Want to read Slashdot from your mobile device? Point it at m.slashdot.org and keep reading!

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
United States Entertainment Games

California Anti-Videogame Bill Author Interviewed 85

Posted by simoniker from the governor's-likeness-in-breach dept.
rsmith-mac writes "As an update to last week's story about a proposed California bill to bar minors from buying first-person shooters, HomeLANFed has an interview up with Leland Y. Yee, the assemblyperson responsible for creating the bill. While there are some good intentions with Yee's actions, I can't help but feel that this is a classic case where the road to Hell is being paved with those good intentions."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

California Anti-Videogame Bill Author Interviewed More

California Anti-Videogame Bill Author Interviewed

Comments Filter:
  • It has been my observation that Public-schooled children are more violent, (generally) than those who have been educated in their own home (like myself) (I'm not trying to condemn public-schooling, it's just that a public school is naturally a more intense, unsheltered environment) I play violent videogames. My younger brothers play violent videogames. And we are all nice guys. Yes, maybe seeing violent images "inspires" people do think about acting violently, but honestly, how many people are going to act
    • I myself am enrolled in a private school, and I too play violent video games. Do I feel urges to go on a shooting rampage? No. Do I feel that I need to kill hookers and torture cops? No. Do I feel that these violent video games will provide a sort of 'stress release' and simply entertain me? Absolutely. Funny how the people who are always criticizing games are those who have never played them...

      ...how many people are going to act like they do in Grand Theft Auto 3, when they know that there is a r

    • It has been my observation that home-schooled children are bigger losers (overwhelmingly) than those who have been educated along with other children (like non-weirdos) (I'm not trying to condemn home-schooling, it's just that every single person who does it turns into a huge armpitsniffing loser).

  • Not really.. (Score:5, Insightful)

    by JavaLord ( 680960 ) on Friday December 05, 2003 @09:41AM (#7638298) Journal
    . While there are some good intentions with Yee's actions, I can't help but feel that this is a classic case where the road to Hell is being paved with those good intentions."

    Is this really any different from rating movies and not letting 18 and unders into R rated movies? Video games should be the same way, stores and parents should be monitoring what the kids are doing. If this does pass, I think we will see more games released both with and without blood included.

    • Re:Not really.. (Score:3, Insightful)

      by andrew_dupont ( 253112 )
      Is this really any different from rating movies and not letting 18 and unders into R rated movies?

      Yes; it's completely different. The MPAA ratings are policed by the theaters themselves; there's no law that says a theater can't sell a 4-year-old a ticket to an R-rated movie. The ratings were put in place several decades ago under pressure from Congress, yes, but the movie industry got out of having this stuff legislated by agreeing to play ball.

      The idea behind an industry rating system, as opposed to

      • Re:Not really.. (Score:3, Interesting)

        by JavaLord ( 680960 )
        The idea behind an industry rating system, as opposed to a government rating system, is that it puts the ratings in the hands of those most qualified to make them. The system in place with video games right now is most comparable to movie ratings. The problem, it seems, is that many game retailers aren't playing ball. According to Yee, a vast majority of underaged participants in an FCC undercover study were able to buy M-rated games without their parents.

        Having managed a movie theater for a few ye

        • Re:Not really.. (Score:2, Interesting)

          by andrew_dupont ( 253112 )
          Having managed a movie theater for a few years when I was in college I can tell you that plenty of underage kids end up getting into R rated movies simply by the incompetence of the ticket booth people, or by theater hopping.

          I don't doubt it. The movie industry has never tried all that hard to go after kids who try to circumvent the rules. Of course, my guess is you're a lot closer to 15 or 16, as opposed to thirteen, if you're trying to get into an R-rated movie.

          What more can the video game industry

      • Is this wrong? Yes. But so is being able to buy Vice City if you're 13 years old. It's not just stupid parents -- it's game retailers as well. Until they stop selling violent video games to unaccompanied children, we haven't got much ground to stand on.

        I worked in a video game store for over a year, and the reason we don't bother to ask the kid to bring their parents in is because we're tired of trying to explain just how not appropriate Vice City is for nine year olds, and having them ignore us. The bes

        • Re:Not really.. (Score:2, Insightful)

          by andrew_dupont ( 253112 )
          And it's not the retailer's job to babysit kids when the parents don't care.

