: I don't take that as a criticism of my parenting at all. I agree that when moms and dads banish things, it creates a "forbidden fruit" situation where the kid becomes even more curious. And I definitely agree that the most important thing you can do is talk to your kids about right and wrong and pass your values on.
And you're also completely right: it shouldn't be up to anyone but a parent to decide what is right for her child. Unfortunatley, I feel like in the current situation the guy who sells video games has as much say in that decision as I do. Unless the industry gets its act together, and enforces its own ratings, I'll continue to feel that way.
There are some M-rated games I think my son is ready for. There are others I think are too graphic for him. I just want to be the one to make the decision.
Date: December 20, 2005
If the "little guy with zero political clout" you're referring to is a video game maker, I'm a bit confused. The ESA and VSDA are huge political lobbying organizations with operating budgets in the millions of dollars.
Date: December 20, 2005
sallypa first off i'd like to quote you on what you said
"What is the solution to my problem, Sinsblog, Ferrariman and HillaryDuffGTA? Would you prefer that we get rid of the PS2 altogether?"
Actully what is easier to be done is this.You say your son is 15 years old and works a part time job.Well thats good then since if he is old enough to work part time then that shows some maturity right there.And ultimatly that paycheck belongs to him and if he chooses to buy a M rated game and Not inform you then yes maybe punishment should be dealt but also why not just take the 5 minutes it takes to simply look at a review for Gta or Manhunt..I am in no way telling You To Parent your child but i do believe that at that age Maybe showing him that you do view him as a young adult and let him make his own choices in what he chooses to play.If he has never even seen a jason or freddy flick or even jason vs freddy which had well over 100 acts of violence in it then No he isnt ready for any m rated game at all...
ONce again another quote here from you
"And you're also completely right: it shouldn't be up to anyone but a parent to decide what is right for her child. Unfortunatley, I feel like in the current situation the guy who sells video games has as much say in that decision as I do. Unless the industry gets its act together, and enforces its own ratings, I'll continue to feel that way"
Have You ever stepped inside a eb games or a gamestop..The rating are there on the box..How you can use this Insane Bs that the industry needs to "get its act together" that usually sounds like "make games for children" Not only are the ratings on the box and they announce the rating rght after commercials for games there really isnt a lot more that can be done to "enforce the ratings" except for reserve the right to refuse a sale and inform the parent that they need to leave the store when Ms Higgins walks in there and asks for grand theft auto without even taking a few seconds to look at the game..But then again she can take the 20 minutes it takes to order her 8 meals for herself from mcdonalds..LAZY PARENTING.
Once again SallyPa another quote
"First, who is overreacting here - 1.) parents like me who would prefer that their teenaged kids don't have ready access to games where they can brutally beat homeless people (The Warriors)"
Ok well as i have said in a few previous post im a 25 year old college student who lives with roomates..I will be visiting my parents after christmas and im usually there three days she has a account at blockbuster and i will rent the warriors (after all im a legal adult so there wont be a problem) im quite intrested in this "beat homeless people" i've heard that before with "you are able to rape and murder PREGNANT WOMEN AND CHILDREN" actully ma'am i do find one thing disturbing..its not the content in grand theft auto or manhunt..i've yet to play the warriors but i will..Is this insane Crap that People seriously believe you can do something as sickening as rape in a game..HOW IN THE HELL DO YOU EVEN HAVE THE NERVE TO GO AND SAY YOU CAN BEAT HOMELESS PEOPLE IN A GAME..WHAT KIND OF SICK TWISTED PERSON EVEN WOULD THINK OF SOMETHING LIKE THAT TO BE IN A GAME..I CAN TELL YOU THAT I'VE YET TO SEE ANYTHING LIKE THAT IN ANY ROCKSTAR GAME..
