Video Game Labeling Law Passed In New York

chareverie writes "A law just passed in New York now requires labels for violent content in video games that are already rated, as well as having parent-controlled lockout features installed in consoles by 2010. The law has caused an uproar with civil rights groups who claim that such a law is unconstitutional. A legal challenge is already in the works by the New York Civil Liberties Union who cite that similar laws that have been brought to courts in California, Illinois, Minessota, and Washington state have been deemed as unconstitutional. NYCLU legislative director Robert Perry also says that the 'new law is a "back door" way of regulating video game content.'"

Huh?

[Xacid (560407)]

Perhaps I'm missing something obvious. It may be redundant but I don't see how it's censoring anything. Unless of course it's been decided that controlling what your kids have access to is limiting free speech...

I'd prefer this than straight up banning. And I'd consider putting the power *and responsibility* back in the hands of the parents a good thing. All this is in my opinion is a tool to facilitate that.

Re:Huh?

[snl2587 (1177409)]

You mean a mandated tool. As in, parents don't simply exercise good parenting and choose a console model with the ability to lock out games (or actually monitor their kids, but we don't talk about that now do we?). Every console will be required to have the functionality to lock-out content at the consumer's cost.

I realize that there is no direct contradiction to freedom of speech/expression, but two problems arise. First, by including this backdoor all the pieces are in place for an immediately enforceable ban. Second, the law is done in the "think of the children" vein, which seems to validate poor parenting skills by making it society's fault. And that makes it a silly law.

Re:Huh?

[oliverthered (187439)]

but poor parenting skills are society's fault.

just think about if for a second, where did these bad parents learn to become bad parents or not learn to become good ones. Part of it was the way that their parents brought them up and part of it must be the society that they live in, their schooling, there social networks and how they were arrived at.

Poor parenting is very much a social problem, it's your problem as much as anyone else's.

Re:Huh?

[scipiodog (1265802)]

but poor parenting skills are society's fault.

Really? What is "society" then? It's you and I (and others, of course.) I don't know about you, but I can assure you the I am not responsible for their poor parenting skills!

I think the key point here is that the government really has no fundamental authority to force the producers of the games to, in effect, "help" parents do their job. It sort of makes the game company partially responsible for raising the child.

I think it's akin to a law being passed in the 1960s mandating that National Geographic magazines bundle every single issue with a special paper cutter to enable parents to cut out offending indigenous booby photos if they don't want their children to see them. To me, it's about that logical.

Re:Huh?

[geekoid (135745)]

"What is "society" then?"

If you can't answer that question, you shouldn't have replied. And your post indicates you have no clue.

"I think it's akin to a law being passed in the 1960s mandating that National Geographic magazines bundle every single issue with a special paper cutter to enable parents to cut out offending indigenous booby photos if they don't want their children to see them"

No it's not, not even close.
It's just a label on a box as an indicator to let parents do their job.
As for putting "parental control" on video game , don't they all already have that? the Wii does, and I'm pretty sure the PSIII does as well.
TV's do, Cable boxes Do. It's just a tool for parents.

And there is a difference between indigenous boobies, and beat someone to death with a baseball bat.

Re:Huh?

[CodeBuster (516420)]

The grand parent does make a good point, albeit in an oblique manner, when he states that he, as a member of society, is not responsible for the poor parenting of others. If someone decides to become a parent then we, as third parties, have no say in that decision (i.e. there in no licensing required by society to have children). It follows then that since we had no input on their decision to have children (and rightly so in my opinion) we also have NO responsibility for those children other than to grant them the same basic negative rights [wikipedia.org] that we all enjoy as members of a free society (i.e. the right to an opportunity, the right not to be unduly interfered with, etc). Now let us apply these principles to the context of the New York video game law:

There is no contradiction between free speech and requiring accurate labeling of the content of products so that everyone can see what it is that they are buying. I don't think that there is anyone who disagrees with labeled ratings for video games PROVIDED that every adult (minors are under the control of their parents until they reach the age of majority) is free to make their own decision, to buy or not to buy, once that information has been conveyed without further undue interference which leads into the second part of the law:

