Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
Censorship Government United States Games Politics Your Rights Online

72% of US Adults Support Violent-Game Ban For Minors 478

Posted by timothy
from the think-of-the-adolescents dept.
SpuriousLogic writes with an excerpt from GameSpot: "The US Supreme Court won't start hearing arguments over California's law banning game sales to minors until November 2. However, the ruling in the court of popular opinion is already in, according to a new poll. This week, parent watchdog group Common Sense Media released the results of a survey it commissioned on children's access to violent games. Conducted by polling firm Zogby International, the survey asked 2,100 adults whether they would support a law that 'prohibits minors from purchasing ultra-violent or sexually violent video games without parental consent.' Of those surveyed, some 72 percent said they would approve such a law. Common Sense Media CEO and founder James Steyer, whose nonprofit organization is lobbying for game-restriction legislation in many states, hailed the poll's findings. 'We hope the [state] attorneys general will take a look at these poll results and that they'll side with families over protecting the profits of the video game industry.'"
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

72% of US Adults Support Violent-Game Ban For Minors

Comments Filter:
  • by bertoelcon (1557907) * <berto.el.conNO@SPAMgmail.com> on Wednesday September 15, 2010 @08:10AM (#33585116)
    I have had to show an ID to get M rated games from stores here in Texas, does California not already do that?
    • by jgtg32a (1173373) on Wednesday September 15, 2010 @08:13AM (#33585138)
      Corporate policy not an actual law.
      • by Svartalf (2997) on Wednesday September 15, 2010 @10:16AM (#33586574) Homepage

        Brilliant question... Why do you need a law? You don't need the government to play nanny for your kids- you, as a parent, should be responsible for their upbringing and making bans won't do a single thing to keep the ones that're going to get it from getting access to violent games.

        Much like minors getting ahold of alcohol or cigarettes. Yes, we need to largely prevent their access to those things- but without parental guidance and oversight, they'll still get the stuff anyhow.

        • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

          by Quirkz (1206400)
          I can't really bring myself to be too upset by this. The movie ratings system isn't perfect, but it certainly doesn't bother me much, and this sounds similar, on the surface at least. Everyone agrees the parents ought to be ultimately responsible. This (sounds like, if I'm reading it right) a shift from an automatic whitelist with the option of parents to blacklist, to an automatic blacklist, with the option for parents to whitelist. Not sure that's a huge difference, except for the parents who prefer more
          • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

            by Creepy (93888)

            I've said it before and I'll say it again - while I don't have a problem with restricting access, I have a fundamental problem with this law unfairly targeting video games and not all media. In mass killings, the top influences were movies and music, not video games (movies were something like 2x more influential than video games, as well). In secret shopper surveys [ftc.gov], kids were more than twice as likely to be able to buy R and UR movies and explicit lyric CDs.

            The movie ratings system is voluntary just like

    • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

      by Lord Byron II (671689)

      There's a difference between store policy and the law. Despite what I've been told by numerous cashiers, there are (AFAIK) no laws against selling to minors:

      -M-rated video games
      -CDs with the Parental Advisory sticker
      -tickets to R-rated movies

      • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

        by AltairDusk (1757788)
        In my experience all of the chain stores will refuse to sell an M rated game to a minor as store policy. I was even asked for ID at one of the local GameStops (and I normally don't get carded at the bar so it's not that I look like a kid).
      • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

        by SirGarlon (845873)

        There's a difference between store policy and the law. Despite what I've been told by numerous cashiers, there are (AFAIK) no laws against selling to minors:

        As skeptical as I am about "industry self regulation," this is an instance where it appears to work fine. People who are concerned about availability of violent games (to minors) should be lobbying the retailers, not the government.

        • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

          Nonsense. It's easier to lobby a single entity than to lobby ~100,000 different stores. And before you go off about "my right to buy a violent game or porn video", I'm sorry but non-adults don't have rights. They are wards of their parents who make the decision of what to buy or not buy.

          • by edmicman (830206) on Wednesday September 15, 2010 @10:17AM (#33586598) Homepage Journal

            So shouldn't their parents be involved and know what their children are buying rather than depending on the government to babysit and do the parenting for them?

          • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

            I'm sorry but non-adults don't have rights.

            Well that's a shitty view to take of things. I thought all men were created equal and were endowed by their creator (whatever that is) with certain unalienable rights. I didn't think all men were created equal and were endowed by their society with certain unalienable rights once they reached a certain age.

            I know when I was 16 that if someone had tried to suppress my rights to speak my mind, defend myself, or reserve my privacy both of my parents would have been up in arms about it. Then again, my paren

      • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

        by Eskarel (565631)

        There are indeed no laws, but game retailers have been sensible enough to know that any government regulation in this area is just going to make life more difficult(see Australia, the lack of an R rating and what that does to games everywhere). Therefor the ESRB was created and, at least when I was a kid, it was fairly difficult to buy M rated games as a minor.

        Unless retailers have gotten slack again and stopped enforcing their own rules, there's really no need to implement a law. If they have, it might be.

    • I have had to show an ID to get M rated games from stores here in Texas

      Texans seem to take age limits very seriously. I was often in Austin on business trips. On one, I bought a pack of cigarettes at a gas station for my GF, who tagged along on the trip. I was over 30 at the time, and the attendant asked me for ID. While I was a bit confused, I asked him if I didn't look old enough. He said that he was required to ask anyone, who looks younger that 26 for an ID, and that failure to do so would lose him his job. I laughed and told him that I lived in central Europe, and w

    • by Thanshin (1188877)

      I have had to show an ID to get M rated games from stores here in Texas

      Out of pure curiosity, do you need to show an ID to rent or buy a movie like... hmm... Something equivalent to left4dead or somesuch. Zombieland, for example.

    • I have had to show an ID to get M rated games from stores here in Texas, does California not already do that?

      The video game industry has imposed its own regulations in an attempt to avoid government-imposed regulations.

      The ESRB sets ratings. Individual stores have their own policies on what rating they'll carry, and who they'll sell to. But none of it is actual law. You might get fired for selling an AO title to a minor, but you wouldn't get arrested (unless the rating was earned because of sexual content and you were charged with providing pornography to a minor).

      Frankly, this seems a little silly to me. We a

    • Just store policy (Score:3, Insightful)

      by Sycraft-fu (314770)

      Stores don't want to get sued, and they don't want more government regulation (because that is always more of a headache than it needs to be). So stores self police. Target is extremely strict, as far as I can tell they card everyone. I'm 30 and they card me when I go to buy an M rated game there.

      For that matter the ratings themselves are all voluntary. The ESRB is a non-profit group setup by the video games industry, it isn't mandated and indeed indy titles sometimes don't submit for rating (though it is h

  • by Sonny Yatsen (603655) * on Wednesday September 15, 2010 @08:11AM (#33585126) Journal

    This is why a lot of people distrusts pollsters. How people answer is dependent on how the question is written. The question that Zogby sent out here was whether people supported laws that "prohibits minors from purchasing ultraviolent or sexually violent video games without parental consent." Of course they're going to say they support the law - Zogby purposefully loaded the question against the opposing option! Do you think a lot of people are going to say that they support something that was just described to them as "ultraviolent" and "sexually violent"?

    Imagine if Zogby asked a different question bent towards the other direction to the same 2000 people it polled for the first question - for example: "Do you think parents should be responsible for preventing their children from accessing video games containing violent content?" I would bet you that those same 72% are going to say "yes" to that as well.

    • by Jaysyn (203771) <jaysyn+slashdot@@@gmail...com> on Wednesday September 15, 2010 @08:18AM (#33585196) Homepage Journal

      I'm just shocked that a whole 28% of those polled saw thru the loaded question.

      • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

        by jgtg32a (1173373)
        I saw the loaded question and still agree
        • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

          by Jaysyn (203771)

          How about we make it illegal to show kids rated R movies first. Or even better, how about the government quits trying to tell parents what media is or is not appropriate for their children. This is just comic books all over again.

          • by Pojut (1027544) on Wednesday September 15, 2010 @08:36AM (#33585344) Homepage

            Agreed. The only people who should be able to ban violent video games for minors are parents.