And fine you want to be the one to decide what M rated games are appropriate for your child..then great when he wants warriors or manhunt then look at the game and if you dont want him having it here is a simple thing to say..NO
this did make me laugh though
"1) The people that want to deny game developers their right to self expression and shift the burden of parenting to the industry and retailers because to do otherwise would cause 4 year olds to be forced to buy GTA and play for 8 hours a day"
Yep those damn four year olds buying gta with there paychecks...thank you i needed that right there
as for that lazy parents comment..Yep kinda like how the parents of keibold and harris had no idea they were making bombs in the basement...that is lazy parenting
IN closing sallypa if you dont want your son going into video game stores and seeing m rated games and wanting to buy one then i have a suggestion for you.You tell your son he is not allowed to leave ANYWHERE without adult supervision..Try parenting some times..it may work
Date: December 20, 2005
Those organizations represent the EA, Atari and Vivendi portions of the game industry. These companies are all too happy to have big government step in and squash small developers with costly regulation. The big guys can absorb the costs of big government oversight, I cannot. They can demand higher prices for their money makers (Madden etc.), I cannot.
These companies are also happy to see the gov'ment step in as they will have the shield of regulation to deflect the flak from groups like our hosts on this website. Oddly enough this will lead to MORE violent/Sexy content, not LESS.
Link: http://thesins.blogspot.com
Date: December 20, 2005
HillaryDuff: I guess sally probably got the idea to say you can beat a homeless person in a game, because, in fact, you can beat a homeless person in the Warriors. And you can burn people alive and urinate on them in Postal 2. And you can beat prostitutes to get your money back from them in Grand Theft Auto. I don't know what kind of sick, twisted person would think of putting things like these in video games, either. But they are there.
Also, I think what sally was saying was that RETAILERS, not the whole industry, need to get their act together. If it weren't as easy as it is for kids to walk into a store and buy the games, then these laws wouldn't be on the table.
Sinsblog: If the ESA and VSDA are happy to have the government step in, why are they spending millions of dollars in legal fees to bring court cases against these laws? You are overstating the impact of this law.
Date: December 20, 2005
then the parents need to start looking after their kids more then and if they dont want them going out by themselves they need to tell them that they dont go anywhere without adult supervision..as for the beating homeless people in the warriors ok then as i had said i havent played the game yet but with postal 2 and gta yea u can urinate on people i guess in postal i dont know the game never appealed to me and Yes if you want you can beat the hooker to death for your money..those things are optional in the game...
as for this law all it does is create age restrictions and censorship...if a parent doesnt want their child playing gta then dont buy it for them and if they buy it themselves then punish them and make sure they know not to do that again..i dont think the goverment or hilary "it takes a village to raise a child" clinton has any right to tell me what i will buy my kids..I dont have any right now since im only 25 but i'd rather my kids be at home playing Gta then being out doing god knows what...but thats me i've grown up with video games for the last 20 years so i know there is nothing wrong with them as long as my kids realize gta is just a game and thats it..
Date: December 20, 2005
Okay, I want to know one thing? Why doesn't common sense media of it's supporters support the government regulation of R rated movies? Why not the regulation of violent or obscene Music? My main problem with this video game regulation is the fact that video games are being unfairly singled out. Children shouldn't be seeing GTA, but they also shouldn't be seeing the movie scream, of Jason go's to hell.etc So why aren't the democrats also trying to regulate the sale of violent and sexually explicit DVD movies? Could it be because the DNC is subsidised by the movie and music industry and the actors and directors that make/star in them? wouldn't regulating the sale of video games help the "unregulated" movie and music industry's who by the way heavily support Hilary Clinton? And please don't tell me that the movie industry is more "responsible" than the video game industry, go to any store in this country and you will find movies that have no rating IE "NR" which are similar to the same R rated movie that was shown in the theater but those movies have more graphic violence and especially more sex and nudity than any M rated video game. Those movies are also marketed as "uncensored and uncut" on the cover on the DVD case. Imagine if the video game industry came out with video games that were "unrated" and marketed as such on the cover, there would be outrage by politicians and such. And before you tell me that the movie industry keeps these movies out of the hands of children, look at the FTC report released in a couple of years ago. Critics of the video game industry like to point out that teenagers were able to get M rated games 50% of the time, but you never here the media or common sense media say that children were able to buy violent and sexually explicit DVD movies 90% of the time. 90% vs 50%, shouldn't politicians be going after the movie industry, seeing that they are far more "irresponsible" than the video game industry. Hypocrisy, maybe if the video game developers were to make video games with plot's that were sympathetic to the democratic party the party would leave them alone, just like the democrats leave the movie and music industry's alone when they blatantly market sex and violence to teens.