          I agree in spirit. But if the video game industry doesn't make it the retailer's job, then government will make it the retailer's job.

          • if the video game industry doesn't make it the retailer's job, then government will make it the retailer's job.

            That's the part that scares me. Not to long ago, there was a law that almost got passed in Oregon that would have made it punishable by a $500 fine to anyone who sold a game the law determined to be offensive to a minor. Now this fine wouldn't have gone to the store, but to the little salesgirl that makes $6 an hour. Now, that's a little like hitting a fly with a hammer in itself, but the f
            • This law would work the same way, except the salesperson making $5/hour would be looking at $1000 and a year in jail for the maximum penalty (with state prison for that year for repeat offenders), because the law is actually just adding to an existing law, with no change to the punishment, which currently covers pornography and cigarettes.

              The most obvious question is when did violent games become equivalent to porn and tobacco? The next question is why is it only video games, but then that is obvious: Cali

      • Re:Not really.. (Score:3, Insightful)

        by danila ( 69889 )
        But so is being able to buy Vice City if you're 13 years old.
        You have never been a 13 year old, right? Kids at this age are often much more cruel and violent than any video game character. Despite hundreds of millions of people playing tens of thousands of computer games there still have not been a single study that would clearly link games and violence. Notice how this Leland Y. Yee never gives us any references that would prove the link. Instead he cites 1000s of experiments that showed still images (you

    • Is this really any different from rating movies and not letting 18 and unders into R rated movies? Video games should be the same way, stores and parents should be monitoring what the kids are doing.

      Currently the gaming industry has the ESRB, an independent review board that places ratings on games that describe the game's content. Like the movie industry, it is up to the retailers to disallow children from R-rated movies. AFAIK, there is no law that forces movie theaters or retailers to (a)disallow ch

    • I agree with you. Although Representative Lee makes some questionable statements, I do not see anything wrong with create a federally-enforced rating system for video games. If anything, it will make things better. It will be less ammo for anti-vg folks to throw at us.

  • Speaking of Bill... (Score:3, Funny)

    by GridPoint ( 588140 ) on Friday December 05, 2003 @09:42AM (#7638302)
    Perhaps they should be considering banning another violent game [xbill.org] as well?
  • In the interview the guy equates the studies about violent video games effect on children to studies about smoking and lung cancer. This just happens to be the opposite of the argument I always use against this kind of legislation.

    Smoking causes lung damage. Why is this? Because no matter who you are if you smoke your lungs will be damaged. If you continue to smoke it will cause a horrible disease like lung cancer.

    Violent video games cause violent children. Why is this? Because no matter wou you hare if
    • And I'm tired of all these legislators trying to make laws about video games and technology when they know nothing about it. This guy probably never played a video game in his life outside of solitaire. If you don't know about it don't make a law about it. You wouldn't hire a farmer to be your sys admin would you? Then again you wouldn't want a sys admin to run the farm. Don't make laws about things you don't know about.

      The sad part is we put these people who really don't understand what real life is
    • I'd hire my sysadmin to run the farm. Force that arrogant S.O.B. to do a real day's work! That'd show 'em some humility!
    • Smoking causes lung damage. Why is this? Because no matter who you are if you smoke your lungs will be damaged. If you continue to smoke it will cause a horrible disease like lung cancer.

      <persona type="Wolverine">
      Speak for yourself, Bub!
      </persona>
    • Nice point!

      Similarly, the effects of low doses of ionizing radiation does not cause cancer in most cases. for a dose of, say 200 mSv (20 rem), your increased risk of dieing of cancer is still less than 1% (this is far above the legal limit of per year exposure to radiation workers). i.e. almost all people will see no illeffect what so ever.

      Even with large sources, your risk of dieing is completely unaffected, it is still 100%. So in the vast majority of cases, radiation has no effect on outcome what so eve

  • Only one objection here. (Score:5, Insightful)

    by a whoabot ( 706122 ) on Friday December 05, 2003 @09:46AM (#7638347)
    Mr. Lee didn't really convince me on his point of why the parental control isn't enough. He says "Unlike movies, in which parents can easily determine whether it is suitable for their child, many of these games must be mastered before the interaction begins at the most violent levels." I don't see any basis for that. Video games are definitely as easy to indentify as violent as a movie. If the graphic content on the back of the package, the ESRB rating, and the hours of grisly sounds and images emanating from the living room aren't enough to allow determination then either is what's offered by movies for determination.