The mandatory parental controls on consoles are a technical measure that will create inconvenience and possibly hinder the ability of third party adults to fully enjoy and use the console that they have paid for. This is where the law crosses the line into unconstitutionality. Indeed, as others have pointed out, this DRM type of system leads easily to censorship or outright bans at the pleasure of the politicians at some future date (and the parental DRM controls WILL be abused in precisely that way in the future with the state taking on the role as "parent" to us all). This is the part that many of us here on Slashdot find most objectionable.

Re:Huh?

[AP31R0N (723649)]

Bad parenting is the root of all evil.

i think i saw that in some /.'s sig.

And yes, Joe Bob's parenting problems become my problem when Joe's kid mugs me, or my taxes support him.

Re:

[Doc Daneeka (1107345)]

True. However, this does not make it right to merely do as everyone else does by being a bad parent; it only makes it understandable. If we are to allow this kind of scapegoating to occur, it will further erode personal responsibility.

Poor parenting skills may be blamed on society not setting a good standard but this claim is as valid as saying "The flame is at fault for burning down that store, I just happened to hold the lighter" or "I was just swinging my fists. It's your fault for being in the way!" I

Re:Huh?

[h4rm0ny (722443)]

Bad parenting is partly societies fault, though I'd lay the cause elsewhere to you. I'd say it's time. We're far too busy working to pay rent or mortgages or scrimping for a holiday (to recover from our servitude the rest of the year) to have the time for our children or to provide input and criticism of the schools they go to or to keep an eye on all the other things in society that affect them. It takes two working adults now to maintain a lifestyle where the family doesn't feel they are suffering for shortage of money. Children need good parents and part of that is parents that have the time for you.

We're working too hard and the children are suffering.

Re:Huh?

[SpiderClan (1195655)]

My parents both worked more than full-time, yet they were able to raise three kids and pay enough attention to protest about me renting games like "Maximum Carnage". They also were able to come up with the time to find out it was about Spider-Man and that I didn't know what the word carnage meant. Strange how those who are willing manage to find all the time needed to know what their kids are doing. Hell, they probably know what I'm doing now, or at least have a general idea (they don't know about the /., though, they think I'm working). That's because they want to know, which makes all the difference.

Not to mention that it doesn't take two working adults to maintain a decent family living. It takes good financial management and a willing to put off purchases you can't afford. It's amazing how many people complain about how much they have to work to survive when they have more clothes than they could wear in a month if they tried and plasma TVs on credit, with luxury cars in the garage (only $199 a month! Bargain!)

The Real Problem: Think before you procreate!

[OakLEE (91103)]

I agree with you wholeheartedly, but I would go a step further. People really need to consider what they are getting into when they have children and I have a strong suspicion that most parents fail to do this. If you're struggling to maintain your lifestyle with children, chances are you probably couldn't afford that lifestyle with with a comfortable margin before children.

When you raise children you have the financial obligation to support them, the societal obligation to properly socialize them, and the personal obligation to nurture them and reach their full potential.

If you cannot fulfill all three of these obligations you should not be raising or having any children. If having additional children would call into question your ability to to carry out these obligations for your current offspring, then you should not have more kids!

Whether it be among my personal friends, acquaintances, or through the news, I am utterly dismayed at the lack of forethought people seem to show when having children. Some people want to have a child merely because it would be self fulfilling or "neat." Some people want to have children because their parents or some other family member is pushing them. Some people want to have kids because, well you're supposed to have kids. These reasons by themselves are all frankly, absurd and abhorrent.

No one should choose to have and raise a child for purely personal reasons. Raising a child is a selfless act. When you have a child you owe a fiduciary duty to it to look out for its best interests and put them above your own. If you do any less, you are not giving the child the proper upbringing it deserves. You should be prepaired for the physical, mental, financial, and emotional stress (and it is stress) of raising a child before you even think of having a child. You should especially be prepared for the financial burden, as it can compound the other three. If you are not capable of doing this, then by all means you should not be having kids.