Date: December 20, 2005
one thing i do find hilarious is that this man is the cause of all these problems..The Person i am refering to is Jack thompson..i would call him a man but anyone who says that if you are a gamer then you are in the kkk is no man....
http://www.livejournal.com/users/gamepolitics/84558.html?thread=1341262#t1341262
http://www.gamergod.com/article.php?article_id=2660&category_id=30
This is the Person that wants to "protect your children" by simply asking the Goverment to strip away our first amendment rights...well i'll be damned if anyone will take away my rights without a fight...I've said my peace in here and i stand by what i believe..and that is parents can either do their job as parents or ask child services to take your child away...its up to you parents.
Date: December 20, 2005
Mulkey i do have somewhat of a answer for that it seems that Yeeland Lee or however u say his name and clinton feel that movies are only movies therefor children wont immitate them and apparently music and movies hold first amendment rights and video games do not...well that and they believe this insane Rambiling that by pressing the x button and Holding R1 or L1 if you are playing san andreas that it will train you to use firearms..
Date: December 20, 2005
Anonymous, OK you got me, they are not "happy" to be regulated, but they are not the group of companies/individuals that are destroyed by this legislation. As for overstating the impact, I don't believe I am, if anything I am understating the impact.
Lets say, just for the sake of argument, that the bill passes and the courts allow it to go into effect. Unlikely, but like I said, just for the sake of argument.
What happens?
Well, retailers are not “on the hook” for their minimum wage clerks actions in selling “regulated” games. As a responsible businessperson, I am FREAKED OUT. My retail margins are already so low that a few infractions of the law and I am in big trouble. What does this retailer do? First, raise prices. No brainer. This is bad for everyone. Next he removes all of the regulated games in order to avoid the fines. He loses sales, so he creates a “back room” where the regulated games are sold and uses this as a defense against prosecution. Soon he is out of the games business or is running a sleezy behind the curtain no-minors-allowed store which will be out of business very soon as kids cannot even buy my Mahjongg and chess games. Essentially he has to choose between two profitable genres, neither can sustain his business alone.
Nice job protecting kids.
Now lets look at what happen to me. I make games that you would be happy to you’re your kids play. Look at www.egames.com for an example of the kinds of games I make. My margins are so low that the added cost of getting my games rated is a hard expense to cover. Adding another government layer makes me lose money on every product. I can’t raise my prices as I am in a very price sensitive market. Take away some retail space and that is the last straw. My company is gone, POOF, just like that.
Nice job protecting the jobs the 5 hard working and honest people my company employs, not to mention that now the supply of games that you like for kids has been completely destroyed.
So, for the loss of small retailers and boutique developers what do we gain? Well, let me think on that. Hmm.. I guess we gain the good feelings of the pro-censorship crowd, which is certainly worth my job and lots of jobs like mine. The big boys in the industry gain immunity from lawsuits, so that’s good, depending on your view. We get a new government agency and expanded government control of media, wait that’s not good. We also get vastly lower number and quality of games on the market, so again that is only good if you are against all games.
Most of all, I think we will find that the level of violence and sex in game will greatly increase. The big boys are now free to do whatever they want without fear of lawsuits and public backlash. Witness the porn industry. Compare 1950s Playboy with 2005 Playboy, I think you will be shocked, and Playboy is the tamest of the bunch.
Link: http://thesins.blogspot.com
Date: December 20, 2005
If our government has the time necessary to protect our children from the alleged dangers of video-games, doesn't it have the time to protect our children from the ACTUAL danger of child abuse?
Yet, here we have politicians proposing to wage war on the video-game industry - which has, at worst, hurt kids marginally from a distance - as opposed to abusive parents, who have most certainly hurt their children deeply from up close.
This is a tremendous waste of resources and does nothing for our children. It only does something for our threatened sense of child-rearing.
Link: http://www.insulted.org
Date: December 21, 2005
well, i'll try again, since my first comment did not go through. it was somewhat blue in a mild sense, so i'll re-edit:
"Quote:As a parent, I want to raise my kids in a safe media environment where I know what kinds of content they can access. This bill puts parents in the driver’s seat and ensures that they know exactly what their kids are buying and playing."
