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

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
Games Government Entertainment Politics

Anti-Gaming Legislation in Florida Moves Forward 39

Posted by Zonk from the making-baby-mario-cry dept.
Next Generation reports that another piece of anti-gaming legislation is moving forward in Floria. From the article: "Despite the failure of similar bills, Diaz de la Portilla believes SB492 provides the means to protect children. 'Left to their own devices, children often do not realize the harm they are causing themselves through the exposure to graphic sexual and violent content found in many of today's video games'" The bill has passed its first Senate hearing with a vote of 7 to 1. We've previously mentioned this legislation.
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Anti-Gaming Legislation in Florida Moves Forward More

Anti-Gaming Legislation in Florida Moves Forward

Comments Filter:

  • harm? (Score:4, Insightful)

    by Anonymous Coward on Friday January 13, 2006 @02:47PM (#14466142)
    children often do not realize the harm they are causing themselves through the exposure to graphic sexual and violent content found in many of today's video games

    ADULTS do not realize the harm they are causing by failing to understand the adaptability of children.
    Perhaps those lawmakers should visit Denmark, which totally legalized pornography two generations ago, even with respect to public displays in street-level windows, and HASN'T sunk into the sea of depravity since.
  • FTA
    ''Video games are protected speech under the First Amendment just like movies, books and television,'' said Sally Jefferson of the Entertainment Software Association.

    Well, Sally, guess what? 17 year olds cannot go to certain movies. 17 year olds cannot buy Playboy. 17 year olds cannot buy the X-Channel.

    So if that is your attempt to defend selling any title to any age group, you REALLY need to think through your arguement more.

    Like the above three examples... if the parent approves it, and buys it on beha
    • Well, Sally, guess what? 17 year olds cannot go to certain movies. 17 year olds cannot buy Playboy. 17 year olds cannot buy the X-Channel.

      Actually there is no law that restricts kids from R rated movies, it is a completly non govenment system that is enforced my the movie industry. Sadly the game industry is not willing to crack down on stores selling M games in the same way that the movie industry is. Even playboy can be legally sold to minors though some could possibly prosecute under indecency to minor
    • 17 year olds cannot go to certain movies. 17 year olds cannot buy Playboy. 17 year olds cannot buy the X-Channel.

      We are talking about video games, not porn. 17 year olds can see R movies, there are no govenrment laws prohbiting them. The theatres themselves control all the guidlines. In some R movies, you can get a lot of sexual content and violence.

      There is no law forbidding retailers to sell a violent movie to a minor that I know of (IANAL). Why does there need to be one forbidding violent video games
    • If companies A, B, C ... Z agree to mark their games with symbols indicating which age groups they are suitable for (a benefit for the consumer, isn't it?), and retail stores agree not to sell games marked 17 to persons under 17 years of age, that's perfectly fine. It's called a free market in operation. You can sell what you want to whomever you want - or you can chose not to. The problem is when the coercion of government comes into the picture. If mommy doesn't want Billy to play GTA3, well, fine. But if

    • Bottom line: No one's rights are being attacked. This is common sense.

      No, what is common sense is that PARENTS should be responsible for what their kids play. Period. Laws to try and enforce parental responsibility are putrid on face value. Your examples of movies and magazines are industry enforced, not government enforced. Sheeesh, you must be new here to not have known that. If these types of laws are constitutional, (they're not), what is to stop the Government from passing laws about eating at MacD
    • "Well, Sally, guess what? 17 year olds cannot go to certain movies. 17 year olds cannot buy Playboy. 17 year olds cannot buy the X-Channel."

      You can't make claims like these without backing them up. Go look through your state's statutes and find out exactly where it is illegal to give a minor any of the content you just listed.

      99.9% of the time, what you just listed is nothing more than store or theater policy, not law. The other 0.1% gets consistently struck down as unconstitutional. The only reason nobo
      • > ....
        > policy, not law. The other 0.1% gets
        > consistently struck down as unconstitutional.

        If a paedophile gave your 9 year old indecent pictures of himself, then society jails him.

        So if he _sold_ those pictures to your 9 year old, it's "unconstitutional" to arrest him, eh?

        Wake up , listen to your conscience. It is about "saving the children".
    • So ... if we've already taken away *some* rights, then it's okay to continue taking away similar rights, and it's not okay for anyone to ever try to draw a line in the sand and say "no more"? You can't justify one oppression by another.
      • "You can't justify one oppression by another."

        I agree.

        Whats needed here is for the video game industry (and media as a whole)to police itself and show some restraint. Having Freedom of Speech does not mean having a right to permissive speech. The freedom of speech protections in the constitution can only work properly when they are grounded with some type of morial rule system that comes from the individual. Remove the morial value system and free speech becomes nothing more then permissive speech
        • I appreciate that you agree with me, but I'm going to have to disagree with you.

          Do you really have a freedom if you can't make use of it without it being taken away? Asking anyone to restrain themselves is pointless unless there's the force of law behind it, and the threat that the freedom they will have excercised will be taken away from them -- at which point it's no freedom at all.

          As to morals, again, I must disagree. Laws have basis in force, not in morals and ethics. We do not rely on public shame nor
          • Do you really have a freedom if you can't make use of it without it being taken away?

