Follow Slashdot blog updates by subscribing to our blog RSS feed

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
The Courts Government Entertainment Games News

Judge Blocks Ban on Violent Video Game Sales 242

Posted by ScuttleMonkey from the games-still-apparently-the-root-of-all-evil dept.
dada21 writes "SFGate is reporting that a federal judge recently blocked a new California law that would have banned the sale of violent video games to minors. From the article: 'Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger had signed the bill by Assemblyman Leland Yee, D-San Francisco, to ban the sale or rental of especially violent video games to children under 18 years old unless there is parental approval. The law was to take effect Jan. 1.'"
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Judge Blocks Ban on Violent Video Game Sales More

Judge Blocks Ban on Violent Video Game Sales

Comments Filter:

  • Being a parent. (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Anonymous Coward on Monday December 26, 2005 @01:41AM (#14338570)
    " From the article: 'Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger had signed the bill by Assemblyman Leland Yee, D-San Francisco, to ban the sale or rental of especially violent video games to children under 18 years old unless there is parental approval. The law was to take effect Jan. 1.'""

    In other words. Parents should be responsable for their kids. So were's the problem again?

    • Re:Being a parent. (Score:2, Interesting)

      by DietCoke ( 139072 )
      Out of curiousity, how do you feel about the RIAA suing the parents of kids that have downloaded music for free?

      Personally, I don't agree with the tactic (and have dealt with the issue personally). However, I often see some of the same folks that argue for parental responsibility in gaming solidly against holding parents responsible for things like music swapping.

      This isn't meant as a troll. I'm sincerely just interested in how this squares up against another aspect of parental responsibility.

      • Re:Being a parent. (Score:3, Interesting)

        by Ruff_ilb ( 769396 )
        I tried to write a legnthy reply to this -

        But how are they analogous - Under this law, the stores that sold to the kids without permission would get fined, right? Or, would the parents get fined/sued for their kids buying a video game underage? Or both?

        Vs the RIAA - Kid engages in illegal activity (regardless of parental sanction) and parents get owned.

    • Re:Being a parent. (Score:5, Insightful)

      by Deathbane27 ( 884594 ) on Monday December 26, 2005 @02:02AM (#14338637)
      Problem one: This bill allowed for the determination of whether the game is "too violent" to take place AFTER the sale. Rated T for Teen? Sure, I'll sell this to a 17-year-old. ...$10,000? WTF?

      Problem two: Remind me why we don't fine people for selling violent books, movies, magazines, newspapers, music, etc. to minors. If we're going to restrict free speech we need to restrict all forms of it.

      • Comment removed (Score:5, Insightful)

        by account_deleted ( 4530225 ) on Monday December 26, 2005 @04:55AM (#14338978)
        Comment removed based on user account deletion
      • Problem two: Remind me why we don't fine people for selling violent books, movies, magazines, newspapers, music, etc. to minors. If we're going to restrict free speech we need to restrict all forms of it.

        ...with R and NC-17 being unavailable to minors (the former without parental approval). Although these ratings seem more concerned with sex and the number of times the word 'fuck' is used than actual violence.

        Now I think the MPAA system is technically voluntary, but it would seem to have pretty much the

        • I think you might have missed part of what the parent said in Problem one. While the movies do have their rating system, a movie theatre won't get in troble for selling a PG-13 ticket to a 17 year old. Apparently with video games they can get in trouble for selling a Teen movie to a 17 year old.

      • The Bible... (Score:5, Insightful)

        by hkmwbz ( 531650 ) on Monday December 26, 2005 @09:16AM (#14339425) Journal
        "Remind me why we don't fine people for selling violent books, movies, magazines, newspapers, music, etc. to minors."
        Yeah... Banning the Bible. Sounds like something that simply won't happen.
      • 1. Maybe I misread your tone, but you seem to be against the previous poster. However, his "where's the problem" comment was in regard to this failing and that parent's should be responsibel for their children, not laws.