1) you are in the driver's seat
2) you do the buying
3) you enable the playing
4) you are responsible for their actions
5) as a childfree adult, i want [a lot of things not suitable for children or possible due to the laws of physics and gravity] we don't always get what we want.
now, i don't think this bill is the end of the world, and "won't someone think of the children" is a primary justification for every kind of crime against constitution and humanity ever thought up by a politician...but it's still tiring. the games are 50 bucks. if the kids are getting those 50 bucks without your help, perhaps they don't need you nearly as much as you think they do. if you're unable to take 10 minutes to research the stuff on your kid's "i wanna" list, then you are lazy.
your laziness should not be someone else's problem.
Link: http://dhex.org/htbr
Date: December 21, 2005
well dhex i remember reading a while back somewhere that the entire response to this parents buying kids any video games they want is this insane quote
"parents want another option besides No"
Date: December 21, 2005
"parents want another option besides No"
or
"parents want someone else to say No for them so they are not 'bad guys'"
Link: http://thesins.blogspot.com
Date: December 21, 2005
I keep getting the sense that some people still don't understand what this law says. It doesn't make it illegal for a kid to play an M-rated game or for a kids to own and M-rated game. All it does is make it illegal for a retailer to SELL a kid an M-rated game. If parents think the game is age appropriate, they can buy it and give it to their kid. How does that give them an option besides "no"?
That said, Sinsblog, I can appreciate where you are coming frmo and find it enlightening to hear the perspective of a boutique video game maker. I don't agree with everything you say, but I definitely appreciate hearing your side of the story laid out in such a rational manner.
Date: December 21, 2005
It is unconstitutional to force someone to abide by a voluntary rating system. See MPAA v. Specter for that. And why are we only forcing retailers to prevent the sales of video games? Currently, there are no such actions for R-rated movies, music with parental advisory stickers, or DVD boxsets for TV-MA shows.
Besides, are these video games any worse than the violent fantasies many kids have when they pretend to shoot each other with their fingers or with toy guns? What next, are we going to ban kids from playing Cops & Robbers?
Date: December 22, 2005
SallyPA, let me go back to the link I provided on my first post and quote it:
"Simon Carless, the 30-year-old editor-in-chief of Game Developer Magazine, added: 'It gets tiring. Every year, the same political posturing, the same words -- video games are stealing the innocence of America's children -- over and over again. I'm afraid that people who aren't gamers themselves, who don't understand the medium, are trying to dictate the content of games. That's what this is about.'"
This man speaks the truth. Jim doesn't understand video games, yet he's trying to destroy game developer's creative freedoms. Please read this link I've provided.
Link: http://www.pbs.org/kcts/videogamerevolution/i
Date: December 22, 2005
But I DO understand this medium, Ferrariman. I've sat down with my son and watched the Ps2 games he plays. I've played them myself from time to time. They are certainly not stealing his innocence.
It is preposterous to say that this law would "destroy video game developers' creative freedoms." You're hyberbole grows tiresome.
If, as you claim, the vast majority of gamers are around 30 years old, there will continue to be a HUGE market for M and AO rated fare if this law passes. Why, please oh please tell me why, would game makers limit their expression if such a huge market exists for their product? Sinsblog seems to think that if the law passes, game makers will fell even GREATER entitlement to exercise their "creative freedoms" and make even more violent and sexually explicit games. That's what happened after the V-chip law passed in 1996.
There was a piece on Good Morning America this weekend where two 14 year old kids walked into a game shop and bought M rated games no questions asked. I know, I know -- you're going to say its anecdotal and not representative. But after a while, a bunch of small samples start to be convincing. (That, coupled with the fact that game shops have sold M-rated games to my son and his friends before without my knowing or the knowing of the other parents).
I, his mother, want to be the one who decides what games he can buy and play. I don't want to destroy the creative freedoms of video game makers. I don't want to put anyone out of business.
All I want is for video game retailers to act ethically. If it takes this law to make them do so, that's fine with me.
Date: December 22, 2005
This just in... read the link...
Link: http://www.next-gen.biz/index.php?option=com_
Date: December 22, 2005
and good im damn glad this law got blocked.as for video games it self.Fine you want to regulate video games then you need to do this with all Media..Video games,Movies,Books.