    I think that's an important aspect because parents buy kids the games anyway. I bet that's the most common way kids get their games: from someone else buying them for them, but I could be wrong.

    I guess it's not really a big deal in the grander scheme of things, just possibly a waste of money and time and effort.
    • I found a few more objectionable things about Mr. Lee's statements, such as the following:

      We can also point to the testimony of criminals as further proof. We know that the Columbine killers compared their intended crimes to the game Doom. Earlier this year, a group of Oakland teenagers went on crime spree, stealing cars and committing several murders. One of the perpetrators was quoted as saying, "We played the game by day and lived it by night." The scientific community has put it very simply -- the deb
      • Furthermore... he claims, "The scientific evidence from thousands of studies strongly suggests that your premise is wrong."

        Yet he fails to cite even a single specific study that has been done on this topic.

        Perhaps if he could provide links to even a few of these "thousands" (ahem) of stuides done, I might be more interested in listening to his argument... but as it is, it smells a lot like yet another knee-jerk "Protect The Children!!!" argument...
      • 2) ...GTA:VC... has sold millions of copies, and yet only had a couple of people claim that they were copying it. We'd be living in hell if there was true causality at work here.
        Totally agree! How about a law instead to place people unable to tell virtual world from reality into mental institutions? But for some reasons politicians see it easier to target the law at millions of healthy people to prevent one sick person from committing a crime...

    • I think that's an important aspect because parents buy kids the games anyway. I bet that's the most common way kids get their games: from someone else buying them for them, but I could be wrong.

      Well, that's really an issue of semantics. Usually when I see a parent buying a game for a child (and trust me, I hang out in an unhealthy number of video game stores), they act as little more as a transport. The kid hands them the game, the parent absentmindedly brings the game to the counter and pays for it, a

  • It Pains Me... (Score:4, Insightful)

    by LordYUK ( 552359 ) <jeffwright821@NOSPAm.gmail.com> on Friday December 05, 2003 @09:47AM (#7638355)
    Everytime I hear someone try to pin violence onto video games. Whats more bloody, watching the nightly news or pretend killing nazi's in Wolfenstein?

    As a parent, its your responsibility to watch what little Billy is doing, and if you cant, to teach little Billy that killing is wrong.

    If little Billy goes out and gets a gun and shoots people, its either cause he's messed up in the head, or you failed as a parent, not because the guy in Doom did it.

    Heck, if you arent intelligent enough to seperate reality from fantasy (reality, killing bad... fantasy, killing acceptable) than you have deeper issues anyway.
  • If someone is sure there is a problem, find the means to solve the problem ( in that try and enfore the age rating more seriously etc ) rather than kill the entire issue off. all thats going to do is create the 'underground + illegal = more fun' aspect of things.

  • M rating OK, but who provides the rating? (Score:4, Insightful)

    by Slider451 ( 514881 ) <[moc.liamtoh] [ta] [154redils]> on Friday December 05, 2003 @09:58AM (#7638478)
    The idea of rating games M for mature, and denying access to those under 17 is acceptable. But who provides the ratings? If it's not an independent, objective group, the rating will mean little. Game makers will not willingly give up a large chunk of their customer base for violent games: teenage boys.

    Movie ratings provide parents a consistent measuring stick to enable them to make informed decisions for their kids. Parents can accompany their kids to R-rated movies if they wish. Likewise, parents can buy M-rated games for their kids, nomatter what laws are enacted.

    The challenge will be in making the rating consistent and trustworthy enough for parents to depend on without having to research each title extensively before buying.
    • Game makers will not willingly give up a large chunk of their customer base for violent games: teenage boys.

      they will if it will get the media in general from blaming them every time a teenage boy shoots someone. Plus, Game makers won't be giving up that cutomer base, that base will just buy different games. Also, Game makers have a growing 18+ customer base that will continue to grow until the Atari generation is retired. Do you know anyone who played games in their childhood who is now in their 20'

      • They should use the movie rating system, so parents can quickly understand a games content.