            • by StuartHankins (1020819) on Wednesday September 15, 2010 @10:16AM (#33586576)
              I usually consider myself very much against the government telling me how to do anything. However, I think in this case I'd agree with preventing a minor from purchasing the product. That allows a minor who really wants an adult product to have a parent purchase it for them -- it's not "illegal" to own, it just stops kids from purchasing potentially harmful things. It goes along with the policy of not allowing children to purchase beer, cigarettes, adult magazines or toys, certain weapons, etc.

              Why would I change my mind for this when I consider myself a libertarian? I think the harm these games can do to the children is irreparable -- not that it happens in every case. I'm old enough now to see how different my kids behave when compared with other kids who were reared on lots of sugar and violent TV / games. Some of the other kids frankly scare me.
              • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

                by MobyDisk (75490) *

                ...allows a minor who really wants an adult product...

                Ahhh... but you are not thinking like a libertarian. The libertarian asks this question: "Who decides what is an adult product, and what is not?" And therein lies the problem with these kinds of laws.

          • by ArcherB (796902) on Wednesday September 15, 2010 @08:47AM (#33585426) Journal

            How about we make it illegal to show kids rated R movies first. Or even better, how about the government quits trying to tell parents what media is or is not appropriate for their children. This is just comic books all over again

            Actually, this would be government forcing parents to be responsible for what their kids see. This is making it so that the kids can't buy this stuff without an adult (hopefully a parent). No one is saying kids can't own these games. They just want to make sure the parents are aware of it.

            • by Jaysyn (203771)

              Ok, the law gets passed because it's somewhat reasonable on it's face & basically the exact same system we have now, but with force of law behind it. How long would the loophole that you pointed out last before it got amended by one of the Christo-fascists currently in or soon to be in power.

            • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

              by hsbaker (1623313)

              Agreed. When I was a kid, it was somewhat difficult to get things I "shouldn't" have without my parents finding out. It mostly involved enlisting the help of someone old enough to buy the cigarettes/beer/porn.

              That is not the case today. Kids can easily get digital products from the comfort of their bedroom, with little chance of alerting mom & dad taht something suspicious is going on (no need to explain the new 22yo 'friend'). If the law requires you to be 18 to purchase explicit magazines, then why no

              • by Schadrach (1042952) on Wednesday September 15, 2010 @09:24AM (#33585870)

                Of course, the law should require you to be 18 to purchase explicit digital product as much as it does magazines, but only so long as we're talking the same definitions. The problem is that something like Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 2 is in the realm they want to declare explicit and illegal to sell to minors, while the same kind of content as a movie, TV show, comic book, novel, or even magazine (somehow) would not be "explicit" in a manner as to be categorized with the likes of Hustler as far as sale to minors.

                There's no reason that laws making it illegal to sell certain categories of content to minors shouldn't be medium-agnostic. That isn't this however, this is a desire to make certain addition kinds of content also "explicit", but only when presented in the form of a video game.

                This is literally the "Comic books/rock music/whatever are evil and somehow innately different than all other media" fight all over again but with the next type of media.

            • But who gets to classify 'ultraviolent' vs. 'violent' vs. 'comic violence'? If it's an industry body, then there's the same kinds of conflict of interest that leads to independent films getting 'worse' ratings than big studio releases. And the last thing we need is an Australia-style government run ratings board.

              The obvious solution is to prevent children under 18 from buying any media at all. That way it's a content neutral restriction, and all the responsibility for what kids are playing, reading, or w

      • Those were kids pretending to be their parents
    • Yes, thats insane. Considering they asked the poll in the worst possible way and they would use any resulting legislation to ban absolutely everything right down to Final Fantasy style violence. I have to say, while I'm not a FF nut and don't play the MMO or anything, my late childhood experience would have been fairly different, and in my opinion worse, if it were not for FF and other games of its kind.

    • by ArcherB (796902) on Wednesday September 15, 2010 @08:25AM (#33585250) Journal

      "Do you think parents should be responsible for preventing their children from accessing video games containing violent content?" I would bet you that those same 72% are going to say "yes" to that as well.

      I agree! What better way to make the parents responsible than to make the parents buy the game.