Again, think before you breed. That's if for my rand.

Re:

[mandelbr0t (1015855)]

Excellent. By your argument, the poor choices I make are the result of the poor parenting that society has caused. Now nothing can ever be my fault again :)

"Society" is not an entity that can be blamed for anything. You can't send it to jail, sue it, or discipline it in any way. It's simply an emergent property. While there are a number of influences in the world which can lead to poor judgement, ultimately someone will have to take responsibility. While my first statement is clearly facetious, the argument

Re:

[gnuASM (825066)]

Poor parenting is very much a social problem, it's your problem as much as anyone else's.

And who exactly is to decide what is and what is not "good parenting"? Is the current "majority" moral going to dictate? Is the ethic view with the most money going to win the bid?

Freedom of speech, assembly, religion, press, petition, the bearing of arms, fair and speedy trial, non-self-incrimination, jury, retribution, and equality are by far NOT the only rights we have as U.S. citizens, those are just the most widely violated, as well as those enumerated in the Amendments.

The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

Why does it seem that most p

Re:

[shawn(at)fsu (447153)]

Even if we are all not parents, we were all kids once. My parents watched me like hawks but I could still do things without them noticing. Hey, they had to go to sleep sometime. I don't see how this is a big deal it gives power to parents. My parents would have used this feature if they had it and I'll use it if they have it when I have kids.

Heh. it's not _that_ hard, you know

[Moraelin (679338)]

Every console will be required to have the functionality to lock-out content at the consumer's cost.

Heh. Dude, you do realize that it costs bugger all to implement, right? I mean, it's essentially a

if (getGamesMinimumAge() > getAgeSetInTheConsoleOptions()) {
        showWarningScreen();
        return;
    }

Where getGamesMinimumAge() would involve simply reading a value from the boot sector, or whatever other sector, or even an ini file on the disk. They already have the libraries to do that.

And getting a value from the flash memory, they already have the functions for that too, or you couldn't actually have any such settings.

What remains as teh uber-challenge is printing a warning screen, which can be as easy as clearing the screen and displaying a string. Again, they have the functions to display stuff.

Basically the whole thing is going to cost the poor consumers, what? If you ended up paying a whole 1000$ for someone to code that, by the time you sold your first million consoles (which is actually very very few for a console), it comes down to 0.001 dollars, or 0.1 cents per console sold.

Mind you, I'm not opposed to your picking at other details of this law, but, let's get serious with the "Oh noes, it's at the consumer's cost!" arguments.

Re:Huh?

[langelgjm (860756)]

You mean a mandated tool. As in, parents don't simply exercise good parenting and choose a console model with the ability to lock out games (or actually monitor their kids, but we don't talk about that now do we?).

I agree that legislators ought to think long and hard before mandating something like the V-Chip, because you're right, the cost will be passed on to consumers. However, sometimes mandating the tool may be the only way to actually get manufacturers to provide it (think about the history of the seat belt).

Also, no matter how good of a parent you are, you can't monitor your children 24/7. Besides, I'd think most /.ers would remember outsmarting their folks - when I was in high school, unbeknownst to my parents, I ran phone wire into my room so that I could have my own unmonitored Internet connection. Technological tools can be quite useful as supplements to good parenting. I have an uncle who has programmed his router to shut off Internet access to his son's computer after a certain hour. Does the fact that he no longer has to visually monitor the computer make him a bad parent?

Re:Huh?

[FlyingSquidStudios (1031284)]

My parents took away my 2400 baud modem when I was a kid, so I spent my allowance on a 9600 baud modem without telling them and only used it when they were asleep or out of the house. Kids are a lot smarter than legislators give them credit for.

Re:Huh?

