Supreme Court on Violent Video Games

[yellowfire7]

One thing I would like to correct about the article, exposure to violent acts has been shown to increase the likelihood that children will repeat those acts. The Bobo Doll experiment, if anyone is interested, raises a few eyebrows at least. Hitting a doll is in no way a bloodthirsty action, yet it promotes aggression.

I believe that any law like this would, by and large, be useless. In order for a child to buy the game, they first have to get to the store. Assuming the child does not live within easy walking distance of the store, if a child goes to the store and purchases a game without the parent knowing, they:
(A) can drive, making the law mostly negligible as they are almost to the age threshold required, or are taking a joyride,
(B) crossed busy streets without the parent's knowledge or permission, a more immediate worry than what the child may be buying if they are young enough,
(C) were taken by an older friend, or
(D) the parent brought them there and then lost track of them as they made their purchase.

Completely ignoring the possible law at hand, the simple possibility that the child may go the distance seems to be a larger issue in most cases. If you see other ways, please, tell me.

Assuming that they can arrive at the game store without incurring some other concern, however, I would not be in support of this restriction. I don't buy into the argument that blocking the purchase is a violation of rights (whose rights are being violated again? And if it is a right to buy, how can anything be banned?), as if it is in the child's protection, there are precedents which state it to be legal. I do, however, feel that it is an unnecessary and easily circumvented burden on retailers that should already be in effect through other means. For example, the Nintendo Wii can read game ratings and set filters to block certain ratings, effectively blocking the child from playing games with ratings the parents don't approve of, if the parent simply takes the effort to do so.

Blocked from purchasing is not blocked from playing. They can go over to a friends house, order it online, ask somebody else to buy it for them, etc. Again and again, it comes back to the parents simply being aware of what is happening in their house and to their children, and if they cannot manage that, there is more at issue than games. I am not promoting parent dictatorship, just awareness.

 

[vaporeon]

It seems like America gets more childish everyday.

 

[Skitty]

If a kid can watch an R rated movie with his/her parents, why shouldn't they be able to play an M rated game that their parents approve of?

Which is why I liked the law that was around when my parents were young. And that was they had to be 17 to see them (or was it 18 back then?). It didn't matter if you were with a parent or not, if you were underage then too bad for you.

Your plan would be a law that would either be completely ineffective or insanely intrusive.

Well allot of laws are pretty ineffective if you think about it. I see literaly at leased one person every day that's driving while either talking on the phone or texting someone (which is illegal in my state). What I would do is make the law and make an example of someone every once and a while like they do with people that pirate music. It won't make everyone obay the law but it would slow it down.

 

[Varna]

Well allot of laws are pretty ineffective if you think about it. I see literaly at leased one person every day that's either talking on the phone or texting someone (which is illegal in my state). What I would do is make the law and make an example of someone every once and a while like they do with people that pirate music. It won't make everyone obay the law but it would slow it down.

You really enjoy flamboyant invasions of privacy, huh? Also, I think you meant "talking on the phone/texting while driving", at least I hope.

 

[Skitty]

You really enjoy flamboyant invasions of privacy, huh?

Which is why it probably will never happen. Though I would like it, it's not really enforceable.

Also, I think you meant "talking on the phone/texting while driving", at least I hope.

Yeah, I meant while they were driving. I'll go edit my post to add that part I missed.

 

[Jeremy Badeaux]

Which is why I liked the law that was around when my parents were young. And that was they had to be 17 to see them (or was it 18 back then?). It didn't matter if you were with a parent or not, if you were underage then too bad for you.

I kind of agree with the sentiment, but it isn't the government's job to raise kids.
If the parents are ok with it, it isn't my place to force laws that take parents out of parenting.

Well allot of laws are pretty ineffective if you think about it. I see literaly at leased one person every day that's driving while either talking on the phone or texting someone (which is illegal in my state). What I would do is make the law and make an example of someone every once and a while like they do with people that pirate music. It won't make everyone obay the law but it would slow it down.

Laws that aren't always enforced are different from laws that can't legally be enforced.
Seeing as how you think absurdly invasive laws are a good thing, I'm guessing you wouldn't have a problem if the government put a camera in your bathroom right?
You wouldn't have anything to fear if you aren't breaking the law. . . . right?

Or maybe letting the government violate constitutional rights in the name of safety is something that even our founding fathers warned against?

Unless you would give the government authority to constantly monitor people in their own homes, that law would be unenforceable (unless you think the parents are going to call the cops on themselves).
If a complete lack of personal rights would make you happy, then I honestly don't know what to say.

 

[pat460]

There should be no laws as to what media can or can not be released. If a company wanted to make a game more violent than MW2 with more sex and drugs than GTA while at the same time having some strange interactions with the Wii, they should be legally allowed to do it. If the effects of media on children is an issue, it is an issue about parenting, not about the media itself.