Date: December 22, 2005
I DO think that there will be more violent games if a law gets passed that will pass the SCOTUS. The publishers will almost be FORCED to make even more offensive games in order to compete. I wouldn't call this creative freedom, I would call it a collapse of a market which has given me the freedom to make a living without getting involved in violent games.
The freedom to make offensive games is not in question as far as I am concerned, it is my freedom to make GOOD CLEAN and FUN games that will be taken away.
Is that what the pro-ban people have in mind?
Link: http://thesins.blogspot.com
Date: December 22, 2005
As a public school teacher working in California, I find it astonishingly anti-American that some people somehow are looking for scapegoats in the form of censorship to solve their parenting problems they are unable/unwilling to deal with, while disregarding the constitution, which made this country what it is. Video games are a form of speech AND art, this is of course undisputable, yet they think their reactionary needs are bigger than the first amendment. Leland Yee is proof that Ph.D candidates can be "book smart, common sense stupid" types of people. Yee is simply an political opportunist and nothing more. Unfortunately for me, I live in Alameda county and I can't vote against him when he runs for re-election, because he's in a different district...
Link: http://www.slzusd.org
Date: December 22, 2005
About that piece on Good Morning America, I'm going to say, what's wrong with that? I know that even a lot of pro-game advocates may not agree with me here, but I believe it should not be up to the retailers to act as surrogate parents. Court after court has essentially said that kids have the same rights as adults to view this material, so there is really no basis to use it for anything more than its original intent: voluntary guidelines of what suggested ages should be if a parent has any questions or concerns about the content. If a kid does manage to get $50 together to buy a game he's wanted, if he's not your kid, let him. If he is your kid, explain your values to him, and either a) trust him not to act otherwise, or b) let him know there are consequences if he goes behind your back. I don't consider it unethical to sell an M-rated game to a kid. Such an act is morally neutral, as is the act of playing the game.
Date: December 23, 2005
I think most ethics professors would cringe at Mr. Blond's logic...
So retailers should not have to follow the guidelines set by their own industry? If the media industry exercised no regulation over its product, as you seem to be suggesting, parents would have to spend every waking minute with their kids to make sure that they don't get into content that the parents don't approve of. I think its in everyone's best interest if the industry would police itself.
Kids are not little adults. They aren't ready for the same kind of content that 18 and 20 year olds are.
Date: December 23, 2005
you are right kids are not little adults but people dont give them as much credit as they should.I do believe that a lot of Teens know whats in the games and know the content isnt appropriate for them but im sure you were 15 one time and when you are at that age you think you know it all.
Like i said im glad this bill got shot down and each and every bill they try to do will get shot down.and it should be shot down because it violates first amendment rights.i've said it before and i'll say it again and i'll continue to say it.If you dont want your children getting access to m rated games then take away their systems and dont let them go to their friends houses if they have m rated games.dont ask the industry and goverment do your job as a parent
Date: December 23, 2005
I am not suggesting parents spend every waking minute with their kids. I am suggesting that they teach their kids right from wrong, and fantasy from reality, and ensure that the kids behave accordingly. This doesn't mean that parents have to give in to their kids' every whim when it comes to buying games, but it does entail allowing them some freedom to test their values against these influences, like if he were to play it at a friend's house, to trust that he would still have some sense of civility and decency afterwards.
I think people would say that selling these games to kids is unethical if they are harmed by them. However, not only is the evidence flawed and unproven, it can also be argued that such media can have positive effects on kids too. It's a natural desire for kids to test how much they can handle, and to use this media to feel powerful and brave, when this is not always possible in real life. As a personally relevant example, in the days and weeks after 9/11, I played Doom a lot. It was my way of projecting my anger at al Qaeda onto the Doom demons and feeling heroic and strong, when in real life, I felt vulnerable and weak. If you read the link below, this article gives a wonderful elaboration.
Link: http://www.motherjones.com/commentary/columns
Date: December 23, 2005
I kinda forgot the punchline to my personal story: I was 18 at the time, and I'm sure you could appreciate how much more intense those feelings would be in someone half that age, and that violent video games could be really helpful to him in working through them.
Date: December 23, 2005
To SallyPA, and others who support this bill:
I notice that all of you are ignoring posts that ask how come we aren't regulating R rated movies and music with parental advisory warning labels on them.