[CastrTroy (595695)]

Kids also have more access to money than many people think. While $50 may be a lot of money to a kid, they don't have any expenses for things they truly need that aren't covered by income. So all their income is disposable income. When I got my first job, I felt much richer than I do now, with much more disposable income, because I had no responsibilities. Even now, I have disposable income, but have responsibilities, so I feel like I should be investing, instead of spending it on frivolous things.

Re:Huh?

[Surt (22457)]

If your kids can't outsmart you, your genes are doomed. A kid ought to be able to outwit his parents by age 13, otherwise your kid's just not developing well.

Re:Huh?

[imgod2u (812837)]

I agree that legislators ought to think long and hard before mandating something like the V-Chip, because you're right, the cost will be passed on to consumers. However, sometimes mandating the tool may be the only way to actually get manufacturers to provide it (think about the history of the seat belt).

If there is demand, manufacturers will provide. That's the free market. If there's currently no financial incentive for game console manufacturers to provide V-Chip like technology then all that means is that your average consumer isn't willing to fork over an extra $50 to keep their precious little snowflake shielded from the big bad images. Instead, they'd rather everyone to share the cost by mandating it into law.

Government has no business legislating what is moral. It's everyone's job as individuals to do what they can to keep their kids away from unwanted content. You don't *have* to buy your kids GTA-V "Sluts on wheels". Nor do you have to let your kids associate with other kids who's parents aren't as Ned Flanders-like.

My tax dollars shouldn't be used to keep your snowflakes from watching bad things.

Re:Huh?

[langelgjm (860756)]

If there is demand, manufacturers will provide. That's the free market. If there's currently no financial incentive...

What you mean to say, and almost did say, is not if there's demand, but if there's financial incentive, which are not identical things. Then there's the fact that really good ideas (like the seat belt) don't always translate into financial incentive, and so have to be mandated.

Government has no business legislating what is moral.

Government is all about legislating what is moral. It's called criminal law. Also, arguments about legislating morality are pretty much irrelevant to this discussion, since we're simply talking about a labeling requirement and the inclusion of a feature that allows (and does not require) content discrimination. If anything, you should be all for the labeling requirement, since it provides more information to consumers, which helps the free market to function properly.

Re:

[imgod2u (812837)]

What you mean to say, and almost did say, is not if there's demand, but if there's financial incentive, which are not identical things. Then there's the fact that really good ideas (like the seat belt) don't always translate into financial incentive, and so have to be mandated.

In a capitalist market, demand = financial incentive. If consumers aren't willing to pay for it, but just want it anyway, that is not demand. I don't agree with seat belt mandates either. And that is a perfect example. Automobile manufacturers have gone *way* beyond seat belts when it comes to safety of their vehicles. All of their own accord (heheh). This is because consumers *demand* safety with their money. They are willing to pay the extra cost in order to drive a safer car. This is why billions upon bi

Re:

[tinkerghost (944862)]

Government is all about legislating what is moral. It's called criminal law. Also, arguments about legislating morality are pretty much irrelevant to this discussion, since we're simply talking about a labeling requirement and the inclusion of a feature that allows (and does not require) content discrimination.

Wow, that's a twisted view the founding fathers would shit over.

Government has no business in legislating morality. Government is supposed to be in the business of regulating & maintaining the so

Re:

[Firehed (942385)]

Every console will be required to have the functionality to lock-out content at the consumer's cost.

How many people use the V-chip in their TV? It stemmed from similar concerns and was legislated in much the same way.

This will probably affect no more than four people, in all practicality.

And you couldn't rig up an immediately enforceable ban unless there was forced authentication on a central server, and no system could function in any sense without talking to said server. Basically, when our consoles e

Re:Huh?

[Sandbags (964742)]

Here's a law I'd like to see, lets punish the parents who fail to discipline their children. If a kid is off the rails, lets ensure the parent is actually involved in the process, and if not, lets fine them, punish them, I'm even OK with kicking their asses!

