Catch up on stories from the past week (and beyond) at the Slashdot story archive

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
Censorship Entertainment Games

Game Makers Could Be Liable For Violent Games 245

Posted by Zonk from the c'mon dept.
Christopher Reimer writes "KOMO 4 News of Seattle, Washington, is reporting that state law makers are considering a bill that would make video game companies liable for illegal activity that players under 17 are responsible for. From the article: 'Should the people who make and sell "violent video" games be held accountable if someone commits a crime because of playing them?'"
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Game Makers Could Be Liable For Violent Games More

Game Makers Could Be Liable For Violent Games

Comments Filter:

  • Anyone but.... (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Rolan ( 20257 ) * on Wednesday March 02, 2005 @03:29PM (#11826741) Homepage Journal
    Lets blame anyone and everyone but the kid and his parents... After all, why should the parents have any involvement in what their kids are doing? Blame it on those damn games!

    Give me a break, just more stupid laws.
    • The supreme court just ruled that minors are not totally responsible for their own actions.... at least not to the extent that adults are.

      If we accept this logic, then we must also accept the conclusion that minors should not be exposed to influences that might cause them to go "over the edge".

      I am not saying I agree with the SD decision, but one must have consistent logic...

      • Re:Anyone but.... (Score:5, Insightful)

        by Rolan ( 20257 ) * on Wednesday March 02, 2005 @03:40PM (#11826860) Homepage Journal
        If we accept this logic, then we must also accept the conclusion that minors should not be exposed to influences that might cause them to go "over the edge".

        And it's the game companies' responsibilty to not expose them to it? Bull. It's the parents' responsibility. The games are clearly marked for the age ranges they are intended for, if parents let others play the games, then the parents and child are responsible.
        • I'd agree with you on the parents issue. However, as gov't is becoming more paternalistic towards children, it only follows that everyone is going to have to take a larger responsiblity in ensuring children aren't exposed to this type of contect as well. Again, not saying I agree. Simply saying the groundwork is being laid (or has already been).

          • Re:Anyone but.... (Score:5, Insightful)

            by Rev Wally ( 814101 ) on Wednesday March 02, 2005 @04:12PM (#11827398) Homepage
            However, as gov't is becoming more paternalistic towards children, it only follows that everyone is going to have to take a larger responsiblity in ensuring children aren't exposed to this type of contect as well. Don't be so complacent about letting that happen. Think about it: if the gov is more involved in how my children are raised, it follows that what values I teach my children will be regulated by said gov. think my wife and I are going to have a hard enough time finding common ground between our two belief systems, and how we want to raise our kids, let alone trying to parent by mass-majority.
            • The funny part is I HAVEN'T expressed my opinion... just the logical couse of our society's way of thinking. Frankly I don't want gov't teaching values to my kids... but we don't want to make the hard choices that prevent this from happening. Part of that is that we, as individuals, have a responsiblity to be role models, and not leave it up to the gov't to step in.

              Our gov't was founded on the prinicple that if you leave decisions up to the individual, they will behave responsibly. Not a whole lot of need
          • If we were to follow this line of logic, though, then why single out video games? The nightly news usually has as much if not more violence than video games.

            I'm all for protecting our children, and yes, the legislature does have responsibility to that end, but it's almost gotten to the point that publishers and such need a law protecting them from consumer's lack of common sense.

            (Comment about "never taking out 115 with one blast in a video game, even with the luckiest of 'deemer shots", removed for ma

            • LOOK at the Japanese! They play video games to the most insane degree, and they have the lowest crime rate in the world.

              Are we Americans this stupid. Blame the parent first, school second, the kid third. Don't even put video game in the same list.

      • Re:Anyone but.... (Score:3, Interesting)

        by Incoherent07 ( 695470 )

        If we accept this logic, then we must also accept the conclusion that minors should not be exposed to influences that might cause them to go "over the edge".

        Then make movie makers liable for making Action Movie #23,436 which glorifies violence and those who perpetrate it, whether police or not.

        Then make the newsmedia liable for sensationalist coverage which gives more attention to those who perpetrate violence than those who do good.

        Then make musical artists responsible for lyrics which glorify violence,

      • I totally disagree with this:

        "If we accept this logic, then we must also accept the conclusion that minors should not be exposed to influences that might cause them to go "over the edge"."

