Newest attempt to regulate games (Debate)

[quietchat]

http://g4tv.com/thefeed/blog/post/69...e-Statute.html

Normally I use kotaku links, but I can't get into the site right now. Thankfully, this comes from g4. Some time ago, I probably mentioned the new attempt at videogame regulartion being proposed in California. Well, just like all the other proposed laws, this one will (Predictably) be doomed to fail.

Now, I have to ask... Why are these laws still being proposed?? First, some back story.

Originally, the issue of regulating games started with Midway's release of arcade hit Mortal Kombat, featuring realistic fighters setting each other on fire, ripping limbs off, pulling out spines, and so forth. This led to the creation of the Entertainment Software Ratings Board (ESRB) which helpfully puts labels on games today. The ones in the lower left corner of your game case. The most infamous school shooting at Columbine High School didn't help any, with the game in question being Doom. More issues came, as shootings around the nation were blamed on videogames, namely shooters, and very unique court cases being made over the defendants blaming titles such as Grand Theft Auto and Halo, which brought our ever spiteful foe Jack Thompson into the scene as a force to bring the hammer down on violent videogames.

This was just the beginning though. Rockstar Games, creator of the Grand Theft Auto franchise, and it's parent company Take-Two Games, were getting the blunt of lawsuits over their games, and more heat over the game Bully. They eventually released a new installment of Grand Theft Auto, subtitled San Andreas. This was the game that started the new wave of laws being proposed.

A minigame was put into the original game that showed the character having graphic sex, when invited into a person's house for Hot Coffee. The code was hidden away in the game, but a mod made for the PC version called the Hot Coffee Mod allowed gamers to see it, and similar cheats could be used to open up the content on Playstation 2 and Xbox consoles. Rockstar Games acted quickly, removing all titles from the shelves, and promptly removing the code entirely, but it was too late.

Soon we had governers, senators, mothers, all crying out for a more strick standard in rating games to prevent children. Laws have been proposed since 2003, suggesting such things as fining retailers that sell mature rated games to anyone under 17, checking ID, making much larger stickers showing the content and age rating to slap on the box. The ESRB and other groups have sided with the gamers, saying that these laws violate the First Amendment.




So, this is where we debate. These laws are now being set up in order to get past that first amendment, so that they don't get shut down by the State Supreme Courts. Do you think that games really need to be more regulated, or are we fine with just the ESRB ratings and trust in retail?



Personally, I have always sided with the ESRB and the other groups. The ESRB system was put in place entirely to help do what all of these groups are saying needs to be done: Help prevent minors from playing games with content not suited for them. However, the system requires two other elements; Retailers, who won't sell games to minors to turn profit, and parents, who won't purchase these games for their children. All that happens with these laws is the blame being put purely on retailers, ignoring the part of the parents to be responsible. Even a responsible retailer will sometimes sell a game to an adult, who made the purchase intended for their child or younger sibling or somthing like that.

But, that's enough of that. What's your take on the situation?

[wi_sam]

With the internetz around, I don't really see why are they making a big commotion about such video games.What the internet holds is far more dangerous than a mare realistic video game.
But to tell you the truth, Rockstar did cross the line, and that's what made me -somehow- fan of their games.

Also, I remeber a game called Duke Nukem and I recall seeing bunch of almost-naked women (strippers actually) jumping around.
And here's the evidence:
http://www.ugo.com/games/video-game-...em&morepics=17

[Memorix]

This is merely another way for polotics to blame that video games are evil and ruin the way children are. That usually isn't the case. Games are pretty good stress relievers. ( or so i have been told ) It the acts that happen in schools and in public are not entirely based on these games. Most of the time it has to do with parenting or how people were raised in society. They grow up as trouble makers already and it won't be a suprise that they'll do something like shootings or murder. But polotics believe that video games somehow fuel all of this.

Most of the stuff that does happen is either based off of what children are seeing in movies today or just merely what the media tells these parents in a clever attempt to brainwash them.

