Planned California Bill Targets Video Game Sales 431
joeflies writes "'California Assemblyman Leland Yee, D-San Francisco, plans to introduce legislation making it illegal for minors to buy the most violent video games and requiring game dealers to separate youth games from adult offerings.' Story
here from the Sacramento Bee."
So.. (Score:2, Funny)
Damn lameness filter...
Re:So.. (Score:2)
Well why not? (Score:3, Funny)
Re:Well why not? (Score:2, Interesting)
But they don't do it for R-rated movies, and with spectacularly few exceptions even the worst video games go no further than an R-rated movie.
This legislation addresses a problem that doesn't exist, except in the minds of the "Won't somebody please think of the children?!" types.
Re:Well why not? (Score:2, Informative)
Re:Well why not? (Score:5, Insightful)
I couldn't give two figs about the ESRB rating of a product, as I am over 18. But I can't go into a store without seeing and noticing the rating signs. Why don't parents see these signs? I've seen clerks at EB flat out tell parents that a game is now OK for their kids, and the parents buy the game anyway.
The game industry does a far, far, far better job of clearly rating the content of its products than the movie industry, the music industry, or the TV networks. And yet, you don't see these do-gooder politicians trying to regulate movies more, do you?
This is ridiculous -- the problem isn't a lack of regulation among game stores, or violent games, it's a total lack of parental responsibility. (And yes, I am a parent -- and I pay close attention to what media my son consumes.)
Re:Well why not? (Score:4, Informative)
You have a son, do you think when he is 13 you'll be in totla control of his every movement?
At least with some proper enforce ment, you know it will be more difficult for him to get his hands on some game you don't want him to have.
I would argue that man kids get them becase they go some gift certificate from a well meaning relative.
Re:Well why not? (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Well why not? (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Well why not? (Score:4, Funny)
* From some of the Concerned Women for America propaganda.
Re:Well why not? (Score:5, Interesting)
While I'm not making a judgement call stating that video games are somehow worse than movies, it is something to keep in mind.
Re:Well why not? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Well why not? (Score:5, Insightful)
Oh wait....
Let's face it. If Knothead Jr. is that likely to mistake the cartoony animation of GTA for reality, then odds are that he was already messed up, and the gameplay wasn't adding much, if anything to his lack of a firm grip on reality. Parents and legislators need to grow the fuck up themselves and realize that once they stop using movies and games as parents, and start actually being parents themselves, maybe, just maybe, their kids won't be so fucked up.
Blaming the games for "giving the kids the wrong message" is a cop-out. Parents should be the ones giving their kids the message. If they do their job right, the games won't mean jack...
Kierthos
Re:Well why not? (Score:4, Funny)
Re:Well why not? (Score:5, Insightful)
Again, it's the same old thing. First it was comic books, then sci-fi mags, then D&D, then Metal music, then NWA... video games are just the current hot ticket the freaks the norms.
Re:Well why not? (Score:4, Insightful)
You see there really isn't any evidence that games connect to real world behavior. In fact, the most violent games are _just_ as popular in countries that see a lot lower incidence per capita of murder and rape crimes than the state of California.
Politicians latch on to these stupid ideas because it makes them look good to their constituency, perpetuating the illusion that "little people can get big changes made". In the meanwhile people like Kenneth Lay and Bernard Ebbers get their butts kissed. Oh yeah I forgot, they _are_ going to nail Martha Stewart for stealing $40000 or being a self made woman...err...i can't remember which it was.
So what would we guess? Is it the video games kids play that cause crime or is it the fact that kids see people who are _obviously_ criminals get off scot free every day in the real life that contributes to increased crime in the U.S.?
Thats not going to change anything (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Thats not going to change anything (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Thats not going to change anything (Score:4, Insightful)
BTW, what game promotes shooting at passing cars (as opposed to passing pedestrians - GTA promotes that, but shooting at passing cars isn't quick in any GTA game w/o a rocket launcher or flamethrower)? I do agree, however, with your point. Also, I feel that someone who shoots up a bunch of people after playing a violent game was probably unstable for some reason anyway (sometimes not necessarily their fault, but...)
Re:Thats not going to change anything (Score:3, Funny)
Roadblasters [klov.com] anyone?
Re:Thats not going to change anything (Score:5, Interesting)
Probably for the same reason that two 15 year olds shoot up a school and folk appear on slashdot within a nanosecond explaining how gun control would not possibly have prevented the event.