In my opinion it shouldn't be up to the parent whether their underage kid can play an M rated game or not, it should just be a law. This is what I would like to happen (though I doubt it ever would). Just make a law that if a person under 17 is caught playing an M rated game then the parent or guardian is forced to pay a fine. And what if they have no parent or gaurdian? You are saying that the government should have the ability to decide when people are mature enough to handle mature media. What you need to think about is it is a case by case scenario. For example, lets say two kids, about 14ish years of age want to play the new CoD game. They both ask their parents, who we will assume are completely responsible, and know their children well. The first child does somewhat well in school, has a healthy social life, and is mature, so his parent let him play the game. there is nothing wrong with this, he is responisble enough to handle it. The other kid, however, has social issues, or maybe a mental disorder, or something that would make him more vaunerable to being negetivly effected by the media in the game. His parents decide not to allow him to play, and with good reason. HOwever, if there was simply a law prohibiting both of them play( and we will pretend people will actually obey this law), the first child( which basically describes most kids that a law like this would effect) would not be allowed to play a game that he is mature enough to play, because the government told him it was bad for him. Yeah, that sounds like the kind of freedom I want! And if the kid is playing the game at a friends house then charge the person who owns/leases that house. This would do two things. 1: It would stop all of the underage kids playing games that they shouldn't have access to. Again, you assume that all kids that arent at a certain number in age(which, btw does NOT reflect maturity) should not be allowed to play these games, regardless of their individual circumstances. And 2: It would make the parents actually have to know what their kids are doing. I would think this would make parents more lax in that it would be easier to assume that their kids arent playing these games, and they don't have to worry about it or check. Having to pay a fine every time your kid does something wrong just makes sence to me. It makes sense to you that parents of mature kids should have to pay a fine for their kids playing a game that their kids are mature enough to play? It also makes sense to you to regulate what is acceptable and what is not acceptable in media on a legal level? you arent too big a fan of personal freedoms, are you?

Which is why I liked the law that was around when my parents were young. And that was they had to be 17 to see them (or was it 18 back then?). It didn't matter if you were with a parent or not, if you were underage then too bad for you. And yet, this is the era most famous for sneaking into movies. Once again, why are you against personal freedoms?



Well allot of laws are pretty ineffective if you think about it. I see literaly at leased one person every day that's driving while either talking on the phone or texting someone (which is illegal in my state). What I would do is make the law and make an example of someone every once and a while like they do with people that pirate music. It won't make everyone obay the law but it would slow it down. Yeah, because that is obviously the most effective method of law enforcement. Next time you want to compare a possible plan to enforce a law, dont cite the policies about one of the fastest growing 'crimes' as an example of how it should be done.

replies in bold

 

[Skitty]

Laws that aren't always enforced are different from laws that can't legally be enforced.
Seeing as how you think absurdly invasive laws are a good thing, I'm guessing you wouldn't have a problem if the government put a camera in your bathroom right?
You wouldn't have anything to fear if you aren't breaking the law. . . . right?

The new Sony HDTVs come with a built-in feature that gives a warning message if a child is watching it and is " too close". They could always make all TVs with a feture that turns the TV off if it sees a minor playing an M rated game. (A far better parental control option) That way it wouldn't be a privacy issue because it's not actually recording anything.

It's kind of hard to quote you when you just post your comments in my quote pat460.

you arent too big a fan of personal freedoms, are you?

I'm in the opinion that the US is not a free country. (Well it is mostly, but not as much as it should/could be) I base this on the fact that most of the anime that I watch and allot of the video games I buy are censored by "someone". And whenever you ask the company why they sencored it they say it's because they are scared that the government might ban it or it'll end up with a higher rating. Whether the goverment is controlling all of the censoring or companies are just scared to do anything about it, it's still being done. Kind of sounds like I'm paranoid, doesn't it?:tongue: But there is enough proof of it.

But I think that I'm getting a bit off-topic so I'll stop posting unless someone else decides to comment on this.

 

[Jeremy Badeaux]

I'll be happy to go down that road with you (maybe this warrants another topic all on its own).

The ratings make sense (walmart will not carry AO rated games, so everybody tries to avoid that rating).
The censorship is not being done by the government.
If people are censoring their own products due to their fear of the government, I don't see how that is government censorship.

The new televisions proximity detector is a function installed by a private company (as in, not the government).
The function can likely be turned on or off and more to the point, nobody is forced to buy that television if they don't like the features on it.
All current generation consoles have game rating based parental controls, so I don't know why televisions would need them.
For a Television to "see" somebody playing an M rated game, it would require recording, where a motion/proximity detector does not require any recording (I think you got those mixed up).

I'm in the opinion that the US is not a free country. (Well it is mostly, but not as much as it should/could be) I base this on the fact that most of the anime that I watch and allot of the video games I buy are censored by "someone". And whenever you ask the company why they sencored it they say it's because they are scared that the government might ban it or it'll end up with a higher rating. Whether the goverment is controlling all of the censoring or companies are just scared to do anything about it, it's still being done. Kind of sounds like I'm paranoid, doesn't it? But there is enough proof of it.

The people at the company you are talking to are morons who don't know what they are talking about.