[Nightmare]

firstly shouldn't this be in the debate section?
Secondly you're right. theses laws are bullshit, and it wont matter as the people who have parents that let them buy this stuff will just have there parents buy it for them. So it's not the retailer, it's not the game, it's not the developers, hell it's not even the kid, it's the parents. If the government wants to wine and complain go after the parents. cause it's not the games fault it's violent, and the devs have the right to make there art any way they want. so saying video games make people violent is like saying a drawing a realistic picture of a war seen makes people violent. The kid can't be expected to know better that's why they have no righties. The retailer has to stay afloat right? So we can't blame any of them. That leaves us with the parents, which means it's on you moms and dads of the planet. If you're kid grows up to be a school shooter it means you weren't paying attention. NOT that they were playing to many violent video games.

yours always
~night

[quietchat]

I thought about making it in the debate section, but that relies on the idea that gamers come to the debate section, who would be the people that would most be interested in this (My threads don't exactly get alot of attention).

But yeah, I still haven't seen any real reason for these laws to exist. The courts have agreed too, every law so far has been overturned in court, in offense to the first amendment in the U.S, which is Freedom of Speech. I can't see how exactly videogames count as speech though. Another part of the laws that is made explicitly clear in the drafted versions is that they want to regulate games that present a form of violence, sexual acts, perversions, without doing so in a way that is culturally socially or intelligently benificiarry at the same time (Meaning, we have a new game coming out soon called "Dante's Inferno" which is based on a short poem made several hundred years ago, about a person that goes to the inner most circle of hell to bring back his loved one. This would be violence with a cultural benifit.)

You can probably plug up videogame laws into any gaming website and find all the examples. Probably a better place though is gamepolitics.com, which presents stories like this regularly.

[SmokedBoo]

This is just like Hilary Clinton trying to regulate what goes on the internet. Retailers do ask for I.D.'s if a customer looks about the age of 10 and is trying to buy a game rated T or above. A retailer can't tell a parent not to buy a game rated M for nudity and gore just because their kid wants it. The rating system is effective (to be honest it's not hard to miss the letter at the bottom right hand corner), retailers are upholding that they need to check and make sure kids aren't buying those games, and are therefore not at fault if a parental buys the game. In my opinion, parents are more to blame for the kid playing these video games. If the parent bought, or allowed their child to buy a game they didn't approve of, why are they running to the government for help? They have hands don't they? Take the damn thing away. The parent is responsible for the child, not the retailer selling games, or Jack Thompson. It's stupid to think that adults are fighting over banning games more than the gamers themselves are fighting over unfair play. It is true that younger kids will act out the characters from a game they played because they think it's cool, but it's not the games fault they're doing that. it didn't tell the kid he/she would be beyond cool if they acted out killing someone. Seems to me that parents are getting lazier everyday concerning the care of the children.

For now I'm going to stop because I have no idea where I'm going with this and I think I'm just rambling.

[Zero Ichi]

Originally Posted by Memorix

This is merely another way for polotics to blame that video games are evil and ruin the way children are. That usually isn't the case. Games are pretty good stress relievers. ( or so i have been told ) It the acts that happen in schools and in public are not entirely based on these games. Most of the time it has to do with parenting or how people were raised in society. They grow up as trouble makers already and it won't be a suprise that they'll do something like shootings or murder. But polotics believe that video games somehow fuel all of this.

Most of the stuff that does happen is either based off of what children are seeing in movies today or just merely what the media tells these parents in a clever attempt to brainwash them.

This, memorix, i completely agree with, but it also has to do with the kids, i mean sure everyone gets mad, me, i was smart enough to know that its just a game, sure i immerse myself into it when i play but when im done and had my fill i go out and be a kid with, lets say, morals! hahaha

[SmokedBoo]

What gets me is that video games are blamed for random acts of violence from a few kids before they even look into what their family life was like, or how they acted at school, etc. It's the same with anime, Death Note and Naruto in particular. They basically don't want to say it's the parent's fault and make them look bad (although they're doing a fine job of that these past 5 years or so). I bet if those guys played games they'd enjoy them too.

[Corwin]

Once again this is a moronic idea, yes I agree that retailers need to stop pandering to the dollar sign and stop selling mature rated games to 12yr old children with more money than common sense, but I have to wonder why a parent shouldn't be able to buy a mature rated game for their own child. I for one see no reason why they shouldn't be able to, I know I'd let my kids play whatever they wanted, heck I'd probably play it with them. I think the issue is that these same parents shouldn't blame the game or the game developer or the ESRB afterwards if their kid shoots up a school. The internet's available content is a good example as well, it's up to the parents to decide what material should be available to their children, not the state. Because no matter what laws the state passes about illicit materials being provided to minors, if a father wants to show his son some porn online as part of a discussion about sex, then there is nothing that can be done to stop him, and nothing should be done to stop him, as a parent, that's his right to raise his or her child as he or she sees fit.