        Baseball and schoolwork MIGHT cause them to go "over the edge." If we are going to push a standard or restriction, it should be one that has credible evidence that one thing caused another, and be weighed against the societal costs of lost freedoms the rest of us who can take it.

    • Re:Anyone but.... (Score:2, Insightful)

      by Nathonix ( 843449 )
      Amen, sing it brother. This is the one thing i preach more than anything, the rating system is there for a reason, and the parents need educated. Dont attack the videogame industry for things that the parent should be monitoring. games are all in good fun, but these people could be ruining one of the most influential medias of our age for the newer generations. God save these law makers.
    • That's only if the game is what is making the kid violent. I knew a lot of violent bastards when I was younger who did not play any video games at all. I doubt it's the video games' fault.
  • This is the dumbest thing I have ever heard.
    • Assume I am a violent person, with psychopathic disorder.

      I like to play violent games

      I am occasionally violent towards real people, and their pets

      Must be the game/movie/Janet Jackson that is th eroot of my problems, not being the product of the same culture that produces these other artefacts.

      Blame the fruits on the flowers, and not on the roots.

    • This is the dumbest thing I have ever heard.

      I agree completely. What happens if the kid plays more than one game (highly likely)? Who decides which game actually "made" them do what they did? Maybe Doom3 was violent enough, but Half-Life 2 wasn't quite bad enough, so only id should be sued. Or perhaps it was only because the kid played them both, and either one alone wouldn't have been enough.

      Or maybe the kid wasn't effected by the violent games at all, but instead was driven to insanity by being f
      • I personally blame Donkey Kong...ever since Mario started swinging that hammer willy-nilly, things have gone downhill.

        One wonders how it's possible that Wile E Coyote didn't inspire a generation or two to kill birds with large amounts of explosives. Apparently kids today are more impressionable, or maybe judges are getting stupider. It's quite the mystery...

    • I'm very much afraid that this is not the most stupid thing I have ever heard of [lex18.com].
    • It sounds like a great idea to me. If I took over somebody's mind and forced them to commit murder, affray and suicide, I'd be sued and/or incarcerated. Likewise with hypnosis and other similar measures.

  • Personal Responsibility? (Score:3, Insightful)

    by bStrom ( 806850 ) on Wednesday March 02, 2005 @03:31PM (#11826757)
    Sweet! I'm going to Washington.

    "What?? I only stole cars because I play [insert video game here]."

    Too bad I'm not 17 anymore....

    What happened to personal responsibility? Also, how do you determine if kids were going to break the law whether or not they played the video game? It's just ridiculous.
    • Well, now, you don't expect to get OUT of anything by simply pleading that, now do you ?
      Because under the provisions of this bill, whoever did anything wrong is still judged the same as he used to.

      First time I read the headlines and the article there, my reaction was the same - "what a load of BS". But then...

      " video game companies liable for illegal activity that players under 17 are responsible for "
      All that I understood from that phrase initially, and whatever legalese I got when I read the bill (http:
    • Under this law, you would have to charge a 9-year old and a bunch of 25-50 year-olds that he has never met under conspiracy statutes.

    • Personal responsibility is nothing in the face of personal desire. Do you think anyone wants to go to prison? For more people, their desire not to answer for their crime overrides any belief that people in general should answer for their crimes.

  • We can sue the government for cutting the # of police resulting in more crime, yeah.
  • If they clearly label a game "Mature" and some fool sells it to a kid. The one responsible should be the seller, because the company clearly made the game for an audience that was old enough to understand the implications of doing such things in real-life. Same thing can be said for kids who sneak into R-rated movies. Or kids that smoke underage, or drink, or get porn. Would you seek penalties against the movie production/tobacco/alcohol/porn company that made the material in those cases? No!

    The problem
    • Or kids that smoke underage, or drink, or get porn. Would you seek penalties against the movie production/tobacco/alcohol/porn company that made the material in those cases?

      Have you been out of the country the past few years? Seeking such penalties [usatoday.com] is exactly what state and federal governments have been doing.
      • Consumers' attorneys across the nation have begun to target the alcoholic beverage industry, filing lawsuits that claim that some leading brewers and distillers are using slick advertising to sell products to underage drinkers.