        They do...
        eC = G
        E = PG
        T = PG-13
        M = NC-17
        AO = R
        Maybe they can't use the same letters because MPAA has them copyrighted? (I don't know if they do, just hypothesizing) Besides... look at the back of the box, there's a breakdown of everything objectionable in the game. I am willing to believe that the parents who feign ignorance are really striving for it, or they just can't tell their kids "no" so checking fo

        • M = NC-17
          AO = R

          You've got those swapped ;)

          Maybe they can't use the same letters because MPAA has them copyrighted? (I don't know if they do, just hypothesizing)

          From the MPAA's ratings website:
          The rating system trademarked all the category symbols, except the X. Under the plan, anyone not submitting his or her film for rating could self apply the X or any other symbol or description, except those trademarked by the rating program.

          Note: at the time the rating system was G, M, R, and X, with M being M
        • Maybe they can't use the same letters because MPAA has them copyrighted? (I don't know if they do, just hypothesizing)

          Yep, they do. But If the video game industry came out and said "We want to use the same rating system as you to help parents" and the MPAA said no, don't you think that parental groups and politicians would put a lot of pressure on the MPAA? It's at least worth a shot.
      • That's ignoring the fact that the MPAA ratings system is terrible.

        It is designed to maximize the audience size, and therefore movies that *should* be NC-17 (Kill Bill, for instance, or Scary Movie which had a man being killed by having a penis jabbed through his head in a bathroom stall... yet Lost In Translation is *also* rated R for some strange reason.)

        So if games are going to have a new rating system, let's make one from scratch that works
        • That's ignoring the fact that the MPAA ratings system is terrible.

          but it's pretty obvious to parents who don't want their kids to watch that kind of material. NC-17/R No one under 18/17. PG-13 = no one under 13. The whole NC-17/R thing just seems dumb to me.

          Kill Bill was as violent as any game I've ever played, if not more.
    • "But who provides the ratings? If it's not an independent, objective group, the rating will mean little."

      It is an independent, objective group. Just not a very educated one. As far as I know, EA Sports games haven't been getting 'E' rating on their games because they've been bribing the ESRB, no its because some games are simply not violent (enough) to warrant higher restriction ratings. The MPAA has been letting a number of violent acts in movies get away because the movie manages to 'hide' it by having it

  • Same problem as gun control (Score:3, Insightful)

    by MobyDisk ( 75490 ) on Friday December 05, 2003 @10:28AM (#7638758) Homepage

    Firstly, I must say that some portions of what he says are good common sense.

    • He proposes moving violent games to the top shelf, out of reach of small children. No objection there. (Adult midgets might get pissed though.)
    • He points out that stores don't care about the rating system, and will sell anything to anybody. Maybe the "voluntary" system should pose recommendations on store behavior, or enforce them. Or maybe the efforts should be spent education partents to pay attention!
    • But he has a serious flaw in his logic:
    HomeLAN - The industry has had its voluntary game content rating system in place for some time. Why do you believe that an actual government law is needed as well?
    Leland Y. Yee - The rating system is not working; it simply has no teeth to it. And the huge profits are too seductive. Our office witnessed a 13-year-old girl buy Grand Theft Auto, Vice City. The clerk sold her the game without asking her age then said, "classic game."

    Summary: The existing regulation isn't good enough, so lets make more regulation. This never works.

    Further on:

    Wal-Mart covers Cosmopolitan magazine yet sells these violent video games where women are beaten and murdered without any consideration of how it affects children.
    Interesting - I see Cosmopolitan as equally damaging, or more damaging, than GTA: Vice City. It's okay to brainwash a 13 year-old into thinking she needs to be sexed-up, but being violent just isn't lady like! Maybe this guy needs to see a proposal for magazine ratings. He might reel from that and get a sense of balance.
  • From the article:

    Leland Y. Yee - I certainly believe parents have a responsibility here. However, many live very difficult and busy lives and can not possibly monitor their children at all times. Unlike movies, in which parents can easily determine whether it is suitable for their child, many of these games must be mastered before the interaction begins at the most violent levels.

    Back up a second. So... parents can't prevent their child playing a violent video game, but they CAN prevent them from watching

  • And while he's at it, he might as well ban "Cowboys and Indians", or "World War 2"...and all those other violent make-believe games kids play before they discover first person shooters.

    And ban trees and bushes too. We used to pretend sticks were guns and bazookas.