        2. While this is a restriction on free speech, you should be reminded that parental rights over their children trump the right to free speech towards children... always have, and likely always will.

        Strangely, I thought it was already illegal for children under 17 to be sold rated M games...
    • I personally don't have a problem with a law blocking media with certain content from minors. Because A. I am over 18, B. I am not a retailer. On the other hand if I was under 18 I would care, but would have little defense for my position. If I was a retailer I would be troubled that now I have an additional burden of responsibility of doing ID checks, documenting my ID policy, training my employees (and documenting that as well as getting all current employees to sign an agreement that they will check ID o
      • I personally don't have a problem with a law blocking media with certain content from minors. Because A. I am over 18, B. I am not a retailer.

        Dangerously shortsighted. Anyone with even a minor interest in buying "offensive" (violent or sexual) games (or any media, really) should be against this. Once the stores can't sell to minors without putting themselves at legal risk, they just won't stock those games, period.

        There will be less sales, and less R&D, and the consumers will have less available selec

  • Too broad of a law, correct? (Score:5, Funny)

    by Antony-Kyre ( 807195 ) on Monday December 26, 2005 @01:43AM (#14338579)
    Maybe they should stop trying to censor what children can purchase and just create a law banning the sale of video games, marked rated M or Adult, from being sold.

    More importantly, parents need to know what kind of games their children are playing, and there is nothing the government can legislate to do about it. (I'm in my 20s, and I can say, there are some games I see on t.v. that are so sickening, and am I correct to say that the U.S. army actually helped make it or am I mistaken?

    • Re:Too broad of a law, correct? (Score:5, Informative)

      by wyldeone ( 785673 ) on Monday December 26, 2005 @02:13AM (#14338662) Homepage Journal

      just create a law banning the sale of video games, marked rated M or Adult, from being sold.

      They can't do that. That would be giving legislative powers to a non-governmental agency, which is illegal.

      • Right; we only trust private agencies to do menial tasks like control the supply of money :)
      • No. What I am saying is make it illegal for businesses, such as Target, Wal-Mart, Best Buy, to sell material that is rated for Mature/Adult to minors. However, if there is no rating on it, then the law doesn't apply.

        Two different hypothetical situations below...

        15 year old tries buying a rated M game at Target. This hypothetical law would make it illegal for Target to sell it to someone under 17.

        15 year old tries buying a game at Target, that would be rated M if the game manufacturer voluntarily opted into
        • However, if there is no rating on it, then the law doesn't apply.

          Ergo, any game of "M Level" has zero motivation to accept a rating, because the only possible effect can be less sales from the game. Therefore no games will ever be M rated, and your law does exactly nothing, making it worse than useless.
      • just create a law banning the sale of video games, marked rated M or Adult, from being sold.

        They can't do that. That would be giving legislative powers to a non-governmental agency, which is illegal.

        Try buying a powerstrip that's not been tested by Underwriters Laboratories. All sorts of crap I buy in Europe has US safety and compliance marks on them, all put there by labs independent of the US government, but to comply with sundry US laws.

        In fact, having a third party give out ratings, and having a law re
        • Actually, your comment about the V-Chip reminded me... game consoles are all starting to put in something similar where a parent can set a block on games of various ratings. Very similar concept. It seems that maybe, if a law were passed, it should be like with the V-Chip... support to have a secure blocking mechanism for parents to use. The law would secure and simplify the rights of the parent without stepping on anyone else's rights. If anything, it forces a parent to be more aware of the things they
          • How is that possible? With television sets I am to assume that unplugging it for 24 hours resets the v-chip. What keeps the v-chip set for gaming consoles and what prevents a kid from tampering with it?

            Forgotten passwords have to be reset by some method.
            • Forgotten passwords have to be reset by some method.

              I don't know how the current game consoles actually work, but that problem is solvable. The trick is that kids can reset any reasonable console, but a reset can be detected. The parent either knows the timestamp of the last authorized access, or chose her own password or id code.