      • by AltairDusk (1757788) on Wednesday September 15, 2010 @08:35AM (#33585340)
        I have little hope that will help anything considering I've seen a woman in EB with her 8 year old (my estimation) in tow complaining to the clerk how violent and horrible some of the games they sell are. 15 minutes later (after 10 minutes of pestering from her son) she was buying the kid Grand Theft Auto.
        • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

          by ArcherB (796902)

          I have little hope that will help anything considering I've seen a woman in EB with her 8 year old (my estimation) in tow complaining to the clerk how violent and horrible some of the games they sell are. 15 minutes later (after 10 minutes of pestering from her son) she was buying the kid Grand Theft Auto.

          It's not up to you to agree or disagree with it. That's the parent's right to make the decision and since she bought it for her kid knowing what was in it, it's now her responsibility. When her kid pulls his car over to kick prostitutes, she is going to have a hard time taking the game maker to court since she knowingly bought the game. It might even help further if a big label was on the cover of the game that says something to the affect of "Hey, mom! This game has whore kicking!"

    • by wiredog (43288)

      And how do you expect parents to exercise that responsibility if their kids have their own money from, say, paper routes or lawn mowing? Not let little Johnny out unattended until he's 18? Not let him do anything on the computer without being watched like a hawk until he's 18?

      • by Winckle (870180)

        If little Johnny has video game consoles, use the age filters built into those systems. If he games on a Windows Vista/7 PC, use the same system.

      • Just give your kids limited access accounts on whatever computers they use such that they cannot install programs without a parent's credentials. All the big name games are so in love with the Windows registry that there is no way to run them without the permissions to install them. (Giving kids limited accounts is a good idea in any case, especially if they're dumb enough to execute random files from the intarwebs.)
        • by Jaysyn (203771)

          Little Johnny can warez the portable version of Postal 2 in about 2 hours if he was so inclined & had a broadband Internet connection. It ignores everything you just mentioned above.

          • Yeah, everybody is just clamoring to play seven year old games. What's next, Quake? Doom? Wolfenstein 3D?! Kids today want to play current games, they're not going to be looking for half dozen+ years old abandonware.
            • by Jaysyn (203771)

              Nitpick much?

              Postal 2 is pretty much the exact kind of game they are wanting to restrict with this law. You can replace it with Fallout 3 / Fallout: New Vegas & my point is still valid.

              • Although I haven't tried and do not have the time/resources/inclination to verify it one way or the other, I highly doubt that Fallout 3 is playable without being wholly installed w/ modifications made to the registry. Most cracked software is designed just to get around CD detection, not registry integration.
        • But what about all those horrifically violent flash/soon-to-be-WebGL games around? OMGZ WON'T SOMEBODY PLEASE THINK OF THE CHILDREN?!!!

      • Proper upbringing & a little trust go a long way....
    • Re: (Score:2, Interesting)

      by Defenestrar (1773808)

      War (legal ultraviolence) is a lot different from rape (illegal sexual violence). It's bad enough to combine separate questions (loaded enough), but the article doesn't even summarize the fundamental aspects of a statistical study!

      There's also the fact that 2,100 people is a very small number to base any sort of national (or even state) law and policy on. What are the survey demographics? What are the statistically significant differences of opinion based on group? What is the study's power to detect (a

      • by Thanshin (1188877)

        War (legal ultraviolence)

        War isn't ultraviolence.

        For ultraviolence you need:
        - A blood/corpse ratio of about 25l:1
        - teabagging
        - weapons larger than humanly possible to carry.
        - Men with a musculature that would put Mr. Olimpia to shame.
        - Women with breasts larger than humanly possible to carry.
        - Zombies.
        - A strip club.
        - ... ...

        Great, now I miss Duke Nukem.

    • by nschubach (922175)

      Seriously, "popular" opinion cannot be obtained by polling 2100 of 300 million people. I'm sorry, but that's about 0.0007% of the populous. I can gather up 2100 people who would give different numbers.