        It's regular people who are sueing, not the DAs. The feds and the states lawyers have nothing to do with this.
        • ...or at least the second paragraph:

          Lawsuits filed since November in Ohio, California, North Carolina, Colorado and Washington, D.C., appear modeled after cases that were brought against the tobacco industry beginning in the mid-1980s. Those suits focused on youth-oriented ads and sought huge damages for tens of thousands of underage smokers and their parents. The tobacco lawsuits led to a settlement in 1998 in which tobacco companies agreed to pay $246 billion to state governments to cover health care cos

          • It says "appear modeled after". The tobaco lawsuits were run by the State Attorney Generals, these are still run by the Consumer's Attorneys. Just because they are using the same legal strategy does not mean the Consumer's Attorneys are working for the states.

  • yes, if provable (Score:5, Interesting)

    by nes11 ( 767888 ) on Wednesday March 02, 2005 @03:34PM (#11826786)
    "Should the people who make and sell "violent video" games be held accountable if someone commits a crime because of playing them?"

    If you can PROVE that they committed the crime BECAUSE of playing the game, then yes. I'd be really impressed to see that proof though.

    • Re:yes, if provable (Score:5, Interesting)

      by 2megs ( 8751 ) on Wednesday March 02, 2005 @03:57PM (#11827083)
      You don't have to prove it. You only have to convince twelve people dull enough to end up on a jury that it's true.

      I'd give pretty good odds that anyone who owns a copy of Halo or GTA would be stricken from that pool.

      • Actually, in a civil suit, you only need a "preponderance of evidence" in most circumstances, not proof "beyond a reasonable doubt", and you don't need all 12 jurors to side with the plaintiff, either... usually 9 is enough (well, 3/4ths is enough, so that's 9 if it's a jury of 12, and it may be less).

        (IANAL, and TINLA)
      • You only have to convince twelve people dull enough to end up on a jury that it's true.

        Was't it Ambrose Bierce who observed what a folly it is to place someone's future, possibly even his life, in the hands of twelve people too stupid to get out of jury duty?
    • The problem here, however, is that many times liable court cases are not so much about "proof", as they are about "getting a bored jury who are impressed with big numbers and the chance to be on Oprah".

      Say a suit against Microsoft comes to trial because some hellion....errr, sweet innocent child shot his sister with a chu-ko-nu after playing way to much Age of Empires 2. A jury could hear testimony for a week straight about how the child has a history of playing with crossbows, ballistas, and trebuchets,
  • Should the author of _Johnny Trumane_ be held liable if a minor reads it and goes on to incite a revolution? What about the producers of violent and disturbing movies like Seven, or Psycho? I am sick of this discrimination towards anything with the silicon chips in it.

  • no shit "c'mon"! (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Naikrovek ( 667 ) <jjohnson@p[ ]com ['sg.' in gap]> on Wednesday March 02, 2005 @03:36PM (#11826808)
    From the article: 'Should the people who make and sell "violent video" games be held accountable if someone commits a crime because of playing them?'

    k for the last time - no one commits a crime because of playing a video game. no one. not anywhere, ever, under any circumstances. if you commit a crime after playing a video game, you were going to commit a crime anyway. i've played a LOT of very, very violent video games and never once have i ever even considered reproducing the game in real life. if you do, you have issues beyond any video game or television program...

    its basic psychology. you are either inclined to commit crime or you're not, and if you are, its usually because you were psychologically damaged as a child.

    lets do something about parents who abuse their kids and raise murderers instead of trying to create a law that criminalizes a harmless video game.

    • Re:no shit "c'mon"! (Score:5, Insightful)

      by Godman ( 767682 ) on Wednesday March 02, 2005 @03:50PM (#11826949) Homepage Journal
      Basic psychology would also suggest that violent video games can prevent violent crimes, by giving kids an outlet for their aggression and anger. The silicon chip doesn't care if you call it a name....

      Lawmakers should go back to doing stuff like worrying about the war or something.

      • basic psychology (Score:3, Insightful)

        by Mad_Rain ( 674268 )
        Basic psychology would also suggest that violent video games can prevent violent crimes, by giving kids an outlet for their aggression and anger.

        I think you were asleep when that lecture came up. Psychological researcher Albert Bandura [google.com] found out in his studies of aggression in children that catharsis (getting a feeling of relaxation after an act of violence) doesn't work.

