A-fucking-men.ikellensbro said:Everyone who says this doesn't really affect anyone because they (suck and) are over 18, picture this:
You're in high school, and you want to see a movie. I probably wasn't alive back when you were a teenager or I was still crapping in diapers, so let's just say you wanted to go see Ace Ventura (hey, it was on TV today). In that movie (Pet Detective), Ace gets 2 spears thrown at him, and even though it's funny and Ace doesn't really get hurt, you can't see the movie without someone else over 18 because the state you're watching this movie in thinks that your mind will be corrupted and you'll start throwing spears at anyone you see because it's funny.
Now that example was about a movie (which obviously taints your mind much less than the games), but what about actual games? Remember that really good game, The Legend of Zelda? In Arizona it may be rated E for everyone, but here in California, this game has the potential to make you start swinging swords and throwing bombs at other people. If you want this game you'll have to either have someone over 18 buy it for you or get it elsewhere, such as from a 6 year old who is legally allowed to buy it in Arizona.
You may just say 'What's another year for those little brats? They need to learn to wait sometime.' How would you have liked not being able to drive for another year in high school? How would you have liked to not be able to drink (legally, duh) until you were 21 (or 19 if you're from Canada)? How would it feel to have to wait another year to get a piece of software/hardware/etc. that you have the money already saved up for, but it's not legal for you to buy it? For all you boomers, what's another year of waiting for retirement?
Eventually my parents should come around and realize that I've played hundreds of hours of CS, Diablo2, Farcry, etc. that I got as gifts, and have not yet shot anyone or made any living animal explode into a pile of blood and guts. Until then, If I have to, I'll just get other people at my high school to buy the games for me, or even go drive over to Arizona once I get my license and buy the next Zelda over there because it won't be legal for me to buy it under the law my Governator so stupidly signed.
For those who think this means nothing, these laws are setting precedents to let the government to control more and more of your life, wether you like it or not. There could have been a lot more time spent fixing California like the legislators are supposed to be getting paid for doing, if the new law was simply a $1000 fine for selling an M-rated game to someone under 17. Short, simple, to the point, and the ratings system is already in place. As for the ESRB rating games appropriately, if Titanic were a game with all the naughtiness as the movie, it would be rated AO. If Return of the Sith: the game was as graphic as the movie, it would be rated M.
Jack Thompson could probably get more money and innocent verdicts by correctly blaming/suing the parents of the messed up kids who play GTA for a minute in a store and say it caused them to blow up the police station.
![[H]ard|Forum](/styles/hardforum/xenforo/logo_dark.png){kind=logo}
Arnold passes the "violent" video game bill in California.
- Thread starter Stiler
- Start date
I also take a very Libertarian perspective and believe that the government has no right parenting the children of this country. They've got other shit to worry about.
That said, a whole hell of a lot of parents are incapable of raising their children because shifting that burden of responsibility has gotten way easier in the last 10 years or so. Blame everything but yourselves.
I'm more bothered by the existence of the law than the content. It's illegal for kids to smoke too...we seem to have eliminated that issue, haven't we? The fact that they wasted so much time and money developing that law is what pisses me off. When (not if) it comes to Indiana (proud red state ) pulling this shit, I'll be there.
That said, a whole hell of a lot of parents are incapable of raising their children because shifting that burden of responsibility has gotten way easier in the last 10 years or so. Blame everything but yourselves.
I'm more bothered by the existence of the law than the content. It's illegal for kids to smoke too...we seem to have eliminated that issue, haven't we? The fact that they wasted so much time and money developing that law is what pisses me off. When (not if) it comes to Indiana (proud red state
) pulling this shit, I'll be there.Maybe I misread part of the article or something, but I didn't get any indication that Arnold's law will change how the ESRB rates games. I thought the law just made mature games unpurchasable by minors. I didn't read anything there that would made me think that, say, Tetris would be rated AO for images of wanton destruction. I view this law as placing more control of video game purchases into the hands of parents, which is fine by me. Sure, ideally, a law wouldn't be necessary (like with the movie industry), but the video game industry is fundamentally different from the movie industry. I've never seen a movie theater that didn't card for R rated movies, and I've never seen a video game store that carded for M rated games. I know they probably exist out there (so if anyone feels like replying to share their own experiences with their stores, you can save your breath!), but I've never come across any.
I'm really not concerned about game content being limited or chopped in order to get a Teen rating. This is probably just wishful thinking, but hell, maybe if the slightly decreased sales that would result from laws such of these help lessen the budgets of games, maybe smaller developers will be able to get back into the game, and maybe, just maybe, games won't focus on just graphics and maybe more on gameplay. Yeah, yeah, that's probably an argument for a different topic, but a guy can dream, can't he?