    • by kurokame (1764228)
      It's also trivial to bake the sample. Sure, you surveyed 2100 people. But were they an accurate model of the population as a whole, or did you select for a group which gives you a very narrow sample with well-known psychographics then use loaded questions to give you exactly the data you want to get the statistics you've been paid to deliver? Statistics are only as honest as the methodology is transparent.
    • Hell, just mentioning the word 'sexually' to some people is enough to get'm against anything
    • by Thanshin (1188877)

      "Do you think parents should be responsible for preventing their children from accessing video games containing violent content?" I would bet you that those same 72% are going to say "yes" to that as well.

      Are you crazy? The mere mention of "parent's should be responsible for preventing... " will unleash immense rage and screams of "It's impossible!" "I can't know eerything my kid does!" "Anarchy! Anarchy! The end is nigh! Repent!!!"

      Ok, maybe a bit less extreme, but many will get defensive at the slightest mention of parent responsability.

    • by DJRumpy (1345787)

      Exactly. The first few lines tell you everything you need to know about 'loaded questions' for a poll:

      From TFA:

      This week, parent watchdog group Common Sense Media released the results of a survey it commissioned on children's access to violent games.

      Of course the poll results returned what Common Sense Media wanted. They commissioned it. If the polling groups want return business, they aim to please the folks who pay their bills. This would have had more impact if it was an independent poll.

      That said, I ac

  • by HBI (604924) <kparadine AT gmail DOT com> on Wednesday September 15, 2010 @08:14AM (#33585150) Homepage Journal

    Is this an "all" or "registered voter" poll? What areas? But I won't find that out from this article.

    Besides which, Zogby has been sucking hind tit in polling for at least the last decade. Blown calls of '04 and '08, badly blown ones on Election Day, come to mind.

    I wouldn't trust him if he told me the sky was blue, without checking.

  • I got carded when buying Modern Warfare 2 for PS3 at Target. I'm 22, and look the part, but the system still wouldn't let me purchase the game without scanning the barcode on my license.

    Seems like there already are measures in place to keep minors from getting M rated games, so what is the issue here?
    • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

      by tophermeyer (1573841)

      Those measures are put in place mainly by retailers.

      Like the MPAA, the ESRB encourages retailers to set aged based restrictions to games with more mature ratings. Their goal is to make sure that laws don't need to be passed, and retailers are being responsible in who they sell violent/sexual games to.

      Unfortunately it is really hard for the ESRB to get retailers to play along. They have very little power over the industry other than to withhold a content rating, they have no ability to stop distributio

  • The law doesn't ban the sale of such games, just bans kids from buying XXX-rated stuff? Okay, that's cool. As long as you can make and sell XXX-rated shit I'm good. If mommy buys you GTA4, your mommy's an idiot and deserves to be shot in the head when she takes away your copy of Halo 3.
  • by Lord Byron II (671689) on Wednesday September 15, 2010 @08:16AM (#33585166)

    The trouble with these types of surveys is that the always ask a very specific question and then the media generalizes it. In this case, they asked about "ultraviolent or sexually violent" games and if those games should require parental consent to buy them.

    The Slashdot headline broadens the games to simply "violent" and broadens the purchasing restriction to an outright "ban".

    I suggest we give the same people a new survey, but ask about "a government ban on mature-themed video games" and see how many people are still for it.

    • I think the Slashdot headline is misleading because it's hard to fit the nuances into the number of characters allowed.

      • Sure, but we shouldn't put headlines that say something that the poll doesn't just to fit in a space. Make the space larger, or leave a detail out, but don't change the story to fit the space.

        I would have preferred:

        "Majority support ultraviolent game restrictions"

        That would have fit and is factually accurate.

    • by ArcherB (796902)

      I suggest we give the same people a new survey, but ask about "a government ban on mature-themed video games" and see how many people are still for it.

      The only good reason to "ban" violent video games is because kids might play it. If kids can't buy the game without a parent, you take away that excuse to ban the game from the do-gooders.

  • by Arancaytar (966377) <arancaytar.ilyaran@gmail.com> on Wednesday September 15, 2010 @08:16AM (#33585172) Homepage

    Other polls show that more than 95% of US children are opposed to the ban. :P

  • And what's "ultraviolent" exactly? It's these kind of weasel-words that make these surveys dishonest. A reasonable person would probably support an age limit on games at the extreme end of the violence scale but with this vague description you can be guaranteed that if any action will be taken it'll just be on "anything with violence". What looks like a semi-reasonable idea will become an over-reaching all-encompassing bad on anything violent for anyone under 18.