Very little political debate in the US seems to ever be influenced by science, it is mostly predjudice and emotion.
Mind you, things are not necessarily that much better in science. Remember that AIDS/Polio vaccine connection that came up about ten years ago. Instead of checking a pretty strong prima facie case the establishment tried to quiet the issue - litterally in this case with a threat of libel proceedings. Thats not science.
Last year the stories had finaly percolated back to Nigeria and suddenly people were refusing the vaccine. Bad news when polio is inches from being erradicated. Betcha wondering why it took so long for the vaccine to make its way back to the people who were used as guinea pigs for testing, oh, well guess not.
So finally the science establishment gets panicky and does the tests that should have been done when the controversy started. They checked the remaining vials of vaccine from the tests to see if they could identify HIV DNA or money DNA. Turns out that the monkeys used to incubate the vaccine were a type that do not have a HIV strain and there was no HIV virus detected.
So the establishment got it right all along? Well not really, why didn't they insist on doing the test when the story first broke? The only logical reason to resist would be if you feared the result.
Re:Thats not going to change anything (Score:5, Insightful)
What reason is this?
Very little political debate in the US seems to ever be influenced by science, it is mostly prejudice and emotion.
That is because "science" is wholly inadequate to determine the rules by which a society interacts. For example, you sight gun control in your opening. One side feels gun ownership is fundamental to a free and prosperous society. The other side not so much. Both sides can present "scientific" evidence proving their case. But, really, who cares? These are issues of the fundamental rights of man in a free state. Silly soft social science (that is what we're talking about) has no real place here.
Further, social scientists are notorious for not being impartial when testing their hypothesis, thus the ability of two antithetical parties being able to prove their points with the same data. Additionally before such science can be used to determine policy both parties would have to agree that the hypothesis is one worth testing. This is usually not possible.
For example, my hypothesis is that woman who are covered head to toe in a burka are safer. I do my study and determine there is less violence against women in countries with such a policy. Therefore, we can now state scientifically that all women in the United States should be covered head to toe in a burka. There of course can be no argument against this policy as that would be prejudicial and emotional.
The people have learned instinctively to run like hell from "scientists" attempting to determine policy. There is a reason for that.
Mind you, things are not necessarily that much better in science.
You got that part right for sure.
Re:Thats not going to change anything (Score:4, Insightful)
Firstly, bull.
One side of the gun control debate makes a point to present verifiable facts, hard data measured under well-defined circumstances, whenever possible by unbiased, disinterested third-parties, including parties that are supposedly part of the opposition. These verifiable (scientific, no quotes) facts are repeatedly and constantly completely ignored by the other side.
The other side uses nothing but highly modified data that has been restructured to suit their purposes, to "prove" their points. That's when they even bother to present any data at all. Most of the time they stick to straw-man emotional arguments, name-calling and fear propaganda based on... what? Certainly not real data that will hold up to scrutiny.
I will leave it as an exercise for the reader to decide which is which. The two sides bear no resemblance in this respect that I can see.
Secondly, why is the parent modded insightful? Science has no place in deciding social policy? He isn't even talking about science, by definition. He's talking about pseudo-science. That's what it's called when the results can be used to prove whatever hypothesis you feel like proving that day.
Real science decidely does have a place in our decision-making processes in any field. But by definition that means the hypotheses and data must be verifiable by multiple, perhaps antithetical parties. That's science, not this mumbo-jumbo the parent was talking about.
Re:Thats not going to change anything (Score:5, Insightful)
Parents: It's no one else's job to raise your kid. You REALLY don't want the government doing it.
In response to the inevitable flood of "that's not a fair statement" and "you obviously don't have kids or you'd understand..."
It's very simple. If you don't have time to raise them properly. DONT HAVE THEM.
That seemed to work pretty good 30 years ago. Then the "not my fault" and "failure makes little johnny feel bad" crowd started passing idiotic laws.
Blame the little monsters' Parents. They're the fuckups.
Re:Thats not going to change anything (Score:3, Funny)
So what? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:So what? (Score:2)
Re:So what? (Score:3, Informative)
Re:So what? (Score:3, Insightful)
You must be especially sheltered and puritanical to an extreme to believe that teens shoudn't be able to see NC-17 movies (R movies are more or less unenforced). Really now, there's nothing in there they don't know (or are doing). The Ame
Re:So what? (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:So what? (Score:5, Insightful)
"Teens" technically means anyone between 13 and 19. They're NOT the same emotionally, mentally or in experience. Lumping them in together is as irresponsible as using the term "intellectual property" when talking about copyrights, trademarks and patents -- different items altogether.