I'm really not concerned about game content being limited or chopped in order to get a Teen rating. This is probably just wishful thinking, but hell, maybe if the slightly decreased sales that would result from laws such of these help lessen the budgets of games, maybe smaller developers will be able to get back into the game, and maybe, just maybe, games won't focus on just graphics and maybe more on gameplay. Yeah, yeah, that's probably an argument for a different topic, but a guy can dream, can't he?
No it wasnt.The rating was there as, a guide-line for parents and, merchants alike. Some stores chose to enforce it. Most though do not so, now somebody will pass laws to make it mandatory. Parents should be the ones deciding what the kids can see or, play. It would be nice if they would actually take responsibilty for there own kids. I knew this BS was coming. Atleast they are talking of doing the Hitler thing and, banning everything the state doesnt like. But hell they will eventually try that too.rowbear62468 said:
For all those crying about rights, here's something to think about: Until you are 18 you have a bare minimum set of rights ( as far as the government is concerned ) mainly designed to keep your parents from ( rightfully ) strangling you.
That's it. You aren't entitled to anything other than food, water and shelter. Oh, and to a half ass education. Notice the lack of video games.
As far as this bill is concerned, it's a rather poor attempt at grandstanding. Think about it: Who is this going to affect? Kids who buy violent video games? Probably not, the parents were clueless then and are going to remain clueless. Game creaters? In a very minor sense, and I doubt even that.
The biggest impact from this law will be more misdemeaners for wally-world clerks who forget that 16 is LESS THAN 18. And quite frankly, I hate everything to do with wally world, so that's more a bonus to me than anything.
So yeah, this is a non-issue, designed to be used come next election ( "I championed child welfar during my term in office, and I will continue to do so again" neverminding the fact he's gutting the schools and creating a very very bad education problem ). If you folks really want to get up in arms about something, look at what he's doing to the education in this state. That'll make any one with two neurons to rub together faint.
That's it. You aren't entitled to anything other than food, water and shelter. Oh, and to a half ass education. Notice the lack of video games.
As far as this bill is concerned, it's a rather poor attempt at grandstanding. Think about it: Who is this going to affect? Kids who buy violent video games? Probably not, the parents were clueless then and are going to remain clueless. Game creaters? In a very minor sense, and I doubt even that.
The biggest impact from this law will be more misdemeaners for wally-world clerks who forget that 16 is LESS THAN 18. And quite frankly, I hate everything to do with wally world, so that's more a bonus to me than anything.
So yeah, this is a non-issue, designed to be used come next election ( "I championed child welfar during my term in office, and I will continue to do so again" neverminding the fact he's gutting the schools and creating a very very bad education problem ). If you folks really want to get up in arms about something, look at what he's doing to the education in this state. That'll make any one with two neurons to rub together faint.
WOW!!XOR != OR said:
Ever read the Constitution?
There's actually nothing in there stating children have no rights. In fact, children share the exact same right that parents do. The unfortunate thing is that children don't typically understand their rights as people.
Sorry, but what you said was about the most rediculous, idiotic and ignorant statement I have read thus far.
You know I always take a peek into most "keep games from corrupting your kids" type thread and I used to be very weary of these kinds of laws being passed. However, now that I'm old enough to where I don't have to worry about it, I don't.
With the large amount of immature kids where I am who are actually dumb enough to not know the difference between right and wrong, it's probably a good idea, but these kinds of laws probably aren't going to be properly enforced. It's the parents responsability to take care of their kids - to talk about the games.
I think what we really need is just a lot of gamer parents who will not only enjoy the games with their kids, but explain the games as well.
With the large amount of immature kids where I am who are actually dumb enough to not know the difference between right and wrong, it's probably a good idea, but these kinds of laws probably aren't going to be properly enforced. It's the parents responsability to take care of their kids - to talk about the games.
I think what we really need is just a lot of gamer parents who will not only enjoy the games with their kids, but explain the games as well.
Whatever, it's fuckin' stupid to sit here and argue this point.XOR != OR said:
You can think what you want and I'll continue thinking what I want.
I still don't know where you are getting out of the Constitution : "Until you are 18 you have a bare minimum set of rights ( as far as the government is concerned ) mainly designed to keep your parents from ( rightfully ) strangling you."
I guess I'm just reading the wrong Constitution.