If my kid comes home with a video game i don't approve of, i take it. Simple, done. Once they're done buying their friend a new copy, after 4 weeks of allowance is saved up, they'll not likely do it again.

If you can't hold your kids to the same rule, teach them what you allow and don't allow under your roof, then they'll run all over you, and when outside your house, behave exactly the same way to others.

The only fault society plays in bad parenting, is the same lax attitudes that currently apply in schools seem to also apply within DSS. Everyone is afraid to get sued for telling someone to their face they're a bad parent. I'm not proposing we should get back to the way things were in the 50s, but at least how they were in the early 80s would be a marked improvement!

Re:

[kannibal_klown (531544)]

I don't see the uncontitutional acts either. The only thing that might "worry" me is that perhaps it's an opening volley for more attacks and uneducated statements by politicians and parental groups. After all they are trying to make video games into the new scapegoat for all of society's childhood woes.

Some of what they're asking for is redundant; games already label the age-ranges as well as the mature subjects it covers. For example a game might read "Rated M" and list "explicit gore, animated violenc

Re:Huh?

[KillerBob (217953)]

I'm replying to you largely because I agree with you... I don't see how it's censoring anything. I'm also a little surprised that such a law would be needed... if it were possible, I'd mod the law redundant... >.>

What I don't get is... the last console I owned before the current one was an 8-bit NES. The last handheld I owned was a Sega Gamegear. I now own a Wii, and it's already got parental controls in the system configuration menu. I admit to being largely ignorant of the options in an X-Box or PS3, but I had thought that they'd all have them, considering the current v-chip mentality that the US is taking...

But more important than that, as a Canadian, I'm scratching my head and asking what this law is going to actually change as far as labelling goes. Video games have had ESRB warnings for a long time, and at least in Canada, the ESRB warning gives two pieces of information: what the rating is, and why it got that rating. So you'll see games that are rated E, with notes like "mild cartoon violence", or games that are rated M17 for "sexual content, coarse language, violence", and stuff in between. What, exactly, was wrong with those warnings that parents were already ignoring, and what's new that parents won't ignore in future?

If parents are going to take an interest in this kind of thing, they already have the tools to do it.

Re:Huh?

[Wister285 (185087)]

I think that this is a case of New Yorkers thinking that they run the world, so they are going to influence it in any way that they can. Unless ESRB labels are proven to be inadequate, which I think they are not, how can a new label really bring anything to the table?

Parents just need to go back to parenting. The government can not be assumed to have to make up for the shortcomings of parents. Until people stop projecting blame on everyone else, the problems that we face are unlikely to abate.

Re:Huh?

[imgod2u (812837)]

It's the same reason there are arguments in congress about a law to ban flag burning. In the past decade, the recorded case of an American burning the American flag can be counted in single digits. It's a non-problem.

But they argue to make it anyway so the idiots who vote for them will think "omg, that guy is patriotic". It's politicians mocking morality for show. And dumbasses who vote for them not realizing what legislating something like this will do to American business let alone set a dangerous precedence for expansion of government power.

Forget No Child Left Behind. We need an overhaul of the education system to be No Adult Left Behind. Everyone needs some basic education of the philosophy of the role of government and the legal fragility that is civil liberties. Maybe then politicians won't be able to get away with power grabs like this "for the good of the children".

Re:Huh?

[Derosian (943622)]

Hah, funniest thing about that is proper way to dispose of an American flag IS to burn it.

Unconstitutional? At what level?

[dada21 (163177)]

Good morning folks, your friendly neighborhood anarcho-capitalist here.

Is it confusing to anyone why such a law would be deemed unconstitutional? It makes no sense to me. If they're crying "1st Amendment violation!" we should note instantly that this is not the U.S. Congress passing a law infringing on the freedom of expression. This is a State-level body declaring their right, via the 9th and 10th Amendments, to regulate speech.