  • This guy is a little off base. (I am resisting the urge to be "hyperbolic.") I'd like to see some information about what percentage of sales are directly to teens. He just has.. of teens who try to purchase a game.. this percentage succeeds. So, I'd question the impact.. but I suspect that at least %25 of the sales go directly to the under 18 crowd. (Meaning, the parents didn't purchase).. who knows. He also uses the old, "Columbine killers said it was like Doom!!" anecdote. I wish some kid would shoo

  • D&D All Over Again (Score:4, Insightful)

    by BeProf ( 597697 ) on Friday December 05, 2003 @10:46AM (#7638947)
    This is just the D&D Panic of the mid-80's all over again.

    When are people going to realize that if you go out and shoot up your school after playing some FPS, that there was probably somethine wrong with you to begin with?

  • The Comics Code (Score:5, Interesting)

    by SteevR ( 612047 ) on Friday December 05, 2003 @10:59AM (#7639058) Homepage Journal

    Case and Point:

    In Japan today, their comics (manga) are a multi-billion doallar industry. There are manga cookbooks, manga textbooks, all genres of entertainment and reference material; everything that in the US might be done as a movie or text (they have normal books etc. too).

    In the US, comic books and graphic novels are marginalized in the mainstream. Many of the few profitable companies (those that make mainstream fare) left make all their money on merchandising, and have been run completely into the ground several times each. Why is this so?

    In 1954, the Comics Code Authority was created as an "Industry Association" in response to congressional coercion. Check out their standards [dm.net]. This quashed much of the creativity present the in the mainstreaim industry, which was about 40 years old. Many of the true creative geniuses were forced underground for nearly a decade, and the mainstream companies that followed the code rotted from within.

    In the mid-fifties, the manga industry essentially sprung from nowhere, blossoming into a huge industry over a decade. The average age for a consumer buying manga in Japan is just barely below the average age of the population there, whereas in the US the average age of the comic book consumer grows older by one year every year.

    In Japan, their "industrial" complex for producing games is just as developed as that in the US. If creativity is stifled by lawmakers, it will cost the US Billions in lost revenue. If any country passes laws that restrict its entertainers or artists, it will cost that country a chance for the revenues or prestige generated by those creators.

    I think the IGDA [igda.org] is more organized and is better capable (with benefit of hindsight) to combat these sons and daughters of those who created the Comic Code than the naive comic industry of the 1950s. I don't believe that there is any less general paranoia (Red Scare vs. Terrorist Scare, same thing) than then, and its got the populace running scared and not paying attention to their freedoms (why is it times like this that would-be censors always choose to strike?).

    I encourage everyone to check out the link [dm.net] to the Comics Code. Its stipulations are eerily similar to many proposed restrictions on interactive software today, and as such its a very relevant piece of history.

  • A couple of things (Score:4, Interesting)

    by bigbigbison ( 104532 ) * on Friday December 05, 2003 @11:08AM (#7639111) Homepage
    I know that someone here has already said, it but it bears repeating:
    The reason this is different than ratings on films is that ratings on films, like ratings on videogmaes are volantary. There are no laws agains children seeing R rated films.

    Secondly,
    Leland Y. Yee - I have not personally played these games, however many of my staff members have. I have seen numerous footage pieces of these games, which clearly shows the need for such legislation.

    I have said this many times, watching a clip of a videogame is like reading the script to a film. If you have not actually played the games, then you have very little idea what it is actually like to play them. If you have time to write a law, find a day to sit down and actually play the game. If you watch clips, surely you know that those are totally without context.
    • Comment removed based on user account deletion
      • > As far as I'm concerned, if a game where you hit
        > people or monsters contains blood, you can say
        > that the game is violent WITHOUT context and
        > should be rated appropriately.

        Yeah, but this leads to some crazy decisions in game design... you're allowed to obviously blow people away in WWII FPS games, but strangely, there's no blood. Why? Because showing blood somehow makes killing people "worse". This is nutty and just plain makes no sense, and if anything, seems to make the killing less reali
    • A few days ago it was an anniversary of an interesting event. In 1960s the American President and several governors came together to spend a day watching movies about drug users and listening to rock-n-roll in order to bridge the gap between the generations and understand the causes of the problems the country was facing at that time. What I don't understand is why this is not a routine practice today...
  • There have been a few good posts in this thread about why the video game rating system doesn't work, but how would you go about fixing it? One thing is apparent, getting the government involved will only screw things up worse so the industry at some point may have to try something new. My suggestion is as follows

    1. Adopt the same rating system as the MPAA and keep the ratings systems the same, this way parents can't complain they don't know what the ratings mean.