            Sure ya do.
            Because there is a distinct difference between freedoms and rights. I have the freedom to steel an automobile, but not the right to do so.
            My moral values tell me that steeling is wrong. So I refrain from steeling a car. But since we have people that do not have the same moral value about steeling that I have, we need laws against steeling cars. Likewise, the media industry, which includes game makers, has
            • I realize this article is going to go stale soon now and prevent us from replying to each other, but I thought I'd point out a terminology difference that could be important:
              - what you call freedom, I call ability (sometimes opportunity)
              - what you call right, I call freedom
              - what I call right, you don't seem to have a word for.

              To me, freedom is what society tells you it won't punish you for. This is beyond the physical ability to do things, which you can't possibly lose (except, perhaps, by being locked up.
              • "the Constitution, our binding agreement, states that I have this freedom."

                If you feel that the Constitution is a binding agreement that we have this freedom to speech, then we are using the same vocabulary regarding freedom. Now here is the catch, in order to keep that "right" to have freedom of speech, and to not have that right curtailed by new laws that can amend the constitution to our freedom of speech,-- we must respect that freedom and not abuse that freedom.

                I see your point now however. You

  • They're called parents... (Score:3, Insightful)

    by Hamster Lover ( 558288 ) * on Friday January 13, 2006 @02:51PM (#14466197) Journal
    From TFA:

    Despite the failure of similar bills, Diaz de la Portilla believes SB492 provides the means to protect children. 'Left to their own devices, children often do not realize the harm they are causing themselves through the exposure to graphic sexual and violent content found in many of today's video games'.

    I think what he's looking for is this mythical creature called a parent . Replace "graphic sexual and violent content" with "playing in the street" and you see the logic he's using. Where are the parents?
  • means to protect children

    I'm sure he "means" to, but how many scientific studies have to point to the good that comes from gaming, how many different rating systems do we need, and how DO we protect children from parents too ignroant to understand that perhaps a 6 year old shouldn't be shooting cops?

  • I hear Floria's a great vacation spot, though I've never been there myself. I always assumed it was near Florida, but I can't seem to find it on a map.

  • A Bush Speaks the Truth (Score:4, Insightful)

    by Timinithis ( 14891 ) on Friday January 13, 2006 @02:57PM (#14466250) Homepage
    Not since the time of Moses has a Bush spoken such truth as Gov. Bush did. ''I think self-regulation is the first step,'' Bush said. "Parents ought to take control over their children's lives.''

    Sadly, more and more the U.S. is turning to government legislation to protect what could be protected with a little common sense. Parents should be more responsible toward their spawn than just providing a roof and food while feeling happy that Little Tommy is in his room playing games and not on the street doing drugs or worse.

    I think the game industry does an excellent job of indicating what age group should be playing a game, but that is just a suggestion and parents should pay attention to what is going on.

    Let's just keep giving more power to the governement so we don't have any freedoms at all.
  • Since some politicians use that line so much... well, if it is a sincere concern, there are more serious points to worry about.

    *points to sig*

  • "Pssst! It means *gambling*..." (Score:3, Informative)

    by mkcmkc ( 197982 ) on Friday January 13, 2006 @03:18PM (#14466437)
    • Gaming (gambling) -- legal
    • Gaming (video) -- illegal
    Ha ha!
    • What about "Gaming (shooting deer)"?

      I was once one of the officers for a college organization called the "Knoxville Gaming Bureau," which focused on, believe it or not, playing all sorts of games, video games included. We put up flyers all over campus to advertise when we first started up. Important part of this puzzle: we're talking about Knoxville, Tennessee.

      Fast forward to meeting one: some good-ole-boy politely comes in and sits down, listens politely to the first five minutes of our introduction, sta
  • How exactly the law 'protect' children?

    Does it prevent that oh so common problem of enemies jumping out of the computer screen and shooting kids with their RPG?

  • The only way they're going to make games less "accessible" to minors is if Walmart puts them out of reach on the top rack and not randomly tossed on the bottom rack. They had ZERO copies of Civ 4, but plenty of F.E.A.R. Oh well looks like your kid is buying the next best thing. *brags* Well I never get carded
  • 'Left to their own devices, children often do not realize the harm they are causing themselves through the exposure to graphic sexual and violent content found in many of today's video games' Isn't that why God invented parents? Or what that Al Gore, I forgot.
  • Comment removed based on user account deletion

  • see where the problem is? (Score:4, Insightful)

    by Kanasta ( 70274 ) on Friday January 13, 2006 @11:23PM (#14469556)
    *Left to their own devices...*

    Perhaps children should NOT be left to their own devices all the time...
  • I think parents should take responsibility for what their kids are doing, rather than have lawmakers do it for them. If they're so worried about their kids going on a killing spree after playing GTA, then don't buy the game. If they know what their children are playing and the kids are mature enough to handle it, that's fine too. We really don't need the government getting involved in entertainment.
  • What about other sources of sexual or violent content? If people are really concerned about certain content being harmful then maybe they should start banning other information streams as well, such as books? Sexually themed? "The player of games" by Iain M. Banks had some seriously disturbing sexual scenes.. "The Gap Series" by Steven Donaldson is probably one of the most disturbed series of books I've ever read with a major theme around the repeated rape of a womem. "Lady Chatterley's Lover" maybe?

    Hmmm vi

Slashdot Top Deals

Do you suffer painful hallucination? -- Don Juan, cited by Carlos Casteneda

Close