              When the parent next logs into the control system and sees it has been reset, she knows to punish the children.
      • There's quite a few states where the decisions of the Classification and Rating Administration boards, who are not elected (or a list of names even published) hold the force of law. It's illegal for a theater owner in most of the places I've ever lived to allow someone under 18 to see an R-rated movie without a guardian. And the National Electric Code, for another example - it's written by members of the National Fire Protection Association, a non-governmental body, and most state or city building codes
        • It's illegal for a theater owner in most of the places I've ever lived to allow someone under 18 to see an R-rated movie without a guardian.

          Name a few of those places.... the USA certainly does not have such laws!

          The MPAA film-ratings system is a fine example of an industry adopting voluntary controls, which worked well enough to dampen any legislative desire to pass a real law controlling movie access.

    • Re:Too broad of a law, correct? (Score:5, Funny)

      by Belseth ( 835595 ) on Monday December 26, 2005 @03:07AM (#14338778)
      I see on t.v. that are so sickening, and am I correct to say that the U.S. army actually helped make it or am I mistaken?

      Actually the CIA is working on a game to raise funds for covert ops. It's called Abu Grab Ass. You can either play as a guard or a prisoner. You get points for stacking the most naked Iraqs in a human pyramid. Instead of shooting you point and laugh to score points.

    • and am I correct to say that the U.S. army actually helped make it or am I mistaken?

      The only video game I know of that the US Army (or any DoD agency) helped to create was "America's Army". [americasarmy.com] Given what I have seen of many games out there, this one is quite tame in comparison.

  • But Movies... (Score:3, Insightful)

    by ender-iii ( 161623 ) <adam@nu[ ]iver.com ['llr' in gap]> on Monday December 26, 2005 @01:43AM (#14338580) Homepage
    But sales of Arnie movies to minors will never be contested. Everyone should be able to watch Predator.

  • So how is that going for ya? (Score:5, Insightful)

    by MacDork ( 560499 ) on Monday December 26, 2005 @01:43AM (#14338582) Journal
    FTFA: "We don't allow kids to buy cigarettes or alcohol or look at pornography," he said. "There are already situations in which we as society have said we have to protect kids by limiting what they can do."

    And we know those laws are working effectively.

    • And how exactly do we know these laws are working?

      I remember being fifteen a short decade ago. By that time I'd seen a porno, smoked cigarettes, and had consumed alcohol. (I am running for Senate in a few years after all!)

      Unenforceable (sp?) laws are a waste of time, and therefore money. Parental involvement is key. I teach middle school and the things that the kids I teach talk about with me boggles my mind at times. I also feel we need to stop using the "ostrich" method of parenting, and talk openly

    • Re:So how is that going for ya? (Score:5, Insightful)

      by pkphilip ( 6861 ) on Monday December 26, 2005 @01:56AM (#14338624)
      So what do you suggest - that we remove any such limitations? allow tobacco companies to target children?

      We have laws against murder - that is not working too well either. Shall we go ahead and repeal those as well?

      Exactly how your comment got modded as "Interesting" baffles me!
      • Laws against underage drinking and smoking encourage underage drinking and smoking. Laws against murder do not encourage murder. That's the big difference.
      • We have laws against murder - that is not working too well either. Shall we go ahead and repeal those as well?

        Well, it might be a good idea to stop trying minors as adults in murder.
      • So what do you suggest - that we remove any such limitations? allow tobacco companies to target children?

        We have laws against murder - that is not working too well either. Shall we go ahead and repeal those as well?

        Exactly how your comment got modded as "Interesting" baffles me!