    2. Make retailers sign an agreem

    • 1. Adopt the same rating system as the MPAA and keep the ratings systems the same, this way parents can't complain they don't know what the ratings mean.

      I mentioned this above, but it bears repeating:
      eC = G
      E = PG
      T = PG-13
      M = NC-17
      Ao = R
      The rules for these categories are very similar, and I don't know why the ESRB doesn't use the MPAA's letter scheme. But parents shouldn't have a hard time decoding this.

      All the game publishing companies need to make a group like the MPAA and the RIAA (yeah, I kno

    • 1. Adopt the same rating system as the MPAA and keep the ratings systems the same, this way parents can't complain they don't know what the ratings mean.

      The movie ratings are trademarks of the MPAA, so using their system, under current IP law, is inviting a lawsuit from the MPAA. Even if the government forced them to use the ratings, the MPAA would be suing the government, or lose their trademarks (making them useless as rating tools, as anyone could put the G on their movie without submitting it for rati
      • Why is this any different than the law he's proposing? Except maybe for the fact that your second offense is the maximum penalty (well, there's a year in jail too) under the law.

        No jail time is a difference, I have no problem with him wanting to fine the retailers. I have a problem with video games coming under the same laws as tobacco and porn.

        At this point I'm inclined to say 'f*** off', but for the sake of the argument, how many checkers do you think they'll have to hire to do this, and how often
        • The movie companies actually do something like this (not with kids), they will send people to theaters to make sure their movies are actually running and the sales figures reported by the theaters are close to a head count in the actual theater. I'm not saying the ESRB or whoever should do this now. But if push comes to shove it beats government intervention.

          This, though, is quite different from making sure they're enforcing ratings, as the movie companies don't check ratings enforcement at all (and the o
          • What you're proposing is more along the lines of what the police do to catch retailers selling cigarettes, alcohol, and porn to minors.

            Like I mentioned in one of my earlier posts, the movie industry does this already, just not to check for people underage being in the movies they do it to check that the theater has the number of people the theater reports back to the movie companies and that the film is actually playing.

            That, combined with the added cost on games, is why I would say 'fuck off'

            A

  • Well....... (Score:2, Funny)

    by JGag21 ( 678945 )
    Guess kids will never get to see Pokemon Snap 2.
  • "...1,000 studies conducted by distinguished scientists that showed a correlation between the viewing of violent media images and increased aggression and acceptance of violence among children." The above statement is one of the more misleading parts of the story. Let me give you an example of a study on violence and video games. Put a bunch of kids in a white room, with a one way mirror, surrounded by adults asking them lots of questions while forcing them to watch or play something that they don't nece
    • There is an editorial published in a recent issue of Nature which points out that others have shown those 1000 studies don't actually exist. Many of them are essays and articles about real studies. It's short and proves nothing, but the editorial gives a couple of things to go on if you want to look furthur into the matter. (the reference to a Surgeon General's report on violence is good)

      "A Calm View of Video Violence." Nature 424.6947 (2003): 355.

  • a few quotes from the article.. (Score:3, Insightful)

    by JavaLord ( 680960 ) on Friday December 05, 2003 @12:50PM (#7640077) Journal
    The logic must remain consist. That is, if one contends that children learn to read and do math through interactive video then one must also believe violent behavior is learned by playing these games. In fact, you don't even need to bring in behavior to see that these games are learning tools. For example, a child can learn how to create a kill zone by playing many of these games.

    Math and Reading are not the same thing as killing. Math and Reading are things you can REALLY actually do in a game. Killing is not. This isn't the holodeck, you aren't physically breaking someones neck. While math and reading in a game are the same as math or reading in real life, fighting in real life is nothing like fighting in a video game. Driving a car in real life, isn't like driving a car in most games.

    And what the hell is a kill zone? I've been playing FPS games online forever now and I'm not sure what the heck he's talking about.

    In light of these facts, the government is compelled to act to protect children from the affects of violent video games. Similar to pornography, there must be a penalty imposed on stores who sell or rent these types of games to children.

    What a joke, he is comparing video games to porn now. Most games have very little sexual content, nothing outside of what you would see on public (free) TV.