If a video game receives an AO (Adult Only) rating, many major retailers will refuse to carry it.
Considering how much that will cost a game company in lost sales, they censor the product/water it down so they can make money.
It's pretty much just capitalism at work.
Company A only sells products of type 1, so company B ensures that their products fit into company A's policy so that they can make more money.

Your only proof of censorship amounts to companies censoring their own products to appease other private companies.

Sorry about derailing the topic, but I felt compelled to help Skitty take off that tinfoil hat. lol

 

[toxictaipan]

Sorry about derailing the topic, but I felt compelled to help Skitty take off that tinfoil hat. lol

No, that's fine. This is about the new laws banning the sale of video games with an M+ rating to minors. Skitty stated an opinion about it, and we've gotten to were it's at now.

A debate ends up where a debate ends up. As long as we're talking about rating systems, and not something like global warming, then we're on topic.

You've said everything I wanted to say, though. And a lot better than I probably could have.

 

[pat460]

I'm in the opinion that the US is not a free country. (Well it is mostly, but not as much as it should/could be) I base this on the fact that most of the anime that I watch and allot of the video games I buy are censored by "someone". And whenever you ask the company why they sencored it they say it's because they are scared that the government might ban it or it'll end up with a higher rating. Whether the goverment is controlling all of the censoring or companies are just scared to do anything about it, it's still being done. Kind of sounds like I'm paranoid, doesn't it?:tongue: But there is enough proof of it.

But I think that I'm getting a bit off-topic so I'll stop posting unless someone else decides to comment on this.

You didn't answer my question. Based off what I've read in your posts, I think you are against many personal freedoms. Is this or is this not true? Because this greatly effects the way I view your posts, and posts you make in the future on the topic.

 

[Jeremy Badeaux]

You didn't answer my question. Based off what I've read in your posts, I think you are against many personal freedoms. Is this or is this not true? Because this greatly effects the way I view your posts, and posts you make in the future on the topic.

I don't have any huge post to make this time, but I would like to say that this is a momentous occasion, being about the second time pat460 and I have agreed on something. lol

I do think it is a very valid question.
It has no bearing on how I will treat you or how I will play a game against you, but knowing if you are against personal freedoms will definitely change how I view any of your posts.

I personally think the law is great because it makes parents be responsible for their own kids and I don't think it's a huge deal because a number of retailers already make use of a similar store policy anyways.

The icing on the cake is that it should cut down on the amount of little kids screaming obscenities at me because I can no-scope with a sniper rifle like a fiend when I play online. :lol:

 

[Skitty]

You didn't answer my question. Based off what I've read in your posts, I think you are against many personal freedoms. Is this or is this not true? Because this greatly effects the way I view your posts, and posts you make in the future on the topic.

No, I'm not againsed personal freedom. But I am for equality. I've seen enough things get censored because of fear of the govermant, or if not the govermant then fear of someone. I even saw them bleep out the name Jesus on a movie I was watching on TV (Not Jesus Crist, just Jesus), and that movie was rated TV14. If you can't even say Jesus on a movie without problems then something's wrong. If it's not fear of the govermant then who are they scared of? So many things get censored for no real reason except to apease "someone". And if it is the govermant that these companies are scared of then they should just make any laws that they want, noone would care, they would just accept them. But if the majority of companies that make anime or allot that make video games are scared of nothing (Which is very unlikely) then I'll take everything back. Remember, I'm for eqality, if they censor something then they should censor everything that's the same as it.

The people at the company you are talking to are morons who don't know what they are talking aboout

If you think that Nintendo's stupid then why are you on a Pokemon board? They censored Pokemon Colosseum after all.

If a video game receives an AO (Adult Only) rating, many major retailers will refuse to carry it.

I'm not referring to AO games. Do you really think Pokemon Colosseum would get an AO rating just for the few pixels that they added?

 

[Varna]

Remember, I'm for eqality, if they censor something then they should censor everything that's the same as it.

I'm for equality too. However, I'm for equality between people, not ideas. Not all ideas are equal. Why should there be equal censorship across the board for similar media, when the circumstances surrounding each outlet can be different? You aren't even giving a reason.

 

[Box of Fail]

Japanese children have much easier access to violent media than their American counterparts, yet Japan has a much lower crime rate. There is no proven correlation between violent videogames and actual violence.

Honestly Americans are too paranoid these days. It takes a true idiot to jack a car because they wanted to mimic their getaway in Grand Theft Auto. The ESRB is private-owned. A company does not have to subject itself to an ESRB test to publish its material. That is how it should be. The ESRB is not affiliated with the government in any way. I would be opposed to government censorship of videogames. A private company? Not so much. The government trying to outlaw videogames, however, as happened in CA, is absurd. The concept that the government should censor things is once again in support of the theory that people are too stupid to make decisions for themselves. I have said this time and time again and I will say it as much as needed: the government is not smarter than the people. The government does not know what is best for the people. Whether or not parents should be giving these games to children and whether or not the government should involve its arse where it doesn't belong are two very seperate issues.