        Say when you feel angry at something, you decide to punch a pillow. When you get more angry, you hit the pillow harder. But eventual
    • I was agreeing with you up until this point:

      its basic psychology. you are either inclined to commit crime or you're not, and if you are, its usually because you were psychologically damaged as a child.

      ...and that's where I'm inclined to disagree with you - there are lots of reasons to commit a crime that don't involve being "psychologically damaged". Civil disobedience, for example. Of course, they don't teach you those types of things in video games, so it's a bit of a moot point.

  • Parents??? (Score:2, Insightful)

    by turtled ( 845180 )
    law makers are considering a bill that would make video game companies liable for illegal activity that players under 17

    What happened to the parents??? I have a 4 year old, and I am involved in everything he does. I plan on that staying like that til he's 18~25 or whenever. I need to protect him from propaganda like this crap. (and, not the games, the lawmakers).

  • Yes... (Score:2, Funny)

    by LordEd ( 840443 )
    (sarcasm) ...but only if you can prove to a reasonable degree that the person has absolutely no control over their own life and if the gaming company misrepresented the game as a happy non-violent game.

    Although, if a person proved they had no self-control, they should be locked in a sensory deprevation chamber in case something happens in the world to influence them. We wouldn't want them to think that things like advertisements, spam, or games had anything to do with real life.

    A good test for easy-to-in
  • Maybe Nintendo and Microsoft should consider leaving the state? They could cite the hostile business climate...
  • Why don't they to get an analogous law passed for violence in TV and movies? That way there would be a precedent. Or how about about music that advocates violence? There's plenty of that.

    I swear, there's something about being a legislator that rots the brain.

  • Parker Brothers being sued because their game led to many companies having Monopolies!

    But, seriously: If you can prove a crime was commited because of a violent video game, I'll give you $1m. Prove it. Please. Because once you admit that you CANNOT prove such a thing, we'll be done with this whole "Violent Video Games r teh evil!" deal. I've been playing violent video games from Doom until Half Life 2. I've never killed anyone. I've never shot a cop. I've never stolen a car. If I had killed someon

    • I've never killed anyone. I've never shot a cop. I've never stolen a car. If I had killed someone, shot a cop, or stolen a car I'm sure it would be because I'm fucked in the head, not because of GTA3.

      Sure, but think about the world that game teaches you about. You can kill people, but if you do it in front of the police, they will come after you. Then, you either have to outrun the police or you get arrested or die. In real life, its hard to outrun the police, and arrest or death aren't pleasant opt

      • I drove like that before I played GTA.
      • you are so out to lunch I can only guess you are old or a troll.

        Games don't teach you anything. They are fantasy worlds that are fun to mess aorund in a few hours at a time. VIOLENT people are attracted to violent videoagmes, end of god damned story.

        Violent people kick dogs and torture cats but we dont blam the animals for being there to abuse? Violent people abuse violent videogames, and thts a symptom of their disease -- not the cause.

        Have you ever met any of these kids who do soemthing stupid th

        • A-grade students DO bug out occasionally. Smart people are typically under more pressure. Of course, they usually kill themselves, not a bunch of other people. But anyway, grades really don't mean shit. Lots of people dumber than me (I'm no genius, but I'm a pretty bright guy) got As in classes in which I got shitty grades - it was a matter of motivation.
          • You're right of course... i just get tired of people claiming that videogames somehow turn normal people into lunatics.

            When i was in highschool, doom was the hot thing. Everyone played it, but the guys who were obsessed with it were the weird gun freaks in ROTC who were constantly talking about diferent ways to kill people at lunch... and by that i mean, the people who were already loonie.

          • An infamous case that my parents told me about was that of Leopold and Loeb [prairieghosts.com]. Some people are just evil.
    • Lou: Another case of Monopoly related violence, chief.
      Wiggum: How do those Parker Brothers sleep at night?

  • How about we blame the perp? (Score:3, Funny)

    by AnotherBlackHat ( 265897 ) on Wednesday March 02, 2005 @03:39PM (#11826846) Homepage
    Blame TV, Movies, Video Games, Rock and Roll, baseball bat manufactures, or the Bible - anyone but the person who actually commits the crime.