Now some of you are saying "Whoa, Mr. Anarchy says it's OK for States to regulate speech!" According to the U.S. Constitution, they can. If their own State Constitution has a declaration of what they can't do, and I hope many States do, then they should be bound by that. But if the People of a State decide that they want their speech regulated and restricted, nothing in the U.S. Constitution should prevent them from deciding it's OK to be nannied to death by their State governments.

I'm all for dismantling the State, piece by piece, top-down, but in this case, I don't see what the issue is. As long as the U.S. Congress does not try this tactic, as far as I know, it's constitutional, and people will get what they deserve at the State level.

Re:Unconstitutional? At what level?

[jonnythan (79727)]

Go read your Fourteenth Amendment.

The Bill of Rights applies to state governments as well. New York State is not allowed to abridge the freedom of speech of New York citizens.

Re:

[DragonWriter (970822)]

The Fourteenth Amendment does not incorporate the Bill of Rights into the States' Constitutions.

It protects "life, liberty, and property" against arbitrary deprivation by the States. In my book -- and that of every Supreme Court to have addressed the issue -- most of the things in the Bill of Rights are pretty fundamental to "liberty" and thus included within the meaning of the word "liberty" in the Due Process Clause of the 14th Amendment.

In fact, in 1866 the ratifiers of the Fourteenth understood the Amen

Re:Unconstitutional? At what level?

[Woundweavr (37873)]

Unfamiliar with the 14th Amendment [wikipedia.org] or just last 100 years of Constitutional precedent [wikipedia.org]? Its pretty black letter law, and certainly applies to New York [wikipedia.org].

Re:

[dada21 (163177)]

As I said in a previous comment, the text of the Fourteenth Amendment does not incorporate the Bill of Rights into State Constitutions.

Where in the Fourteenth Amendment do you even see the word "rights"? Anyone? Anyone? Bueller? Red Flayer?

Do this, my socialist friend: go and read on the Slaughterhouse Cases. The Supreme Court, in 1873, decided that the Fourteenth Amendment did NOT cover "rights" but exactly what it was written to cover: privileges and immunities, such as citizenship. It was not to gu

Marketing Opportunity

[by Anonymous Coward]

I really wish some game maker like Take Two would actually utilize all the wording of these asinine warnings about violent content and incorporate them directly into the marketing of the game.

Death By Gruesome Disembowelment II: Now with more Splatter! More Bowels! and More Realistic Vivisections! Also: New Exciting "Cat Mode"!

Why the Censorship tag?

[LWATCDR (28044)]

"A law just passed in New York now requires labels for violent content in video games"
This doesn't censor anybody or anything.
"as well as having parent-controlled lockout features installed in consoles by 2010"
So a VChip for consoles. No more censorship than the TV VChip and will be uses about as much.

I can see complaining about the cost of this law, the effectiveness of it, or even if it is redundant but censorship? Just what liberties are being taken away by labeling?
And please no "slippery slope arguments". I want to know how providing the consumer more information is a bad thing? Now the vchip in the console I can see problems with cost but outside of that what is the problem. It will not effect any adult unless they are dumb and turn it on and forget the password.

I can see how it may be unconstitutional but only because it could be seen as the state interfering with interstate commerce. But that has nothing to do with freedom of speech.

Re:

[dreamchaser (49529)]

I couldn't have said it better. It sounds to me like the typical knee jerk reaction of self proclaimed 'civil rights' advocates. I am *all* for parents being able to control what content their kids are exposed to. If the kids don't like it then they can try to get emancipated...and pay their own way through life. Or just wait until they are 18 and then go their merry way.

Re:

[Chris Mattern (191822)]

how is that California can put requirements on auto makers involving pollution controls?

Because the state of California specifically granted that right by the Federal Clean Air Act. Which is, incidentally, why other states can't do it--the law doesn't give other states that right. Since there's no Federal law on the matter of videogames, no state has the ability to do this. This is going to get thrown out so hard it'll bounce twice.