        The laws making the drinking age 21 are a GREAT example here.
        1. Completely unfair. I had to send in my damn draft card at 18 but I can't buy a beer? I'm adult enough to be sent off to a war or to be executed for crimes I might commit

    • It would help... (Score:5, Insightful)

      by jd ( 1658 ) <`imipak' `at' `yahoo.com'> on Monday December 26, 2005 @02:56AM (#14338756) Homepage Journal
      If...
      • The laws were enforced meaningfully, evenly and without discrimination
      • The punishments educated minors and adults as to why there might be a problem, rather than being disciplinarian, arbitrary and meaningless
      • The warnings that did exist (such as for smoking) were not paranoid scare-tactics (which are hopelessly ineffective), factually incorrect (which destroys any message there might be) or irrelevant to those concerned (and thus ignored by the very people involved)

      Every time I see an ad campaign that is clearly and obviously (to anyone with half a brain cell or more) going to have the exact opposite effect to the one intended, I seriously wonder how mankind managed to get so far yet remain so woefully and obnoxiously stupid.

      I do believe that laws that restrict smoking, porn, violent games, etc, can be made to work, work well, and work in a way that can near-universally be agreed upon as good, sensible and mature, even by the most anti-legislative, pure-blooded libertarians out there. I also believe such laws won't come from backroom deals, religious viewpoints and righteous rage. They are far more likely to come from rational and open discussions.

      This law on violent games, for example, was brokered by politicians FOR politicians. The judge noted that no correlation between violence and games had been proven. Why could Californian legislators not wheel out neurologists with fMRI studies that could prove a unquestionable cause-and-effect on the mechanical level? Why could they not produce child psychologists who could produce solid, verifiable, repeatable evidence of a correlation on the behavioral level? If they'd done that, what objection could have been raised to there being some response?

      They didn't, for an obvious reason. They never talked to any. They never had any data to work from, so had no data to present.

      Ok, assuming we now have data that a response is required, we would now have to determine what kind of response is needed. The only people who can tell you what computers can do would be computer experts. The only people who can tell you what businesses can do would be business experts. For parents, you probably want to talk to a mix of parents and sociologists.

      They didn't do any of that, either.

      Once you've all that information to hand, you can distill it into a law that has a clear, firm, rational foundation that has unquestionable merit in dealing with a provable and proven problem, in a manner most likely to produce a verifiable and socially beneficial response.

      Ah, well, rational legislation seems to be way beyond what we have come to expect from government. A pity, as they have no excuse whatsoever in producing anything else.

      This assumes legislation is needed at all, of course. If the neurologists cannot show a mechanism AND the child psychologists cannot show that said mechanism produces an actual, verifiable response that is adverse and mentally toxic, and which cannot be avoided by changing some other parameter, then there's nothing for a law to do.

      (You have to have both. Just showing a mechanism isn't enough, if the mechanism can be trivially ignored by most people. Even the response is not enough, if you cannot prove beyond all reasonable doubt what triggers it, OR if there were some other change - better education, for example - that could do the job better and more universally.)

      The ONLY valid legislation would be IF the science justified legislation in the first place AND the legislation honored what the science defined as being the REAL problem, AND the legislation honored what the experts said society could reasonably respond to, AND the legislation honored what the Constitution defined as being the place of legislation, no matter what the data might say.

      If all those conditions had been respected and met, I seriously doubt anybody would have had

      • Well said Sir!

        If only our legislators followed your model more closely, many idiotic laws would not be on the books.

        Your point reminds me of NY State's Anti-Cellphone law. A law was passed banning the use of Cellphones while driving in a car unless using a hands-free device. This was before any scientific studies were done. There was alot of press and public fervor about it, but the studies weren't complete yet. Well, the law was passed, and then the studies completed about 6 months later. The scientif

        • There was alot of press and public fervor about it, but the studies weren't complete yet. Well, the law was passed, and then the studies completed about 6 months later. The scientific studies concluded that while use of a cell phone in a car was somewhat distracting, it was only marginally more distracting than other legal in-car activites such as tuning the radio or talking to a passenger.

          A hand-held cellphone requires people to have three hand to drive a car: One hand on the phone, one hand on the wheel

  • p2p (Score:5, Insightful)

    by earthstar ( 748263 ) on Monday December 26, 2005 @01:45AM (#14338588) Journal
    If the law is enacted, retailers could be fined up to $1,000 per violation for selling adults-only games to a minor. Manufacturers and distributors would be responsible for designating games for adult sale only.