Oh, and to answer your question. As a matter of fact, I have read the Constitution numerous times as a matter of fact. I also happed to have a copy of it on my wall, it saved to my HD and in a few other places.
And again, I state...take it deep.
Translated: I said something stupid and someone called me on it.Moose777 said:
By all means. You are free to believe whatever you wish. Nevermind how wrong you are.
I'm not. I never brought up the constitution, you did ( albeit wrongly ). I'm simply speaking the truth, as observed and how it's written in law.
*shrug* Possibly. I don't see what you are referring to in a document outlining how our government runs in relation to rights.
So I can only assume you did not understand it then.
You're absolutely right. You aren't a person until you are 18. Hell, you aren't even human until them.
And no, it's not translated into, "Ooh, I said something stupid and got called on it." No, what it means is it's not worth my time to sit here and argue about it. It just doesn't matter.
But since you want to continue this conversation. Lemme bow down to you and tell you how right you are. I'm so sorry that I didn't know that children aren't people. You're absolutely right, children have no rights aside for food and a roof over their heads. But even then, it's fuckin' iffy.
You're right. I'm so wrong.
And if I'm so wrong perhaps oh master of the US Constitution you could enlighten the stupid people here as to which section, article and amendment it states clearly that children have no rights other than having food and a roof provided for them.
http://www.house.gov/Constitution/Constitution.html
http://www.house.gov/Constitution/Amend.html
Because, well, again, I'm just not seeing it.
Now if you don't mind I need to go lock my neice and nephew back up in their rooms cause they aren't people. They must be animals since they have no rights. Do you think I should chain them up to something? I mean they might get out and attack people. And we wouldn't want non-people attacking people with rights.
Oh, and for the record, the moment you mentioned the word "Rights" you brought up the Constitution.
So, prove me wrong asshole.
And no, it's not translated into, "Ooh, I said something stupid and got called on it." No, what it means is it's not worth my time to sit here and argue about it. It just doesn't matter.
But since you want to continue this conversation. Lemme bow down to you and tell you how right you are. I'm so sorry that I didn't know that children aren't people. You're absolutely right, children have no rights aside for food and a roof over their heads. But even then, it's fuckin' iffy.
You're right. I'm so wrong.
And if I'm so wrong perhaps oh master of the US Constitution you could enlighten the stupid people here as to which section, article and amendment it states clearly that children have no rights other than having food and a roof provided for them.
http://www.house.gov/Constitution/Constitution.html
http://www.house.gov/Constitution/Amend.html
Because, well, again, I'm just not seeing it.
Now if you don't mind I need to go lock my neice and nephew back up in their rooms cause they aren't people. They must be animals since they have no rights. Do you think I should chain them up to something? I mean they might get out and attack people. And we wouldn't want non-people attacking people with rights.
Oh, and for the record, the moment you mentioned the word "Rights" you brought up the Constitution.
So, prove me wrong asshole.
Now you are making stuff up. Please reread my posts.Moose777 said:
For someone who ( mistakenly ) believes as strongly as you do, it amazes me that it doesn't matter.
I never said that either
Yes, I believe we can agree to this.
You are asking me to prove a negative, which is difficult and, quite frankly, logic can be used to short cut it.
For example: Your links ( and mind, you refered to the constitution, not the amendments, but whichever ) show people get the right to vote. So, does my 1.5 year old daughter get to vote?
How about the right to bare arms? Should my little one be packin' when she goes to day care?
Does the right to unreasonable search and seizure mean my mother violated my constitutional rights when she confiscated my porn?
Feeling silly yet? I've got more:
Does excessive bail protect teenagers from being grounded for a month when they wreck the car?
The fact of the matter is, like I previously stated, kids have minimal rights until they are legally an adult. Don't like it? Fine, I don't really care. But it's just how it is. Instead of railing against me for pointing it out, how about you aim some of that patriotism at our elected officials to get it changed.
Except the under 18 crowd can't vote, so they won't give two shits.
Then you aren't trying.
As much fun as I can have with this opening, I don't think the mods would particularly apprecaite it. So, let me just say, you do whatever you feel you need to. If that means getting all worked up over a mis-read post on the internet, more power to you.
Oh? So, without the constitution, we have no rights? And the constitution contains all the rights we will ever need?
Done.
Again. You said that children have no rights. As in zilch, zero, nada. You made it sound as if children weren't people, nor were they human. I didn't misread shit. I read it exactly how you wrote it.
The argument doesn't matter. It's a moot point. You perceive the rights of the people one way, I preceive them another. We'll never agree. Again, I didn't say anything stupid. I said children do have rights and children are people. They just don't necessarily have an opinion or can follow thier rights because they haven't learned about them.