And for all the ratings systems on tv, and making them take up the whole screen before a show is aired and occasionally after commercials, it's not going to stop a child from watching if no one is around to tell them no, and someone is always going to be around to complain after the fact. The simple fact is, most of the issues with parents complaining about games, are the same parents who bought the game, without finding out anything about it, they didn't care about the ratings sticker, and still wouldn't even if it was plastered across the entire face of a the packaging. They don't bother to watch their children play it, or ask them what they are doing. They only want to blame the game afterwards because the alternative is to accept the fact that they were neglectful parents who didn't bother to find out enough about what was going on in their childs life to realize they were going to gun down their classmates.

As for the legislators, it's the 'Jack Thompson Syndrome' in that they simply want their 15 minutes, and if they happen to get one of these laws passed, even if it gets repealed later on grounds of violating the first amendment, it will ensure their place in the history books and I assume in their opinion, more importantly, in the law books as legal precedent. It all comes down to fame, yes some of the more rabid ankle biters are sincere in their efforts to bring down gaming so that they can feel they accomplished something in their fight for deceny and righteousness in an indecent and sinful world, but most of them are just angling for the fame and fortune that comes with all this bullshit. Just think how much some of these lawyers are making off these court cases, and the ones that are doing it pro bono are doing so for free publicity, knowing that win or lose, they've just guaranteed their livelihood for the next 5-10 years.

And then of course there are the ones like Jack Thompson, who garner even more money off the talk show circuit, and the potential for book deals and movie rights if the law gets passed even for a week. And then of course if it gets repealed, well that's another book deal, mostly with him talking about how great he is, and how evil video games are, and how wrong the state or federal governments were in repealing the unjust law.

It's a story as old as time, first it was certain ideas that were considered 'bad' and of course you were stoned, or tortured, or killed for believing in this or that. Next it was the printed word that was the evil one, the gateway to the devil. Then it was dancing and music that let evil into your soul, all that rock and roll, and the gyrating and the grinding, and Elvis was the devil or the devil's son, come to take your children. After that it was the radio, then the tv, and let's face it, the tv would still be the current evil if the internet and then mainstream gaming hadn't come along. In fact people would still be fighting about the internet if they didn't realize it was actually impossible to stop or truly regulate. Video games and the industry behind it are just the current evil today.

Soon enough someone will finally jump on the bandwagon against sexting or go back to hating social networking sites, or we'll find a cheap effective method of space travel and terraform the moon and mars, in which case suddenly going into space and settling other planets will be evil and immoral. In fact with a significant enough jump in outer space related technologies, and we'll go back to hearing that believing that life exists on other planets is heresy.

So I say continue to support the industry, make your opinions known, and make sure they are well reasoned and grammatically correct when you place them in a public forum that could potentially be used as an example of the gaming community. Because we don't need to hand the opposition any more ammuniton by allowing them to claim we are all degenerate, illiterate, slackers who never payed attention in school or even graduated. Heck, I'd actually say gamers are a larger portion of the literate population than any other, we have to read more than anyone else other than book editors.

So keep the fight alive, don't stop supporting, but don't worry about it, the odds of them actually passing and keeping a law of this nature in effect are slim to none. And if they do manage to, I guess I'll just have to learn Japanese and move to Japan, it's not that big a sacrifice, they get more games anyways. Soon enough they'll find something else to hate and forget about us. It's kind of hard to hate on video games too much when we can point out several Christian CoD clans running around shooting ppl for fun online everyday.

**And while it may be fun and entertaining, all those vids and music videos and such bashing Jack Thompson really aren't helping the gaming community, it just puts us down at his level. Every time someone does something like that, we are only validating his arguments and him. So hate the little bastard in your heart and with your friends irl, but not online where it can be held up as an example of degenerate behavior.