18 year olds can't buy alcohol yet pay taxes, work, and can get drafted to die in a war.
Because the vast majority of alcohol related driving injuries and fatalities involve "teens". Many can't handle the responsibility.
Under 21s can't even enter a bar, thus banning them from their own local music scene until they turn 21.
Any you have no idea how grateful those over 21 are for that.
Sexually active teens get arrested for having sex with consenting teens, etc.
Again, both the lumping of "teens" is a misnomer and the laws were a result of lack of responsibility. "Teens" still have that Superman complex -- where it can't happen to them. Only experience deals with that and the longer you live, the better the chances you have of gaining that experience. Many "teens" are irresponsible with sex -- not fully understanding the potential consequences -- or not believing it can happen to them.
No, I'm not claiming just being an adult automatically fixes that. It isn't an automatic cutoff, more like a learning curve. Good judgement comes from experience. Experience comes from bad judgement. Living longer helps you gain more experience.
Finally, like it or not, "teens" are legally CHILDREN. That means their parents still legally hold some responsibility for their actions. The older the kids get, the less responsibility the parents have and the more for the kids. At age 18 is the biggest legal transfer of responsibility. At 21 is the final. Then they can be held responsible for their actions.
If your "teen" gets drunk and smashes up someone's car, Mom & Dad can be held responsible for the damages. Once you hit 18, it is YOUR problem.
There is no way to get a perfect system. The ratings are a guideline. Relax.
As for apathy...NC-17 *WAS* the attempted fix to the system. People didn't know the difference between X- and XXX- so both were a black mark for a serious movie.
Re:So what? (Score:3, Insightful)
Which more or less backs up my points: an arbiratry number is more or less useless, the real solution is realistic content ratings and parents making the decisions as to what their kids can see, not theaters or the local state legislature. Yes, that means unsupervised kids doing things parents might not like - but not only is that happening already its arguable that without exposure to outsi
NC-17 kiss-of-death = bad? (Score:3, Insightful)
Unrealistic sex scenes are damaging the national cinema? How exactly does that happen? The important thing is the story, and how it is conveyed...now, I'll grant you that it could be very possible that having "realistic sex scenes" can be necessary to do just that, but if that's the case, no one is preventing yo
Should apply to books as well (Score:4, Insightful)
Therefore, I propose we adopt ratings for books. Anything too complex for a young mind to grasp should be rated NC-17. This of course goes for all books critical of the government as well since we can't have that. This goes double for any history books. Those things are just dangerous.
Won't someone please think of the children?
Re:Should apply to books as well (Score:3, Insightful)
THINKING is a benefit that outweighs the rest. The reason a lot of restrictions are put in place is because people DON'T think.
On a side note, history books ARE dangerous. Many of them are dangerously inaccurate or biased. Actually, this applies to most school textbooks.
Negative Backlash (Score:5, Insightful)
This bills do have some of that knee-jerk tone to it. "Operating through the eyes of video game killers trains kids to stalk victims, take aim and kill, Yee said." Yee failed to mention where the child is to get practice assembling a gun, re-loading a gun, or smuggling a gun into school. Even then, FPS gaming is not necessarily a good training tool... I can rack up a pretty decent frag count, but I can't shoot a paintball gun to save my life. The ten year old kids at the local arena with the $200 Birthday Special laser-scoped fully-autos shouting "Die, F(#$ers, Die!" seem to be a bit more adept at stalking, aiming, and killing. Aiming with an optical mouse and keyboard is a whole lot different than aiming with 20 pounds of hardened steel.
In his defense, perhaps Yee meant metaphorically that we shouldn't teach kids that violence solves all of life's problems. If that's so, then we shouldn't have elected the Terminator to the state's highest office. Glorification of violence happens on all levels in our culture.
Likewise, the separate shelf 5 feet above the ground is a little cruel in a state with a large asian population. And that the "Harmful Matter" provision does not refer specifically to ESRB ratings leaves it quite open for interpretation.
Personally, I see this kind of regulation as a next necessary step in the entrance of gaming to mainstream American life. The sale of violence-glorifying media should be restricted until one has a grasp of the horrors of real violence. I would be surprised if a study showed persistent increased violence levels in non-self selected groups, but I don't particularly want my kids to spend their time torturing and maiming digital bunnyrabbits either.