    What we really need is for this to be firmly
  • by antifoidulus (807088) on Wednesday September 15, 2010 @08:19AM (#33585206) Homepage Journal
    Enforcing rules such as this are always a joke. What ends up happening is that the state ends up hiring a whole bunch of cops who do nothing all day but roam around the area going to various stores and trying to get the overworked clerk to sell them one of these games. And if the clerk gets caught the corporations usually end up not having to pay a dime(thats why they hire lobbyists), it's the poor overworked kid who made an honest mistake while performing a job that is a lot more stressful than most people realize. So now instead of paying for school he winds up having to pay a huge fine, may have his name printed in the paper etc. And yet pretty much any kid that wants these games will still be able to get their hands on them.

    Ugh, Americans really need to give up this law and order fantasy where they think they can modify people's behavior just by creating laws(attn pro-lifers and anti-drug crusaders, this means you)
    • by bberens (965711) on Wednesday September 15, 2010 @08:53AM (#33585488)
      So last weekend I went to see the new Resident Evil flick and I was amazed/appalled at how many parents brought their 5-10 year old children to see that movie. That is a wicked violent movie with lots of gross imagery. While I did spend a few minutes during the previews questioning the parenting ability of those people at no time did I think to myself "Boy, we really need to create a new regulatory power which would stop this." That would be stupid. Freedom means people are going to do things you think are retarded. *shrug*
  • How about "One in three wants children to have unsupervised access to ultra violence and sex!"

  • Wait, wait, (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Iburnaga (1089755) on Wednesday September 15, 2010 @08:23AM (#33585238) Homepage
    You already can't sell violent games to minors in most places. Minors aren't buying the games, their parents are.
  • I'm not entirely certain that requiring parental consent will do much more than it is now. At present, most video game retailers require ID to purchase M-Rated games, but requiring parental consent does not equate to requiring INFORMED parental consent. Plenty of minors I know who have copies of violent video games got them from their parents as gifts. I'd wager that the overwhelming majority of the parents who bought the games would reconsider if they sat down and actually played the game for 20 minutes. N

  • Yes Congresman (Score:5, Insightful)

    by SmallFurryCreature (593017) on Wednesday September 15, 2010 @08:30AM (#33585292) Journal

    Sir Humphrey: "You know what happens: nice young lady comes up to you. Obviously you want to create a good impression, you don't want to look a fool, do you? So she starts asking you some questions: Mr. Woolley, are you worried about the number of young people without jobs?"
    Bernard Woolley: "Yes"
    Sir Humphrey: "Are you worried about the rise in crime among teenagers?"
    Bernard Woolley: "Yes"
    Sir Humphrey: "Do you think there is a lack of discipline in our Comprehensive schools?"
    Bernard Woolley: "Yes"
    Sir Humphrey: "Do you think young people welcome some authority and leadership in their lives?"
    Bernard Woolley: "Yes"
    Sir Humphrey: "Do you think they respond to a challenge?"
    Bernard Woolley: "Yes"
    Sir Humphrey: "Would you be in favour of reintroducing National Service?"
    Bernard Woolley: "Oh...well, I suppose I might be."
    Sir Humphrey: "Yes or no?"
    Bernard Woolley: "Yes"
    Sir Humphrey: "Of course you would, Bernard. After all you told you can't say no to that. So they don't mention the first five questions and they publish the last one."
    Bernard Woolley: "Is that really what they do?"
    Sir Humphrey: "Well, not the reputable ones no, but there aren't many of those. So alternatively the young lady can get the opposite result."
    Bernard Woolley: "How?"
    Sir Humphrey: "Mr. Woolley, are you worried about the danger of war?"
    Bernard Woolley: "Yes"
    Sir Humphrey: "Are you worried about the growth of armaments?"
    Bernard Woolley: "Yes"
    Sir Humphrey: "Do you think there is a danger in giving young people guns and teaching them how to kill?"
    Bernard Woolley: "Yes"
    Sir Humphrey: "Do you think it is wrong to force people to take up arms against their will?"
    Bernard Woolley: "Yes"
    Sir Humphrey: "Would you oppose the reintroduction of National Service?"
    Bernard Woolley: "Yes"
    Sir Humphrey: "There you are, you see Bernard. The perfect balanced sample."

    http://www.yes-minister.com/ypmseas1a.htm [yes-minister.com]

    Yes (Prime) Minister

    Watch it. Understand it. Remember it.

