California Continues To Push For Violent Game Legislation 167
Back in February, the US Court of Appeals shot down a California law that banned the sale or rental of violent video games to minors. Shortly thereafter, State Senator Leland Yee petitioned the US Supreme Court to review the case. Now, along with California's Psychiatric and Psychological Associations, Yee has filed an amicus curiae brief with Court that elaborates on the reasoning behind the law. Within the brief (PDF) are some interesting quotes: "Parents can read a book, watch a movie or listen to a CD to discern if it is appropriate for their child. These violent video games, on the other hand, can contain up to 800 hours of footage with the most atrocious content often reserved for the highest levels and can be accessed only by advanced players after hours upon hours of progressive mastery. ... Notably, extended play has been observed to depress activity in the frontal cortex of the brain which controls executive thought and function, produces intentionality and the ability to plan sequences of action, and is the seat of self-reflection, discipline and self-control." The video game industry has filed its own amicus brief to dispute Yee's claims.
Oh, that's super (Score:5, Insightful)
California has no other problems right now...
Oh right, I forgot the contemporary approach to politics. If you have real problems you don't solve them, you distract your people by making up problems where there are none.
California does not have the cash for a case that (Score:5, Insightful)
California does not have the cash for a case that will likely end being shot down by the 1st amendment.
Heh... (Score:5, Insightful)
If a kid is smarter than his parents, maybe he should be put in charge of restricting his parent's media content (maybe reality TV, Deal or No Deal, 20/20 are all off limits).
The DON'T do the same with movies. (Score:3, Insightful)
It's not a crime to let a kid into a three-year-old into R-Rated movie, or even to let him buy one. It's just against the rules of the movie union guys. It's actually covered under the First Amendment.
So why should it be a crime to sell a kid a violent or sexual game?
What a load of Bullshit (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Heh... (Score:1, Insightful)
Mastering a video game does not make one smart. Unless, there are video games that require one to solve math problems, verbal problems, or some other mental puzzle. Learning to shoot and run around doesn't take much intelligence - skill, yes, but not intelligence.
Re:All bad? (Score:5, Insightful)
What does that even mean? 'Depressed activity in the frontal cortex of the brain'. Boohoo. What can we conclude from that? How long does this thing last, how does it affect a person?
Maybe it simply means someone has become good at the game and no longer needs to think about every single action while playing, like many sports (we'll probably never know since it's hard to scan the brain of someone playing tennis or juggling...). Maybe it means your brain has magically become more efficient and requires less activity to deliver the same quality. Maybe it even means we get dumber, less capable of self-reflection and planning, but only while playing the game.
The little fact about the brain is completely useless without more information. If 'they' had more information that would suggest these effects are permanent and damaging, they would have included this information, since it supports their point. Since they didn't, we can conclude that there is no reason to believe the changes in the brain are permanent or harmful in any way, but it sure sounds like something creepy and nasty to those who don't think it through.
Re:You don't need every child affected (Score:5, Insightful)
If we start to make rules for the many based on the actions of a select few, we're destined for failure.
The fact that a couple of disturbed and mentally unhealthy kids got their adrenaline running by psyching themself with violent video games doesn't mean we should ban these games from all kids. Just like if I use a baseball bat to beat someone to death we shouldn't shut down every single litte-league in the country to stop the children from doing the same.
I think that some age control with games is good. In Finland we use PEGI age recommendations, and some games are also reviewed by the Board of Film Classification. The important classifications are 16+ and 18+. A retailer can refuse to sell a 16+ game to a person younger than 16 without a parents consent. 18+ games are prohibited by law to be sold to minors. If parents choose to buy a game and give it to their child, it's their choice, but a retailer, with no way of knowing the personality or mental maturity of a child, will not be permitted to sell an 18+ game to the child.
This system is by no means perfect, but it stops little impressionable kids from getting their hands on adults-only games, but permits parents to expose their children to such material, if they feel they're mature enough to handle it.