We should support a bill giving the ESRB's ratings the weight of law, the same way that the MPAA's ratings hold true in the movie realm. If this turns out to be one, that's great. But if this turns out to be a no-sales-to-anyone won't-someone-think-of-the-children bills, we should stop it cold. Videogames are not more responsible for the culture of violence than the rest of the culture of violence.
Re:Negative Backlash (Score:3, Insightful)
Taking that a step further: Joining the United States Army trains our kids to stalk enemies, take aim and kill.
I'm assuming Mr. Yee will next propose a bill forcing armed services recruiters to be cordoned off in an isolated area during career fairs at Junior, Middle, and High Schools throughout California, to prevent our impressionable youth from being exposed to glorified depictions of violence.
Re:Negative Backlash (Score:3, Insightful)
If Yee wishes to make sure nobody in California learns how to "stalk, aim, and kill", he'll have to ban (or otherwise segregate) hunting publications as well, for obvious reasons, along with any fictional or reference book, video, which depicts, or otherwise provides information on hunting. The next step is to restrict what you can see on the internet and other game-related
Can't contact parents (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:Can't contact parents (Score:2)
The other parts of college involve piracy. You know what to do. *nudge*
Re:Can't contact parents (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Can't contact parents (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Can't contact parents (Score:3, Interesting)
Oooh raw nerve. Ahhh. I had this bite me recently when my sons (10 and 13) started playing UT. I felt pretty ambivalent about it. But when the 10 year old looked like he was getting addicted to it I just uninstalled it. Now they play BF1942 on my PC. I'm a little disturbed by that, the encouragement to shoot other soldiers in the back etc (and yes I do it too), but its more the moral quandary rather than the outright violence. Would I like it if they could buy these games themselves? No. OTOH I really hate
The idea... (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:The idea... (Score:2, Insightful)
I've never seen a child or children sitting for 10+ hours at a time watching a movie or listning to a CD. I guess, neither have you...
Video games can't be compared to CDs or ordinary movies on DVD/VHS or at the cinema. You don't have marathon sessions watching/playing them as you do with games. It's much easier to get all caught up in a game than any other media, and also much easier to have your reality altered.
What
Re:The idea... (Score:4, Funny)
*Leaves country knowing that now the FBI is tapping all of his phone calls because of this post.
Re:The idea... (Score:2)
Re:The idea... (Score:2)
Great idea! (Score:5, Funny)
violent games (Score:2, Insightful)
Well, that makes sense (Score:5, Insightful)
This country's priorities are all fucked up.
By the way, playing violent video games does make you more aggressive. The affect only lasts an hour though. No long-term effects have ever been measured.
Re:Well, that makes sense (Score:5, Funny)
Because sex embarrasses the bitter, hypocritical old farts, but violence and wargames are necessary to prime the next generation of warriors to go out and kill the other tribe's breeding heathens? :)
--
Re:Well, that makes sense (Score:4, Insightful)
Sounds *exactly* like the hypnotic/subconscious suggestion effect that has been measured from activities as varied as watching TV, Church, listening to a politician speak, reading a book, watching a movie, etc.
TV helps put its watchers into an "alpha state." Rousing and effective ministers have mastered timing that helps deliver their messages in an effective and convincing way way (see also: faith healers), politicans know exactly which emotional strings to pull, commercials are complex messages sometimes crafted by teams of psychologists for maximium efficiency (see McDonalds), books can aspire thoughts of rage/revolution/subversion, etc.
I'm all for "Your conscious might be unfairly altered by taking part of this event" stickers anywhere this may happen. Something tells me, no church, network, or politican would agree to these terms. Videogames on the other hand are the lazy parent's scapegoat and make for good re-election soundbites, just like "tough on crime" and the "war on drugs" does now. We can probably add "war on terrorism" with the passing of the PATRIOT ACT and the Iraq war for the lazy voter.
Honestly.. (Score:5, Interesting)
In all seriousness, this is already a policy at a lot of stores (like Target, probably Wal-mart too), and making it a law wouldn't be much different than rating movies. Kids who really want games will no doubt be able to get them, but at least adults will have a forum in which to enjoy more mature entertainment, as opposed to the alternative, which would probably be banning violent games.
Re:Honestly.. (Score:2)
Knock Knock! And there comes the police to you with your 14 year son after busting him when he successfully bought the 18 year/R-rated GTA 5.
Ooops, now he got a criminal record.
Re:Honestly.. (Score:3, Informative)
Re:Honestly.. (Score:2, Troll)
Yes, best to let the state or the store raise your kids instead of making an effort at parenting. At least you have someone to sue in case something goes wrong.