    If only there was a "-1 Troll" mod for proposed laws...

    -- Should you believe authority without question?
  • When was the last time someone sued a movie studio for making violent movies - and won? Or HBO for the Sopranos? Or music studios for gangster rap? Or Simon and Scheuster for violence in their books?
  • I think it's time I sued Stephen King for making me into a homocidal maniac.
    • You'd have a better chance (and a more interesting case) suing Stephen King for making you into a demonic ancient evil from beyond the stars, whose very gaze pierces the human soul, and renders the observer an empty shell to be occupied by another such dark entity.

      Actually, now I want to read that story...

  • Music (Score:3, Interesting)

    by Rinisari ( 521266 ) on Wednesday March 02, 2005 @03:55PM (#11827043) Homepage Journal
    I can't wait until a case arises that cites this law and sets a precedent that can be applied to all other forms of media, including television, movies, and music. After all, they are forms of entertainment that often show violence, right? They could possibly show/tell their audiences how to kill people in new and creative ways.

    This law needs opposition and a counter-law, or an industry-wide EULA (people do read those, right?) amendment that says something to the effect of "we believe that violence belongs only in video games. we cannot be responsible for the actions of those who play our video games." Running with Scissors did that for the Postal series of games, and they are the most violent games that I have ever played.

  • Enough is enough (Score:5, Insightful)

    by FidelCatsro ( 861135 ) <fidelcatsro AT gmail DOT com> on Wednesday March 02, 2005 @03:59PM (#11827125) Journal
    This has gotten out of hand , the scape goating and Buck passing mentality of these people is truely juvinile .
    First off , if you want to blame anyone for your children commiting crime , i would take a long hard look at yourself.
    Sure they may immitate a game , but if it had not of been the game it would of been a movie , a cartoon or even a book.
    I have played games like Grand theft auto , Counter strike, Manhunt , Eternal darkness and DOOM , I dont worship satan , i have a clean criminal record and have no urges to go out and car jack someone , paint Pentegrams on my forehead or blow people to bits(although if i had a rocket launcher and a clean sight at the RIAA offices ...).
    Infact non of my freinds have , Im well beyond that age range now , but even when i was 12 or so , i used to play games that were just as violent , they were fun and still are .
    Children still play cops and robbers , or cowboys and indians ,Run around shooting each other and playing dead ,they have played these types of games in the plagrounds for years and will continue to , and these games simulat just as violent situations , yet we view them as more holesome.
    nothing new here , just some politians trying to ride there way to greater office on the back of a whitch hunt

    • Grammar and spelling issues aside, that was an excellent comment. :) And you bring to light exactly what this is, which is to say it is simply a "whitch[sic] hunt."

      If this passes, then we someone in a position to be heard needs to point out that the Bible depicts extreme violence. Maybe we should ban that as well.

      • I should appoligise for the grammer /spelling .just got in from a dinner party and have had a little too much to drink ,so my typing is worse than normal.
        However i feel so stronly about this issue i really felt like screaming hearing that yet again the powers that be ,want to make part of my industry a scapegoat.
  • Let's extend this to all other potential influences any time someone does something bad. For example, next time a girl breaks up with me, I want to sue the authors and publishers of the magazines she reads.

  • I agree... (Score:5, Funny)

    by charlie763 ( 529636 ) on Wednesday March 02, 2005 @04:05PM (#11827258)
    I agree with this law because video games actually *do* make children commit crimes.

    I remember one time as a child a kid started throwing hammers at me from the top of a table. At first I didn't know what to do, but then I saw a bird in a turtle shell and jumped at the opportunity (no pun intended, I'm being serious here). I took the remaining shell and threw it at the other kid. He paused for a second and then continued to throw hammers at me. I found a second turtle-bird thing and repeated the process. The kid fell through the floor and was never heard from again. I, on the other hand, was hit by a hammer that was still flying through the air.

    For the fifteen years after that event I have come to enjoy being a dwarf. It makes it easier to get under certain floating brick walls. I think I would like to one day be big again, but I still have not found the right mushroom, only the ones that make fire shoot out of my arse.