Because Violent Video Games are Hiding so Well

[hardburn (141468)]

So you take a game like "Grand Theft Auto", which is named after a felony, and comes with subtitles like "Vice City", and which has a back cover talking about guns and gangsters, and if that's not enough for you, comes with an M rating with a clear label of "Blood and Gore Violence". Apparently after seeing all that, some people's first thought is that it's a game about rainbow-colored horses galloping across fields where the trees blossom lollipops.

Parents should have more than enough information already about what games are violent or not. If they're still buying them, then that's their fault, not the gaming industry.

Fine.

[kellyb9 (954229)]

Fine, then put the label on movies too. There's no reason video games and cds should be differentiated from any other form of entertainment.

Not sure why this is bad.

[MrShaggy (683273)]

I was watching the documentary "Heavy: The History of Metal.". They were talking about how the PMRC made a big deal out of the fact there was explicit lyrics, and that the kids might actually hear this. There were senate hearings. They interview Dee Snyder(Twister Sister) , expecting him to be a blithering idoit. He wasn't. The PMRC was succesful in the 'WARNING; this album may contain....'. Tommy Lee of Motley Crue was ecstatic, they had the first label ever. When asked why, he said "this is the best advertisding ever. How many kids are going to buy this knowing that they had these lyrics in them." true enough! Many bands thanked the pmrc for the extra ash in there pocket. Wouldnt this be the same effect that the publishers would realise if this were to pass?? Not so much on the lockout stuff for the conolse just the labling.

Re:

[GospelHead821 (466923)]

It seems to me that this sort of legislation is a necessary precondition of the solution that you propose. I've heard it mentioned before, "Why not enforce the existing ratings?"

Here's the problem: Video game ratings are applied by a voluntary, industry initiative. If a law were passed to enforce those ratings, it would be placing the executive power to evaluate the content into the hands of a non-governmental entity.

In order for the government to enforce any ratings, the government has to legislate to i

Re:

[Drathos (1092)]

I'm not sure how it is with VG retailers, but when I worked at Suncoast (video store) there was a company policy against carding people to prevent selling adult videos (think Playboy) to underage people. Forget about carding for the rated-R movies. The only time we could ask for ID was if they were paying by check.

Re:Just what we need, more laws

[0100010001010011 (652467)]

People want the future in Wall-E. We want the government (or some company) to do everything for us.

Parenting? Nah let the schools do it. If they screw it up, we'll bitch about it.
Health Care, Insurance, Food, Fuel, Houses. I want the government to do it.
Opinions, TV, Media. Just let the government tell me what I think, as long as I can see Jamye Lynn Spears' retarded baby.

Re:

[Killjoy_NL (719667)]

And how truthful will the stickers be?

Quote:Connecticut State Senator Gayle Slossberg (D) is eager to do something about the rape scene in Grand Theft Auto IV, she told the New Haven Advocate.

Too bad there isn't a rape scene in the game, whoops?
http://www.gamepolitics.com/2008/06/25/connecticut-state-senator-alarmed-over-non-existent-rape-scene-gta-iv [gamepolitics.com]

Re:

[coolsnowmen (695297)]

Lock your door.

Re:

[Repossessed (1117929)]

ESRB ratings don't work because Grand Theft Auto IV is in the same damned category as Warcraft (The RTSes, I'm not familiar with the MMO game).

Somehow I doubt the government would do a better job at defining labels though.

Re:

[Belial6 (794905)]

A small safe should suffice for keeping the kids out of your stash. If you can afford a game console, and a game, you can afford the $20 for a small safe [walmart.com]. Of course, once the kids decide that they are going to play the game when they are not supposed to, it doesn't matter if the game is out in the open, hidden, locked up, or is at someone else's house.

Re:

[DragonTHC (208439)]

yes, this is true. the ESRB has had content labels on their products since 1994. The problem is, retails and retarded parents don't read the labels.

I'm a parent and a gamer. My kid isn't playing violent games any time soon. I read the labels.