Hmmm... (Score:2, Interesting)
Maybe I missed something, but if its so popular w
You can only make sure teens are not buying (Score:2)
Well... (Score:5, Insightful)
I think this will end up being used in a similar way too, like how some parents decide that it's appropriate for their 12 year old to see a particular R rated movie, some parents will also choose to let their 12 year old play a game that they're restricted from buying. Also, this won't have a drastic effect on which games kids play anyways because right now even though kids can buy whatever game they want, their parents still wouldn't allow them to play it if they thought it was inapproriate.
I think the knee-jerk reaction to this is opposition because it seems to fall inline with the looney theories that anytime a kid hurts somebody it's because of a videogame or movie, but in reality the law's not so bad.
Re:Well... (Score:5, Insightful)
Said it before on /., seems I say it every time this topic comes up:
Movie ratings are a voluntary system adopted by exhibitors and the MPAA in order to classify content. I'll say it again: It's voluntary.
If a 12-year-old goes into an R-rated movie, the only penalties facing the exhibitor are economic ones levied by the MPAA and perhaps distribution trouble in the future.
There is no criminal penalty for showing r-rated content to minors.*
Now mind you, it's not that I want 12-year-olds playing Manhunt1 , but making it illegal is arguably in violation of the first amendment.
Yes yes, I know, this is the same fucked-up country where a judge ruled games aren't speech [cnn.com]. Thank god that one got overturned.
Anyway.
Movie ratings: voluntary.
ESRB ratings: voluntary.
Therefore: both qualify as constitutional.
Proposed law: mandatory.
Therefore: likely in violation of the first amendment.
*(I'm leaving X-rated films out of this discussion b/c then we breach the topic of pornography law and that's a lot murkier)
1 The objective of Manhunt to kill as many unsuspecting victims as possible as brutally and graphically as possible for the adulation of the twisted pervert watching you on TV. You're armed with weapons like meat cleavers, garottes, and plastic bags, and gain extra points for how fucked up your kill is.
Re:Well... (Score:3, Informative)
Is this censorship? Sure. Do I think it's wrong? I'm really not sure, but I do know that saying its voluntary is stretching the truth
So now we know who's responsible... (Score:3, Funny)
Bastard.
for killing Mr. Toad's Wild Ride (Score:2)
although there is such a thing as wild rice, but it's not clear what the connection to Mr. Toad is.
groan
Different standards (Score:5, Interesting)
Mr Yee is simply playing off his electorate's bizarre image of video game stores as vile dens where the employees push GTA on unsuspecting 5 year olds.
What I found most distrubing was this quote from the Bee:
I'm not really anti-violence, but personally I'd much rather the kids saw sexual imagery than ultra-violent imagery. Where did we get this weird idea that sex is so horrible that you shouldn't see a nipple until you're 18, but if you're over 13 its perfectly fine to see someone's head blown to bits?Re:Different standards (Score:3, Insightful)
I agree that it's stupid to think that violent content is more acceptable than sexual, but let's face the facts, (almost) every kid's got genitals, but almost none of 'em have firearms, let alone rocket launchers.
Re:Different standards (Score:2)
Damn Ebay lising policies.
Re:Different standards (Score:2, Informative)
in a manner of speaking, the united states was originally founded by puritans. their ideological mindset has somehow lasted through (i would guess) ongoing belief-acceptance through the generations.
Re:Different standards (Score:2, Insightful)
My understanding is the rating for video games are only to inform parents and other consumers about the suitability of the games for
Re:Different standards (Score:5, Interesting)
Again, my main point here is that the system (without legislation) works for movies, and is working for video games as well. There is no need for this legislation, its just pandering to the irrational fears of parents.
Yup, its one of the most bizarre aspects of our culture. Sex is bad, violence is fine... Is it any wonder that the US has the highest murder rate of any first world nation?Re:Different standards (Score:2)
Responsibility (Score:5, Insightful)
How about just taking them from the parents. After all our society neither allows a parent to discipline a child nor does it require a parent to be responsible for the child.
If I was a parent in California I might be tempted to sue the state for defacto removing my parental rights all together.
If the reading above makes you think I'm all about parental right, why yes I am. But I'm not letting the other 2/3'rds out of it either. I'm also a pretty firm believer in parents being responsible. And that includes responsible for rearing a child in a reasonable manner as well as being responsible for the child's actions and the results thereof.