    • Oh this takes me back:

      Bernard Woolley: "Shall I file it?"
      Jim Hacker: "File it? Shred it!"
      Bernard Woolley: "Shred it??"
      Jim Hacker: "Nobody must ever be able to find it again."
      Bernard Woolley: "In that case, Minister, I think it is best I file it."

    • That series is priceless. Buy all the DVDs while you still can... I can't help but imagine that some day some fascists will ban them for being so baldly insightful about the true nature of political machinations.
  • Did they just ask

    Do you think violent and suggestive games should not be sold to vulnerable young children ?

    Or did they also ask

    Do you think parents should supervise children in the playground ?
    Do you think parents should prevent children from watching some TV shows ?
    Do you think parents should prevent children from playing some violent games ?
    Do you think parents should supervise children who play online games ?

    I would like to see how the second set of questions line up with the first.

  • Killing the hero (PacMan). Violent attacks by alligators (Frogger).
  • I will rip those goddam adults' arms off! It will be a real-life Fatality! Where can I get a frickin' chainsaw and my BFG9000???

    I'll leave them in worse shape than Romero left Daikatana!

  • How about a ban on violent behavior from adults in front of children? Or how about letting children opt out of religious organizations if they don't like being forced into one!!??

  • 'prohibits minors from purchasing ultraviolent or sexually violent video games without parental consent.'

    I have to wonder, remembering the hysteria that Janet Jackson's nipple caused at the super bowl, how much that one word there influenced the vote...
  • just like their parents.

    Too much of the crap on TV is far worse than games, I doubt games can have a rape/child abuse/etc of the week type scenario and have it fly by.

  • Give me a BREAK! How is it "common sense" to treat minors like idiots? Do the "adults" running that freakshow just want to feel superior to their kids? Do they seriously think that fake violence will corrupt their youth? Do they think those kids will not grow up if they keep them away from some kinds of stimuli?

    There has never been a time when children were as shielded from violence as they are now, and violent video games are hardly the same as kids helping slaughter animals at dad's farm, or kids shooting

    • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

      by geekoid (135745)

      So, yes those thing are also violent but that doesn't make then good or healthy.

      unstated Major Premise fallacy.

      They are not treating minor likie idiots. They just created a tool for parents to utilize.

      I don't want 13 year olds to be able to buy a gun, alcohol, or 'violent ' video game. But here is the problem..ready?

      What defines violent? well, you can't really put 'levels' of violence into law. So you make it generic and then let the parent DECIDE.

      That's all this is. It's not an attack in a child intelligen

  • Get off the console, kid, I want a go!
  • "That person is violent." versus "That game is violent."

    In the first, actual violence is occurring. People getting struck, etc. In the second, it's just flashing images on a TV screen depicting violence. Nobody gets physically struck. Yet both are called violent.

  • Games in the UK are given BBFC ratings (U, PG,12,15,18) like films and just like films you can only purchase them if you are over that age.

    Seems pretty fucking simple, what's the big deal? I'd much rather a game was restricted to 18+s only than banned outright.

  • "And now, they're thinking about banning toy guns - and they're gonna keep the fucking real ones!"

    Why is violent video games a bad thing in a country where guns are the ultimate right?

  • by Aphoxema (1088507) on Wednesday September 15, 2010 @09:29AM (#33585916) Homepage Journal

    "Are you in favor of, neutral to or against the potential sale and promotion of games that may occasionally exhibit mischief and violence to minors?"

    Versus

    "Are you in favor of games that expose children to graphic violence, or do you hate America? Why do you hate America?"

The sooner you fall behind, the more time you have to catch up.

Working...