    Well,If 'kids' are'nt allowed to buy a particular game due to age restrictions,what stops them from downloading from p2p/bittorrent?

    • Comment removed (Score:5, Interesting)

      by account_deleted ( 4530225 ) on Monday December 26, 2005 @01:49AM (#14338607)
      Comment removed based on user account deletion
      • That would be the case if these games were actually aimed at minors, but they're not -- last time I checked, the average gamer is 29 or so, and most game purchases are made by adults.

        The real threat to the games industry is that the stores will look at such a law and say to themselves "Well, the E rated games sell better anyway, so let's avoid the risk of a fine or jail sentence and refuse to stock anything rated T or above." THAT will definitely destroy a revenue stream and lead to the censorship of ga

    • Re:p2p (Score:3, Insightful)

      by Propaganda13 ( 312548 )
      Good parents

  • After Hearing of the Judge's Reversal... (Score:4, Funny)

    by ferrellcat ( 691126 ) * on Monday December 26, 2005 @01:50AM (#14338609)
    ...allowing the sale of violent games, Arnold decided to have a few words with the judge [yimg.com]
  • Why are we trying to regulate the sale of video games through law? If a kid is too young to buy a game, his PARENTS should be the one stopping him. If the parents don't notice a kid coming home and gleefully killing virtual hookers in his free time, then there's a bigger problem than "The store didn't enforce the age limit on this awfully violent videogame!"
    • What's wrong with that? I was playing M rated material such as Grand Theft Auto, Perfect Dark and Duke Nukem 3D long before I was of legal age. Hell, my parents bought me a copy of Doom II when I was 12 and Duke Nukem 3D a year later, and didn't even bother to set the adults only password..

      Now look at me. I'm a well adjusted adult that is three semesters away from graduating from college. I drink responsibly, I don't smoke, and I have no interest in owning a gun. M rated games share the same category

      • Sounds a lot like me :)

        I played Castle Wolfenstein when I was in elementary school. It was fun -- I liked the way the guy's face changed when he lost hit points. Duke Nukem was another favourite of mine, and I played Carmageddon briefly in highschool too.

        I think all the games that I played were far less "explicit" than some of the books that I was reading at the time anyway. It's amazing how much erotica a 9-year-old can purchase and then proceed to read in class. Ok, so by erotica, I mean erotica t

        • Damn, you kids make me feel old. I don't really consider myself very old, but I was on the latter end of college when Doom (the original) came out. *sigh*

          Now, on a serious note... I turned out just fine as well... but... You should not make calls about the law based on your own experiences. You very well could be an exception... both having gone to college, you were probably already good in school and fairly well educated and well adjusted. What is more important to look at are the over all statistics o
    • Because the reality is that kids (especially those in the 14-17 range) aren't always 100% under the close eye of the parent. And I wouldn't expect them to be, as by that age they should be learning to be more independent. But the more important thing is... the law would be to protect the parent from having to combat the commercial world (which they already have to do with so many other things) from imposing views on how their children to be raised and what they should be exposed to. I've seen several com

  • Cool. (Score:3, Informative)

    by Ruff_ilb ( 769396 ) on Monday December 26, 2005 @02:06AM (#14338649) Homepage
    I know everyone around here is probably feeling elated and self-righteous, but I think it's more than we can expect, really, in this situation with video games. Think of the culture of the past and backlash there - Booze, Jazz, Rock & Roll, etc... We're getting it pretty good.

    To put another spin on it, arnold would be accepting a ban on something that he personally profits for. From a business standpoint, the ban doesn't make sense for him either. I don't mean to imply that this is his guiding reason, or even a factor, but it's one way to look at it.

    ~Ruff_ilb

  • Was this law really even called for? (Score:3, Insightful)

    by onlysolution ( 941392 ) on Monday December 26, 2005 @02:13AM (#14338660)
    This law really is going about things the wrong way. If the sale of video games to minors is going to get restricted the ESRB needs to be given an actual meaning in law or as a regulatory agency.