*sigh* sometimes I think we should rename the country The United BubbleWrapped America. Some groups think I'm not capable of deciding for myself outside the house, other's want a say in what I do inside my bedroom (or bath, or kitchen, or
And away I go... Time to find my thorazine.
Re:Responsibility (Score:3, Funny)
The United BibleWrapped America.
Works both ways.
Re:Responsibility (Score:2)
Actually this just might force the parents to take a little more responsibility. Instead of the kid buying the game by themselves then if the parent doesn't like it it is too late to return the game the kid is now forced to go through a parent (or other adult) to buy the game and the parent is now by necessity more invloved in the d
Re:Responsibility (Score:2)
No rights are being removed from parents here.
BTW, the only reason this typ
About damned time. (Score:2)
Basically, people will obsess over what they will obsess over, and they will learn the lessons they will learn.
But if I ever have kids, and if they decide to drench themselves in needless media violence, then they can do it behind my back, thank you very much! That stuff I find upsetting and revolting on a gut level, and I don't want it in my home environment. If my kids are going to grow up to be television
Help me fight him. (Score:3, Interesting)
This is great news (Score:2, Insightful)
A great way to catch those kids that don't do drugs.
This is what I like about California; equal opportunity for everyone to get busted by addjusting the laws so you can catch the crim.. uhh everyone.
Correlation != causation (Score:5, Insightful)
Their study argues that playing violent games is directly related to violent behavior.
So are they violent because they play violent games, or do they play violent games because they are violent?
hmm... (Score:3, Interesting)
when i first read this i wondered why this was posted on slashdot, it didn't seem like anything worthy of regurgitating, but hey, i guess in the UK it isn't, because there already is a rating for games, where GTA is rated 18, meaning you gotta be at least 18 to purchase it.
it's only surprising that california didn't have such legislation until now.
well, that's a much better situation than australia, and many other countries, where GTA is banned altogether.
that said, i don't see a reason why i would miss such games. i enjoyed GTA III, and as for GTA vice city, which i own, i've only played it for 10 minutes and then switched it off... lately i've discovered nintendo, and i discovered the amount of fun you can have while unintentionally remaining on the innocent and cute side of life.
Kudos to nintendo, i'd totally turst them with my kids.
Re: (Score:2)
GTA 3... (Score:5, Funny)
This reads like an advertisement for Grand Theft Auto III.
Not a good idea (Score:5, Interesting)
Because, as a law, it'll harm people.
Do we really need cops running kids into video game stores to try to trick the cashier into violating the laws? Do we really need 16-year old cashiers getting fined for making a mistake or failing to subtract correctly to determine an age from a birthdate?
Do we really need another example to show young people why they shouldn't have any respect for the law?
This law would be a big burden to stores and their workers. It's unnecessary. It'll have no positive effects.
Fewer laws, not more.
Re:Not a good idea (Score:5, Insightful)
What you describe is already in place for alcohol and tobacco. It's really just an extension of that. I'm not advocating for the law, just to be clear. Only pointing out that what you describe really isn't all that new. It's being done currently with two other "vices" that society deems inappropriate for youth.
A better argument against such a law is that it's a burden for tax-payers, not so much for stores and employees. Anytime such a law in enacted, a large chunk of tax-payer funds is used to implement the law, educate the public AND the companies, and monitor the effectiveness and execution of the law. Therein lies the biggest issue, IMHO. It's just another tax-payer burden.
You are correct in saying that most stores already have this policy. Therefore, it is unnecessary to shoulder such a burden on the tax-payers.
No one cares what kind of burden such a law puts on stores and their workers. But they sure do care when you talk about taxes. And we are talking about California, afterall.
Re:Not a good idea (Score:2)
We don't need to worry about cashiers checking if a person is 18 because there is already a system in place to check for age requirements, namely the minimum age in the USA to buy cigarettes (18) and alcoholic beverages (21). If convenience stores and liquor stores can implement this they can sure implement this in stores selling video games.
I'm sick of this (Score:2, Insightful)
What? (Score:5, Funny)
Did I miss an important study or something? Do psychotic killers now average under five feet in height?
Arnie's Take? (Score:2, Funny)
Don't most stores already do this (Score:2, Informative)
It's all about the kids (Score:3, Interesting)
Oh well... (Score:2)
Is it too radical to consider that we should impose SOMETHING against stupid clerks who could care less about their job?