Every Federal Trade Commission report that has come out has shown children are able to get their hands on R rated movies and music with parental advisory labels on them MORE often than M rated video games. Yet legislators don't seem to mind. They only target video games and claim it is to protect kids and empower parents. Nonsense. Parents of the nation should feel insulted that these lawmakers feel that parents everywhere care only about video games and nothing else. Chances are if a parent is concerned about the content of video games their children play (and I hope that is every parent), that parent is also concerned about the movies their children watch, the music their children listen to, the tv shows they view, and yes, even the books they read, yet bills that only target video games are being supported by these concerned parents. That makes no sense. What you really should be saying is "I do not support this bill until the lawmakers start including other mediums and materials to regulate, not just video games, because parents are worried about a lot more than video games their children are playing". THIS would be "common sense" and would likely cause lawmakers to start including other mediums. Bills like this do nothing more than treat parents like political puppets for lawmakers looking for political gain. Ask yourselves this, if this bill were about protecting kids and empowering parents, and if this bill were as constitutional as you all claim, then how come these lawmakers have a hard time including other mediums (movies, music, books, literature, newspapers, etc) to the bill? If we are giving parents the opportunity to make media decisions for their kids, this opportunity should include a lot more than just video games. Parents looking to make media decisions for their kids are not that narrow-minded.
Also, about the studies that SallyPA mentions (MSU, Michigan). To those studies, I would say it would be a good thing to call them "junk science". Here's why. Just look at the video game bills across the country, the Illinois bill, the California bill. You will notice that one of the reasons they feel video games should be regulated is that video games allegedly "reduce activity in the frontal lobes of the brain, which is responsible for controlling behavior". Now, you claim these studies are not junk science and that they are done at reliable institutions. Look at the webpage you gave (http://newsroom.msu.edu/site/indexer/2532/content.htm), specifically look at the first picture which shows a brain scan image. What do you notice? You notice there is activity in the brain when people play video games, in the FRONTAL LOBES! These bills claim "a reduction of activity in the frontal lobes" when playing video games, yet this image shows activity happening IN the frontal lobes. Which is it? Also, the game in question is called "Tactical Ops: Assault on Terror". A war game with the title "Assault on Terror" is being used to show violent games are "bad" for kids. We live in a society where a war movie like "Saving Private Ryan" is allowed to air on national television, uncut, uncensored, unedited during the time of day when most children are watching, yet the "protect our children" crowd never came out and condemned ABC for airing the masterpiece movie. It seems that a war movie somehow doesn't "harm" children at all, yet surprisingly, a war video game called "Assault on Terror" allegedly does.
My concern is that lawmakers and researchers are throwing "studies" at parents, scaring them into thinking video games are bad, knowing that most parents probably won't bother to look at the studies in detail.
No one is saying SallyPA and other parents who are concerned with the video games their children are playing are crazy or are monsters or anything like that. In fact, parents who are concerned with what their children are doing are what I would consider the ideal good parent. Parenting isn't easy. But parenting doesn't become easier with bills that single out video games, using bogus studies that actually contradict what lawmakers have been saying all along (frontal lobes argument), when parents are concerned about a lot more than just video games. You're right, SallyPA, when you state kids may not be ready for all content that is suitable for 18 and 20 year olds, but this content is not only found in video games, it is found all over the place - movies and even in literature.
Video games are just the tip of the iceberg in regards to what parents are concerned about. Why not go after the entire iceberg by including the regulation of movies, music, television, books, etc. if bills like this are truly constitutional and all about empowering parents?
Date: December 23, 2005
Why not target other media? Lawmarkers understand, as do out hosts, that movies, books, music and the holy grail of television are familiar and important parts of the lives of the voters.
Newer generation video games are not part of the lives of the baby-boomer and older generations of voters.
People don't get re-elected if they attack the favored entertainment choices of the core-voting block.
Give them their bread and circuses and stay in power.
Link: http://thesins.blogspot.com
Date: January 29, 2006
Where was Sen. Clinton from 1992 to 2000 on this issue. Could it be with the 06 and 08 elections coming up, she has "Seen the Light"! Or is this more political posturing. What about it Dems?