    An ESRB with teeth is not what is needed though. Restricting sales to minors won't stop them from getting what they want, it will just reduce the official sales numbers while the kids who do get their parents to get the game copy the game for their less fortunate freinds. The net effect wont be increased parently responsibility so much as it will be a rise in piracy. As the games become more unobtainable, they become more desireable to minors, and then even kids who would not have wanted the game on its merits alone will want it because they cannot have it. Situation sound like some other heavily legislated 'goods'? This is definitely not a new situation we have on our hands.

    Of course the proper solution is increased parental responsibility. If the state or nation were to mandate, say, a class on parental responsibilty, parenting, licenses, or anything like that there would be riots in the streets.

    It would be nice if people started noticing a pattern about social legislation. It is ineffective and nobody likes it. The only way this issue will be solved is if parents start thinking about the problem for themselves and maybe pay attention to their kids once and a while; but I don't see that happening anytime soon, do you?

  • Precedent (Score:5, Insightful)

    by spiritraveller ( 641174 ) on Monday December 26, 2005 @02:21AM (#14338676)
    "We don't allow kids to buy cigarettes or alcohol or look at pornography," he said. "There are already situations in which we as society have said we have to protect kids by limiting what they can do."

    Cigarettes and alcohol don't involve speech or expression.

    And as far as pornography, it may be true that Mr. Yee doesn't let his kids look at it. But that's not the constitutinal standard. The Supreme Court has already overruled the Communications Decency Act, which required adult websites to verify age before displaying any "pornographic" content.

    Typical legislative mentality. Ignore the constitution... just do what makes you look good and let the courts sort it out.

    • Re:Precedent (Score:3, Interesting)

      by YrWrstNtmr ( 564987 )
      Why was the CDA shot down? Because there is no way to really tell if a person behind the monitor is over or under 18.

      Reno v. ACLU [epic.org]

      "In sum, the District Court found:
      "Even if credit card verification or adult password verification were implemented, the Government presented no testimony as to how such systems could ensure that the user of the password or credit card is in fact over 18. The burdens imposed by credit card verification and adult password verification systems make them effectively unavaila

    • "which required adult websites to verify age before displaying any "pornographic" content"

      And this is working just marvelously! Honestly. Two flawless ways to check age:

      1. Please enter your birthdate for us to check (it works every time cuz porn users are extremely honest and can never dial wrong birthdate. We have a case of a porn user who commited suicide after realizing he dialed wrong month for his birthdate on such a site).

      2. Please enter your full credit card details for us to check (since minor can't

  • What the law is really about. (Score:4, Insightful)

    by Anonymous Coward on Monday December 26, 2005 @02:24AM (#14338684)
    Gee, what would California, the home of the current movie/music industry, have against the new-coming rapidly expanding gaming industry?

  • who is ultimately responsible? (Score:3, Interesting)

    by ogreinside ( 223917 ) * <emailvinny.gmail@com> on Monday December 26, 2005 @02:27AM (#14338692) Journal
    What sorts of fines are retailers currently assessed for sale of rated R movies, CDs with "explicit lyrics", pornography, and other adult material to minors?

    The bottom line is that parents should be the ones regulating what their children are doing. If you don't know what games your child is playing, what music they are listening to, or magazines they are buying, then you need to get more involved with their lives.

    Stop blaming retailers, game companies, cable tv, and generally everyone else. Do you job as a parent, discuss with your children why the material is unsuitable for them. Heck, buy it and interact with them.

  • Good (Score:3, Interesting)

    by headkase ( 533448 ) on Monday December 26, 2005 @02:36AM (#14338716)
    ...no State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges and immunities of the citizens of the United States --U.S. Constitution amendment XIV

    The states cannot take away rights that originate from citizenship.
    Now I'm about to be corrected by someone who really knows what they're talking about ;)
    • No, you pretty much nailed it.

      Furthermore, the Federal government cannot regulate anything that the Constitution does not explicitly give them the authority to regulate. In other words, 99% of all Federal laws are unconstitutional -- including, for example, all restrictions on drugs and weapons, except those that regulate trafficking across state borders.