This is how it is. (Score:5, Interesting)
After World War II, the Europeans sought to limit imagery of violence for their own reasons (War, genocide and all that.) while the Americans, being based on a Puritanical roots wanted to limit imagery of Sex. So if you can't have one, you have the other. The Europeans see Sex, and the Americans see Violence and neither see the other. Kind of lame, I would rather see sex on TV than violence.
A parable (Score:4, Interesting)
How does this relate to the current story? Well, it goes to show how much personal responsibility goes in today's society. The government can't tell people that they'd have to be imbeciles to buy their three-year-olds copies of GTA, so naturally they have to "look out for the public." Naturally, the media, knowing a good thing when it sees it, runs stories every time some dumbass with a copy of FF7 burns down a 7-11 or some goth with doom shoots up a high school in Hell's Asshole, Suburbia.
How do we stop this influx of idiocy?
A. Vote. Too many old people do it and not enough young people do. The reason that medicare and social security are going to bankrupt this country is that the politicos are too afraid of pissing off the old people and losing their votes to make any substantial changes to those horrible, horrible systems. At the very least, vote out of office everyone that supports stupid bullshit laws that'd regulate video games. Perhaps you don't support any candidate - but you can still use your vote as a weapon against the particularly dumbassed ones.
B. Get your news from the internet. Don't watch the news, ever, even idly. Read, or do something else with your time. Face it, wouldn't you rather you didn't know who Ashton Kutcher or Britney Spears or Madonna were, or who they were sleeping with? Every single fucking time I've been involved with something before it got media attention, I noticed grave factual inaccuracies and general dumbassedness - the media is a big fat pile of sad.
C. Take some personal responsibility. Now, remember, "responsibility" is a direct synonym for "blame." When you fuck up, take the blame. Don't tell yourself that you didn't do well in high school because "only 10% of people do well in that type of environment" - tell yourself that you screwed up because you suck at life.
D. Make the lives of idiots living hells. Don't suffer fools gladly. Be sure to use sarcasm to belittle them, and lower their "self-esteem." Hopefully, they'll fail to attract mates, and then eventually the suck will be bred out of humanity.
A story about self-esteem: At my HIGH school, there was recently a seminar called "Words can really hurt." On this, students were invited to get up to share their experiences of being picked on, which was supposedly supposed to get us to realize our HURTFUL WAYS. One child got up and told about how people would make fun of him for being diabetic. Now, this child had a fucking insulin pump attached to his body. He was so diabetic that he actually had a computer that would monitor his blood sugar in real time. But he LOVED candy. So, he'd go on these binges, eat a fuck-ton of candy, and compensate by pumping himself full of insulin. Naturally, every time we did this, we'd tell him "Jimmy, you're going to fucking die, you stupid diabetic!"
This is our future. Remember kiddies - even though voting gives you the illusion of control, and probably matters less to you each individual time than the amount of taxes you pay to register, you can't bitch about the government if you didn't even try to play by their rules.
Might be off Topic (Score:3, Interesting)
This might be all little off topic, but...
What the hell is going on? I'm one of those 'bad' kids. I'm currently 18, living in a College town, planning to start school when I can save up the tuition ( sometime in fall. )
I've been smoking since I was 11 -- My parents told me not to. I did it anyway. It was my choice. No one elses. It's something I wish I'd never started, but it's not up to anyone else to tell me I can't smoke but my parents. They said they didn't want me to, but they knew I would do it anyway.
I also drink. Alot. On average, once a month or so I go out and get so drunk I can't play pool anymore for the fact that I have to ask every 5 seconds if I'm solids or stripes. Note that it is illegal for me to do that.
I may not be the perfect person, but I was raised by my grandparents for the most part, and for a long time most of my friends where senior citizens. I seem to have adopted their attitudes towards some things. I find it rediculous that I can't smoke at 17, but I can die for my country. At 18 I can smoke and die for my country and pay taxes, but I can't drink. And don't get me started on consentual sex between minors. When I was fifteen if I had sex with a 16 year old girl because of the laws in my state, I would have been guilty of statutory rape.
I'm all for government looking out for my interests, but government seems to have forgotten what my interests are. Parents have to be allowed to make decisions for their children as long as they aren't starving or beating them to death, scitisne?
Am I missing something? (Score:5, Funny)
I didn't know that much of *anything* had sexual content yet. And assuming (as I hope) that he doesn't have GTA prostitutes in mind, what are these games he's thinking of and where do I buy a copy? Has this guy been importing Japanese dating sims for the express purpose of not giving them to his kids?