    HomeLAN - Why do you also wish to make a separate section for restricted games and how would the retailer decide which games are supposed to be in that section? Leland Y. Yee - It is important that these games not be marketed towards our children. For instance, legislation has been passed that makes it illegal to place tobacco products next to the candy.

    I missed the part where video games were found to give people cancer...

    They shouldn't be next to the games teaching little kids how to read and count.

    Why? In blockbuster they have 'R' rated movies next to 'G' rated ones in the new release section. Of course Mr. Yee won't compare video games to movies, because if he took these extremist views against movies the MPAA would make his political life hell.

    (about what should happen to people who sell video games to children)....The same penalty that currently exists for selling other harmful material to children (he means porn) will be imposed....(snip)...punishable by fine of not more than two thousand dollars ($2,000), by imprisonment in the county jail for not more than one year, or by both that fine and imprisonment. If a person has multiple convictions they may be imprisoned in the state prison.

    Someone needs to explain to him that video games aren't the same as porn. Also, this is the reason our prisons are so overcrowded, our taxes so high, and our legal system is so screwed up. He wants to sent a retailer to JAIL for selling kids GTA, Postal2, etc. Give me a break. Should a man or women really have their life ruined if they mistakenly sell a game to a minor? Should that really be a criminal offense?

    he type of evidence that suggests a correlation between smoking and lung cancer is the same that suggests a correlation between violent media images and future aggressive behavior. If tobacco conglomerates controlled the message about smoking and lung cancer, it's likely that the public would be confused about that too.

    Looks like video games are causing cancer again. If the problem is violent media, why doesn't this guy go after the MPAA? The TV networks? Oh right, because video games are the easy target....

    Also, human nature is violent. People may want to deny it, but it's true. Did the first caveman hit the second one over the head with a rock because it reminded him of pong, or because he wanted the second cavemans resources?

    However, many live very difficult and busy lives and can not possibly monitor their children at all times. Unlike movies, in which parents can easily determine whether it is suita
    • This is bigtime bullshit. Did I miss the part at the end of Super Mario Brothers where Mario Carjacks koopa, sodomizes the princess and pees on bowser? Have you ever played a violent FPS that you didn't realize was violent within the first 2 minutes of playing it? How long could you play Unreal, Quake, Postal, Mortal Kombat, etc without realizing they are violent? Most of them you can tell just by the screenshots on the back of the box To be fair, the game The Longest Journey doesn't have any foul language
      • Yee's talking about violence, not profanity. From what I've seen out of recent games, they tend to put a lot of overt violence right up front in order to get the player more "into" the game. like a hook, really. If you put in the demo for XIII and tell me that the game only gets more violent after that, I'll have to laugh at you derisively for hours ('cause I'm a jerk). It opens with a throwaway character getting riddled with bullets before you even get out of bed.
  • If they can't buy the games thay'll just download them.

  • My favorite part (Score:3, Insightful)

    by M3wThr33 ( 310489 ) on Friday December 05, 2003 @02:00PM (#7640723) Homepage
    Is that SHE'S(Read the quotes, people, she's a mother) never actually played these games, only seen other people play it.

    It's another hyper-sensitive person who is a ludite. People fear what they don't understand and with games being the latest medium, she'd like to see it stomped out, similar to bad movies, music, plays or books.

    History has proven itself that there are always something the parents believe to be a negative influence, and eventually it passes.

    Of course, I will say this, when you ring up an M-rated game at Target, it pauses the checkout and forces the sales clerk to check your ID. If violent games are a concern to her, just have her shop elsewhere. Oh wait, she can't give up her Wal-Mart.
    • No... Yee's a he... but Yee introduced the legislation because of complaints raised by the aforementioned mother, a worker in his office. His photo is on his site.

      So, no, that mother has never played them, only freaked out when she (finally) realized what her kids were playing... she complained to Yee, who introduced legislation based on footage of violent games (proabably given to him by a group of lobyists who spliced together extremely graphic stuff).
    • I actually had a Wal-Mart register stop 4 times on a checker when I was buying 5 items in the electronics section and she never once checked my ID. Then again, the only thing anyone normally checks my ID for is cigarettes (state law in both California and Virginia requires an ID check until the checker thinks you're 40 or some crap). Hell, she didn't even check my ID when I paid with a credit card.