[SmokedBoo]

Originally Posted by Corwin

Once again this is a moronic idea, yes I agree that retailers need to stop pandering to the dollar sign and stop selling mature rated games to 12yr old children with more money than common sense, but I have to wonder why a parent shouldn't be able to buy a mature rated game for their own child. I for one see no reason why they shouldn't be able to, I know I'd let my kids play whatever they wanted, heck I'd probably play it with them. I think the issue is that these same parents shouldn't blame the game or the game developer or the ESRB afterwards if their kid shoots up a school. The internet's available content is a good example as well, it's up to the parents to decide what material should be available to their children, not the state. Because no matter what laws the state passes about illicit materials being provided to minors, if a father wants to show his son some porn online as part of a discussion about sex, then there is nothing that can be done to stop him, and nothing should be done to stop him, as a parent, that's his right to raise his or her child as he or she sees fit.

And for all the ratings systems on tv, and making them take up the whole screen before a show is aired and occasionally after commercials, it's not going to stop a child from watching if no one is around to tell them no, and someone is always going to be around to complain after the fact. The simple fact is, most of the issues with parents complaining about games, are the same parents who bought the game, without finding out anything about it, they didn't care about the ratings sticker, and still wouldn't even if it was plastered across the entire face of a the packaging. They don't bother to watch their children play it, or ask them what they are doing. They only want to blame the game afterwards because the alternative is to accept the fact that they were neglectful parents who didn't bother to find out enough about what was going on in their childs life to realize they were going to gun down their classmates.

As for the legislators, it's the 'Jack Thompson Syndrome' in that they simply want their 15 minutes, and if they happen to get one of these laws passed, even if it gets repealed later on grounds of violating the first amendment, it will ensure their place in the history books and I assume in their opinion, more importantly, in the law books as legal precedent. It all comes down to fame, yes some of the more rabid ankle biters are sincere in their efforts to bring down gaming so that they can feel they accomplished something in their fight for deceny and righteousness in an indecent and sinful world, but most of them are just angling for the fame and fortune that comes with all this bullshit. Just think how much some of these lawyers are making off these court cases, and the ones that are doing it pro bono are doing so for free publicity, knowing that win or lose, they've just guaranteed their livelihood for the next 5-10 years.

And then of course there are the ones like Jack Thompson, who garner even more money off the talk show circuit, and the potential for book deals and movie rights if the law gets passed even for a week. And then of course if it gets repealed, well that's another book deal, mostly with him talking about how great he is, and how evil video games are, and how wrong the state or federal governments were in repealing the unjust law.

It's a story as old as time, first it was certain ideas that were considered 'bad' and of course you were stoned, or tortured, or killed for believing in this or that. Next it was the printed word that was the evil one, the gateway to the devil. Then it was dancing and music that let evil into your soul, all that rock and roll, and the gyrating and the grinding, and Elvis was the devil or the devil's son, come to take your children. After that it was the radio, then the tv, and let's face it, the tv would still be the current evil if the internet and then mainstream gaming hadn't come along. In fact people would still be fighting about the internet if they didn't realize it was actually impossible to stop or truly regulate. Video games and the industry behind it are just the current evil today.

Soon enough someone will finally jump on the bandwagon against sexting or go back to hating social networking sites, or we'll find a cheap effective method of space travel and terraform the moon and mars, in which case suddenly going into space and settling other planets will be evil and immoral. In fact with a significant enough jump in outer space related technologies, and we'll go back to hearing that believing that life exists on other planets is heresy.

So I say continue to support the industry, make your opinions known, and make sure they are well reasoned and grammatically correct when you place them in a public forum that could potentially be used as an example of the gaming community. Because we don't need to hand the opposition any more ammuniton by allowing them to claim we are all degenerate, illiterate, slackers who never payed attention in school or even graduated. Heck, I'd actually say gamers are a larger portion of the literate population than any other, we have to read more than anyone else other than book editors.

So keep the fight alive, don't stop supporting, but don't worry about it, the odds of them actually passing and keeping a law of this nature in effect are slim to none. And if they do manage to, I guess I'll just have to learn Japanese and move to Japan, it's not that big a sacrifice, they get more games anyways. Soon enough they'll find something else to hate and forget about us. It's kind of hard to hate on video games too much when we can point out several Christian CoD clans running around shooting ppl for fun online everyday.

**And while it may be fun and entertaining, all those vids and music videos and such bashing Jack Thompson really aren't helping the gaming community, it just puts us down at his level. Every time someone does something like that, we are only validating his arguments and him. So hate the little bastard in your heart and with your friends irl, but not online where it can be held up as an example of degenerate behavior.

Amen, brother.