Not to mention that the American perspective on violence vs. sexuality is rather badly fouled up, as many other posters already remarked. Sexual behaviors -- love and physical reproduction both -- are quite thoroughly natural to humans, for obvious reasons. But any human's one strongest inborn aversion is against doing harm to another human. Even armies have never done well in overcoming all of a person's instictive aversion to doing harm or taking life, and I suspect that the totally unnatural is a bit more harmful to kids than the obscure but natural.
Someone tell these idiots that this isn't the 19th century any more, thank the Lord -- and that the US is no longer a frontier...
Compare to film... (Score:3, Insightful)
A wonderful example of this is American Psycho. The film had to be cut for US release else it would have recieved and NC-17 rating (which is box office death apparently) from the MPAA. What had to be cut was a not especially graphic scene of a threesome. It was in the international release, and was really not of any note. It did show a threesome though, so was obviously morally evil. Of course all the perfectly normal and morally respectable scenes of Bateman carving people up with axes, chainsaws, and a variety of other interesting implements was fine with the MPAA.
Put the same violence in a video game and you probably wouldn't be able to sell it to ayone under 25.
Jedidiah
More brain damage (Score:3, Informative)
I remember being a teenager when all the "Dungeons & Dragons makes people kill people" stupidity was all the political rage. My mom fell victim to it for a while, until I persuader her to sit in on a few sessions with me and my friends. Her eyes were opened, that much is sure. She finally realized how insane the mass media, parents' groups, and politicians were by blaming an intellectual exercise for some kids' twisted world perceptions.
It's now 20 years later, and the entire process is repeating itself. Different names, different games, same complete lack of comprehension and neural activity.
Read my lips: the kids doing these things want to do these things because these things are ingrained into these kids' personalities, not because of some stupid imagined connection with video games. These kids (and their willing adult accomplices in psuedo-scientific psychological fields and media) use what they think is the most likely excuse to deflect blame from themselves: violent video games made me do it.
Think back to your own childhood (and for many of us, our current adulthood where our jobs are concerned). When you got caught by your parents doing something you knew was bad, didn't you brainstorm for some excuse you thought your parents would buy to let you off the hook? Of course you did. It's exactly what these kids are doing now. Why do so many people think this is so different from the past?
If they couldn't blame video games today, they would blame it on movies again. When they can't blame it on movies, they blame it on the parents (which at least has a kernel of truth in some, but not many, cases).
This artificial distinction between childhood and adulthood provides a false sense of control and understanding for too many people. To say that a teenager's mind isn't developed enough to understand death and that killing people is wrong represents a dangerous plateau of irresponsibility.
Again, I only have to think back to when I was a teenager. I knew right and wrong fully well back then, and this stupendously moronic notion that I was too young to understand the consequences of my actions was implicit permission for me to break all those rules I was being made to follow.
I got punished for the small things like shoplifting candy bars, but I was completely off the hook for big things (I won't go into the details, except to say I never crossed the line into hurting people) because adults were so easy to manipulate into blaming everything but the real problem: my bad attitude and lack of respect.
The real irony here is that Dungeons & Dragons was the key to igniting my creative desires, and changed my direction from thief and vandal to productive member of society. Had these stupid laws been in place then, taking my focus away from insighful creativity, I would likely have ended up becoming a criminal instead of writing software.
How poetic that my career ended up with me writing software to help manage the criminal justice system.
Of course, Dungeons & Dragons wasn't any more responsible for my positive behavior than Grand Theft Auto 3/Vice City are for shooting sprees. It was merely the lense through which my personality was focused. My creative desires and motivations were already there. D&D just helped expose them. It also introduced me to mythology and religious history, two things in which I would otherwise never have shown an interest (and one of which I still think is absurd).
People proposing these laws almost show almost as much intellectual damage as the people committing the crimes.
Re:Could work - They do check ages for movies! (Score:2, Informative)
Re:For godsakes (Score:3, Interesting)
That reason doesn't have to be you, mind you. It doesn't really sound like it is. It could be that everyone knows some person that is not-so-together, personally. If you are still in high school or younger, how about answers to a few questions. If I wanted
Re:Government uber alles? (Score:3, Insightful)
The law only affects those parents who don't want to take such responsibility.
Who do you think should be taking a "dose of personal responsibility"? The child who is restricted from most things until 18 or drinking till 21, or who doesn't have to take responsibility for most law breaking until they reach adulthood (except in cases where they acted as only a completely, gone-wrong, adult could).
You do