Re:800 hours ?? (Score:2, Insightful)
Yes, but it isn't that sensational to say
In all reality, 5 minutes in any of these mediums will tell you what the rest of the content will be like.
Re:You don't need every child affected (Score:2, Insightful)
It could be the "devil music" they listened to. Or the movies they watched. Or their parenting. Or genetics.
Correlation != Causation
Re:Bad argument (Score:3, Insightful)
While I am as much against this law as any other Slashdotter, I don't like that argument.
If there are problems A and B and A is considered a bigger problem than B, B should still be taken care of unless doing so significantly hampers taking care of A.
And that's the logic that lets them get away with this crap.
"No no no. We'll get to solving A, but right now we have to deal with B. It's a reeeal biiig problem. Honest! Would we lie to you?"
Re:Oh, that's super (Score:3, Insightful)
Legislatures are the problem nowadays. Fact is, effectively governing a country doesn't actually require anything close to the time we allow those guys to meet. They meet anyway, and meddle with our lives and businesses to the detriment of us all.
Best drive them home, and let them only meet every two years. Then perhaps every three years after a little while.
Really, let's see how long it takes us to miss them.
Re:All bad? (Score:3, Insightful)
What does that even mean? 'Depressed activity in the frontal cortex of the brain'. Boohoo. What can we conclude from that? How long does this thing last, how does it affect a person?
Helpful /. Translation: "Staring at a video game screen for ten hours makes your brain 'tired'".
No shit, sherlock. So does doing calculus for ten hours. OMG Ban teh Mathz Clazzez!
Pretty sure doing anything "thinky" for many hours at a block is going to have a similar effect.
Re:Heh... (Score:3, Insightful)
You've obviously never played a real FPS. Halo, Half-Life, Quake, all require figuring out how to get through the level you're on. It is conceivable that you can just shoot your way through a level, but you'll have to go through the level multiple times before you finish it. TFP.
Re:What a load of Bullshit (Score:4, Insightful)
The hilarious thing about all the people that cry foul about the military training stuff is that I have yet to meet one that has even had a clue about what they do, why they do it, or have even a remote understanding of human behavior. These "murder simulators" have precious little to do with the killing. You can't train people for live fire with a fucking mouse and a monitor. What you CAN train them for is tactics, squad movement, reaction times, perception skills, etc. There is no soldier in the field (and probably never will be) that has not gone through the live fire training or any of the other live combat training stuff. The issue is that it is WAY cheaper and WAY faster to train a lot of those skills through a simulator. The military has been using "violent video games" for LONG time training pilots how to fly without losing valuable jets or any training accidents. No one talks about the lives saved by using these simulators for the initial training.
What I can't figure out is this whole definition of "violence". There aren't exactly a whole lot of games that could completely avoid the "violent" definition. This is just the D&D panic all over again. If the kids cannot separate reality from fantasy that has more to do with the kid and less to do with the video game. They love to point out "look at all the kids that were violent killers and played lots of FPS games". Well..I bet they also all drank soda too...should we go after Coke and Pepsi for making kids violent? The number of people that play those games and don't go psycho should pretty much show that it isn't the games doing it...but again...no on talks about how many people play them without going nuts. So...I blame Coke and Pepsi!
Correlation = Causation! (Score:2, Insightful)
From this I can only conclude: Senator you must be one hell of a gamer...
Backyard fences (Score:3, Insightful)
I bet they will never push for a law against violent MOVIES, what with Hollywod present in the state. Games, however, are mostly made out-of-state, e.g. Austin TX has a lot of video game companies.
Re:Bad argument (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:I disagree with Calif, but... (Score:1, Insightful)
California does not have the right to pass unconstitutional laws (NB: 1st Amendment) even in their own jursidiction.
I live in California (Score:3, Insightful)
This is supposed to be a liberal state, but those Democrats in Sac (and in San Francisco, and San Jose) keep passing laws that remove choice from every aspect of our lives.