  • Activist Judges (Score:3, Informative)

    by Ohreally_factor ( 593551 ) on Monday December 26, 2005 @02:47AM (#14338738) Journal
    Wow, these activist judges sure are . . . er . . . active.

    The very same judge made a very similar ruling [slashdot.org] only two days ago!

    [Ramones]Dupe, dupe, dupe, dupe & roll highschool[/Ramones]

  • There's No Law Against Irony ... (Score:3, Interesting)

    by rewinn ( 647614 ) on Monday December 26, 2005 @02:49AM (#14338742) Homepage
    ... otherwise, this law would have burst into hellish flames of contradiction when signed by the lead in Conan, Commando, Eraser, Predator, Red Heat, Running Man, Terminator 1/2/3, Total Recall, True Lies and (Not) The Last Action Hero.
    • ... otherwise, this law would have burst into hellish flames of contradiction when signed by the lead in Conan, Commando, Eraser, Predator, Red Heat, Running Man, Terminator 1/2/3, Total Recall, True Lies and (Not) The Last Action Hero.

      It's not irony, it's trying to muscle out his competitors. You'll note that it didn't apply to movies.

      Movies like that are now competing for audience with games like "Splinter Cell". If he can pass laws to make it difficult to produce and sell games that are after his mark
  • When T2 the arcade game came out way back when, arnold took some flak for it as there are scenes in the game where you shoot cops which were scanned in photos a la mortal kombat. And I can't remember his exact lines but he defended the game saying it stayed in line with the film as shooting the cops were for the greater good going with the story line.

  • Now, if he can only ban dupes...
  • Kids are the same as adults. No one should have to obey laws they don't like. Democracy is good when it applies other people. etc etc etc. /. has a huge blind spot on this issue. If the law banned the sales totally that would be something, but this is a non-issue. Preventing young people from buying extremely violent or pornographic material is not radical, it's not fascist, and it wouldn't even rate as news in any other country, in most of which it is actually understood that parents can't track their chi

  • Supervision is the key (Score:3, Insightful)

    by Sv-Manowar ( 772313 ) on Monday December 26, 2005 @07:14AM (#14339206) Homepage Journal
    Good to see that there are some people left with common sense around, it's the same thing with the internet. People complain about what their kids are going on, but no one ever questions why they freely let their children browse the web without supervision, or let them play games without supervision.
  • I see a lot of people who continue to say that it's up to the parents to keep their children from playing games that arn't acceptable. These are the same people who either don't work, or who don't have children themselves.

    Look at the cost of living these days. In many places, paying rent or a mortgage costs over $2000 per month. With phone bills, cable bills, electric bills, water bills, car payments, credit card payments, and so on, in order to afford all of this and have a parent able to stay at home t
    • I find it interesting how you relate effective parenting as a direct function of household income. If your theory were true, then all children of high income families are exceptionally well mannered and educated, and all children of marginal income families are irresponsible anti-socials.

            This is clearly not the case. There are charming examples of both extremes in all income groups. Thus I refute your "I could look after my kids properly if I had more cash" argument.
    • Why is the parent post marked as flamebait? Here is a parent explaining their point of view, and this is flamebait?! Not that I agree with everything he says, but notheless I think the moderators really messed up on this one.

  • Ahhhnold win-win. (Score:3)

    by dentar ( 6540 ) on Monday December 26, 2005 @09:54AM (#14339519) Homepage Journal
    Arnie signed that law knowing full well it would be struck down. It's a win-win for him.

    Arnold gets to take credit for "protecting" minors. He also now has the opportunity to slam the judicial branch for being "liberal." (Whatever that means.)

    However, the law was nothing more than restraint of trade.
  • Funny, this is the first time I can remember a high profile case of violence being censored. Usually sex or speach is censored.

Slashdot Top Deals

Perfection is acheived only on the point of collapse. - C. N. Parkinson

Close