  • calling on tinfoil hat equipped (Score:3, Interesting)

    by randalx ( 659791 ) on Wednesday March 02, 2005 @04:17PM (#11827478)
    Can somebody explain to me why all these law makers are going after the gaming industry so much lately. I don't see why it's so different from other forms of entertainment like movies, books, comics and music. Is it due to the right wing christian groups? Or because it's an easy way to avoid facing the harder issues? Or maybe the game industry doesn't contribute enough to the political parties as opposed to other media. Seriously though, I'd really like to have a serious answer to their motivations.
    • It's gaming's turn in the barrel. Every other form of media has already had one, usually with disastrous results. For example, remember the Comics Code? It used to be that stores only carried comics which adhered to the code for fear that the fundies would destroy them completely. Movie theaters are not required by law (in most places) to prevent minors from seeing R-rated movies, but do so anyway. Wal-mart IDs people for M-rated video games, but that's not the end of it, because we get more litigious as ti
  • Yes. Yes, the video game makers should be responsible for acts caused by their video games.

    Of course, that means you have to hold movie makers accountable, too. Also television producers. Also performers. Also writers.

    Oh, wait, you mean video games let kids ACT OUT the fantasy, instead of just silently watch and absorb it? Well, that's all the difference in the world!

    Of course, you'll still need to make paintball gun makers responsible. And parents who teach their kids to hunt.

    Oh, but wait, it's not usi
    • Okay, my above rant aside, I have played car racing video games for a long, long time. I've always wanted to race an ACTUAL car, but didn't have an opportunity, so video games took care of it. Mind you, video games didn't make me WANT to; that desire was already there when I was a kid. Video games just allowed me to do what I wanted to do without consequences or expense.

      Well, recently I got an opportunity to take my car out on an actual racetrack. After years of playing video game car races, by the logic b

  • Washington State (Score:4, Interesting)

    by BrookHarty ( 9119 ) on Wednesday March 02, 2005 @04:34PM (#11827746) Journal
    As a Washingtonian, I can tell your our state is majorly fucked up when it comes to personal rights.

    When it comes to children, the state would rather you put your kids on drugs than spank. Put them into counseling, and get them a probation officer.

    Men's rights are HORRIBLE, if you meet a girl with a kid, you date her for a few months, you could be made to pay child support, even though the kid is not yours.

    Then we have State ran liquor stores, where they choose what liquor you can have. They are closed on Sundays, the weekend when you normally do your shopping.

    Gay rights is having tough times passing when most of the states believe gays are sinners and shouldn't be allowed near children.

    Medical use of marijuana is believed to be morally wrong, so it doesn't pass every time it comes up to vote.

    If you have been following the news here, we just had a Police officer under investigation for kissing his girlfriend, while he was in uniform. Her job? A stripper, so it must be something illegal going on. If it was a teacher, nobody would have said anything.

    And speaking of Strip clubs, they don't serve food or alcohol, due to zoning laws. WTF?! In Texas, you can go to a nice place, order a big steak, drink a beer, and watch hot women on stage that are of super model quality. Nothing lewd going on, its what mens clubs should be like.

    People are even considering splitting up the state into Western and Eastern Washington, so the Seattle side can get some stop having the moral majority pass this RELIGOUS that censor everything we do.

    I love my state, I just wish we could get our heads out of our asses and start working on real issues, like roads, schools and internet access in rural areas. We don't need more censorship, all TV's come with Vchips, and Video games have warnings.

    Nanny nation is right, stop trying to protect everyone. Freedom has risks, and the risks are worth it.
    • Let's be fair here.

      State-run liquor stores are in a LOT of states, and some states have much worse prohibitions in effect. At least you can buy beer and wine at the grocery store 24/7/365... in some places, you can't.

      Gay rights bills didn't pass *anywhere* in the US. Washington is no exception to the rule here.

      The federal government screwed up in the first place when they created Washington and Oregon. The divide should have been north/south along the Cascade Mountains with one state being on the west
    • And speaking of Strip clubs, they don't serve food or alcohol, due to zoning laws. WTF?! In Texas, you can go to a nice place, order a big steak, drink a beer, and watch hot women on stage that are of super model quality. Nothing lewd going on, its what mens clubs should be like.

      I believe you need to look up the definition of "lewd." You are talking about a strip club here.