  • I think he is right. (Score:2, Interesting)

    by SQLz ( 564901 )
    Lets face it. It may not be true for all but I'm sure a small percentage of children are going to be affected by viewing violent media over and over again. Its only common sense. You pretty much don't need a study to figure that out.

    Not every child would be affected of course. Most would probably ALREADY HAVE SOME TYPE OF MENTAL OR EMOTIONAL ISSUE. The question is, would that mental issue cause them to kill on their own or does repeated images of violence act as some type of catalyst? How would a stor
  • HomeLAN - Some people believe that parents should be the ultimate shield against their kids playing these games and that laws like this are unnecessary. What is your response to this?

    Leland Y. Yee - I certainly believe parents have a responsibility here. However, many live very difficult and busy lives and can not possibly monitor their children at all times. Unlike movies, in which parents can easily determine whether it is suitable for their child, many of these games must be mastered before the interac

  • Instead of spouting all this crap about "first person shooters" and "violence" and so on, just do 1 simple bill that gives the ESRB ratings the force of law in california.
    i.e. games rated EC and E can be bought by anyone.
    Games rated T can only be bought by older kids or by adults
    And games rated M and AO would only be purchasable by adults

    That would solve all the issues. (and as far as I can tell,

    The buggest problem I have with the debate over computer game violence and the laws connected to same is that t
  • So, preventing minors from severing limbs in video games is the road to hell, eh?

    <dripping sarcasm>
    Yeah, I think young children practicing exploding peoples heads is what they really need. We clearly need MORE death and dismemberment to prevent our children from becoming violent criminals. They need to learn that humping hookers will give you more health, not AIDs or other STDs! And young children should know that killing people in cruel manners is fun. That way when they grow up and go out into the
    • While we are at it let's do the same for books, movies, and anything you may happen to take a picture of. I mean why not? The activists claims games actually "teach" our children how to kill. However, books that do actually teach someone to maim or kill someone else are perfectly legal for a minor to purchase. Government regulation is NOT needed for this. If parents can stop their kids from going to R rated movies, they sure as hell can stop them from buy a Mature rated game.
      • Books do not allow a person to participate in killing on a first person basis. Readers do not cause the killing or maiming of someone in a book, they are simply along for the ride. Even books which teach killing are by their very nature passive, the reader must do this themselves at some point. Video games are an active form of entertainment - they are as close as you can get to killing someone without actually doing so.

        The military uses simulators to "teach" people how to drive tanks and fly planes. Peopl
        • You go home, see what your kid is playing, or what your kid has bought, and parent them. Is it too much to ask a parent to be involved in what their child does in his/her spare time? Also, those same people in the military read just as many books as they use simulators to learn from. However, I do agree the industry should try to police itself more at the store level. I just do not think that there needs to be legistlation to do it.
          • I agree with you. Parents have to monitor their own children, it shouldn't be up to the state. And I also agree that there shouldn't have to be legislation in order to prevent minors from buying these sorts of games, that the industry should be able to police itself. But at least from what I've seen so far, this industry doesn't police itself, and isn't showing any signs that it will. Does that mean that legislation is in order? I'm just saying I wouldn't be opposed to there being fines for this sort of ind
    • When in GTA 3 can you have sex with prostitutes? The best I could do was pay them to ride around with me. I feel like I'm missing out.
  • I have been playing FPS since I was just a wee teen, and for some reason, I have a life*, and I have not gone out and wiped out the block with my shot gun.

    This is bull hockey, games dont cause violence, bad parenting causes violence. My kid won't be allowed near a FPS until he can kick my ass at Netrek.

    * ok, i read slashdot, so maybe I don't have much of a life.
  • Can we get this guy for a slashdot interview? I'd be quite happy to see what his replies are to some of our more intelligent posters' comments and questions, including some of the quite logical and well-articulated of those posted in this thread.

    -z-

  • We don't need stores to create separate sections for adult games, what we need is mainstream retail stores openly selling Adults Only games and mainstream theatres showing XXX porn. If that was so, game developers and movie studios would be more willing to honestly rate their titles.

    P.S. I personally find this guy repugnant. If I had a chance to do it without repercussions, I would be content to kill him in the most graphic way possible.

Slashdot Top Deals

"If value corrupts then absolute value corrupts absolutely."

Close