      Anyway, this one I would support, if for no other reasons than to protect the strippers: Anywhere you have alcohol, you have drunk p
      • Mean drunk + Strippers = Overly grabby mean drunk, and violent when confronted.

        Yes, and strip clubs that serve alcohol solve this problem by hiring very large men to 'subdue' such drunks, and 'gently' remove them from the club.

        You'd be suprised at how well-behaved the drunks in strip clubs are. They know that getting out of hand will cause the titties to go away.
  • I think alot of this double standard type legislation has to do with the lawmakers not knowing WTF they are talking about.

    For instance, most lawmakers know about cars and guns. It follows that they know better than to hold car and gun manufacturers responsible for what people do with their products. Most lawmakers have not the slightest clue how a computer works. And as we have seen these days, people lash out at things they don't understand.

    Its high time some nerds start running for office and educate
  • Should the people who make and sell "violent video" games be held accountable if someone commits a crime because of playing them?

    Only if we can hold law makers accountable for citizens committing crimes because of the lawmakers making such acts illegal.

    Seriously, though - causation is such an ill defined concept.

    • If legislators didn't destroy the concept of causation then there would be so much less money for them and their corporate friends to make.

      A toaster causes toast. You put in bread, press the lever, and you get toast, every time.

      A violent video game doesn't cause violence. If it did then every kid that played a violent game would go out and cause violence, just as a toaster causes toast, every single time.

      It's easy to see the difference between causation and correlation but try explaining that to our legi
  • Because of playing them? or After playing them?

    There is a big diffrence. If playing a game somehow forces them to break a law then perhaps the game company should be held liable. (although I see no way that a video game could force someone to break a law)

    After playing the game or saying that they were influinced by the game, now come on don't be silly.

  • Could they not cite the Betamax decision? If Sony can't be held responsible for people taping a show with their VCR, how can a game maker be responsible for someone killing someone else? Although while we are on the topic, why does this not apply to film? Do they have to many powerful lobbyists for it to be worth going after them for?
  • Okay... so next time a 17 year old gets drunk and wrecks daddy's car lets have parents sue Budweiser.

    Next time a kid shoots someone at school let the city sue Marylin Manson, no no we used him, sue Puffy.

    Parents, its time to wake up. If your child does not have the common sense to differentiate between reality and a computer game... you fucked up somewhere. If your child does something based on 'what the music told him to' or 'what that guy with the gun in that game did' there are fundamental issues
  • I also think that we should hold directors, producers, and actors responsible when people who have seen their movies commit acts of violence.

    I also think we should hold authors responsible when people who have seen their books commit acts of violence. (The guy who wrote The Turner Diaries should be executed. He's obviously responsible for the Oklahoma City bombing.)

    Most of all, I think we should hold politicians responsible if people who have witnessed them start wars commit acts of violence. They, mor
  • ...which, might I add, comes entirely from the movie Runaway Jury...

    The only way game makers could be held at least partially culpable for a violent crime committed by young users of their products (barring the silly "violent games directly incite otherwise normal children into doing crimes" idea) is if it was illegal to sell violent games to minors, and either (a) the makers knowingly did it anyway (or at least didn't care if their games were sold to minors), or (b) the makers specifically marketed their
  • I've been playing video games since Super Mario Bros came out when I was 5. I've been exposed to all forms of digital violence from making lines in tetris to the madness that is Resident Evil 4. I have yet to kill any cops, steal any cars, carry a large knife to school, or launch an army of headcrabs on an unexpecting world?

    My secret? Parental Involvment. Every now and then, a parent would pop their head in the room and see what I was doing. If I had been playing for 3 hours, they would encourage me to pa


  • Next stop, Hollywood.
  • "Video games don't affect kids. If Pac-Man affected us as kids we'd all be walking around in dark rooms eating magic pills while listening to repetitive electronic music." -Karen Price, Nintendo Representative
  • I used to be one of those people who said, "maybe the parents should watch their children!!!" and then I came to the following realization: it's the children's fault if they kill someone! I downloaded M-rated games from the 'net since I was about 8 years old, and I've been playing GTA (3,VC,SA) since I was 14. I got Halo on the release day with my XBOX, when I was either 12 or 13. My favorite director is Tarantino, and I watch all of his movies regularly. Guess what? I have managed to not kill anyone!

Slashdot Top Deals

/earth: file system full.

Close