And again, I will say this. They do share the same rights as we do. They however do not know their rights. And a child can not vote until they are old enough to be able to form an opinion of their own. Hell, most 18 year olds I know shouldn't be voiting but it's their right.
And yes, you did say that. I guess you don't remember typing this: "Until you are 18 you have a bare minimum set of rights ( as far as the government is concerned ) mainly designed to keep your parents from ( rightfully ) strangling you." Which translated into: "Children have the right to have food and housing provided by their parents. Aside for that, they aren't worth the ground they walk on."
No, I'm not wrong. I interpereted the Constitution for what it is "By the People for the People" a guideline set up by citizens for the government to follow. Of course, in today's day and age, it's the other way around. While you on the other hand said that children have no rights.
How am I asking you to prove a negative? You said they have no rights. I merely asked you to scour the document that contains the rights of it's people and show me where it says that children have no rights other than having food and shelter provided for them until they are 18.
And actually, the second link was supposed to open to the amendments, if it did not, that is not my fault. That is the fault of the government's server. But I assure you, it opened to the amendments for me.
As you stated before, children have no rights, so, in that logic your mother was in the right for confiscating your porn. But if you felt violated perhaps you should have done a better job of hiding them. My mom didn't find my porn till I was 24 and already moved out.
No, bail does not apply because technically. You weren't imprisoned. You were bound to the confines of your room by your parents. If you were sentient you could have snuck out. Because, as a person you have the ability to do so. However, you do run the risk of being caught and having your "punishment" extended. But your parents are not judges appointed by the lovcal government. Besides, it sounds to me like you had goo dparents who actually paid attention to you. And for that, it proves that the lack of parenting is truely to blame for this rediculous law on video games.
The limited rights you refer to are parent's rules. It's a sign of good parenting. But it doesn't mean a child has no rights. And a parents "rules" of their house are not mandated by the government.
I'm not trying to read the constitution? Or am I not trying to see your point? No, I see your point. It however is how it was originally worded. Next time, try rereading your own posts and seeing how it may be perceived to others. Do I feel silly yet? No.
No, g'head, make some comments about my neice and nephew. I mean after all, they are children, they aren't human according to you. Besides, I'd like to see what you have to say regarding this.
As a matter of fact. Without the Constitution there is no control. The government is free to do what they want, when they want and the people have little to no power to stop them (although, we are headed in that direction with the way the government seems to change the constitution without it's people's permission). In fact, without the constitution there'd be some other government. Possibly Anarchy. You're probably one of those people who think Anarchy is taboo and is bad and is total lack of law and control.
Yup. You proved that what you wrote wasn't taken for how it was meant because of the way it was originally typed.
The argument doesn't matter. It's a moot point. You perceive the rights of the people one way, I preceive them another. We'll never agree. Again, I didn't say anything stupid. I said children do have rights and children are people. They just don't necessarily have an opinion or can follow thier rights because they haven't learned about them.
And again, I will say this. They do share the same rights as we do. They however do not know their rights. And a child can not vote until they are old enough to be able to form an opinion of their own. Hell, most 18 year olds I know shouldn't be voiting but it's their right.
And yes, you did say that. I guess you don't remember typing this: "Until you are 18 you have a bare minimum set of rights ( as far as the government is concerned ) mainly designed to keep your parents from ( rightfully ) strangling you." Which translated into: "Children have the right to have food and housing provided by their parents. Aside for that, they aren't worth the ground they walk on."
No, I'm not wrong. I interpereted the Constitution for what it is "By the People for the People" a guideline set up by citizens for the government to follow. Of course, in today's day and age, it's the other way around. While you on the other hand said that children have no rights.
How am I asking you to prove a negative? You said they have no rights. I merely asked you to scour the document that contains the rights of it's people and show me where it says that children have no rights other than having food and shelter provided for them until they are 18.
And actually, the second link was supposed to open to the amendments, if it did not, that is not my fault. That is the fault of the government's server. But I assure you, it opened to the amendments for me.
As you stated before, children have no rights, so, in that logic your mother was in the right for confiscating your porn. But if you felt violated perhaps you should have done a better job of hiding them. My mom didn't find my porn till I was 24 and already moved out.
No, bail does not apply because technically. You weren't imprisoned. You were bound to the confines of your room by your parents. If you were sentient you could have snuck out. Because, as a person you have the ability to do so. However, you do run the risk of being caught and having your "punishment" extended. But your parents are not judges appointed by the lovcal government. Besides, it sounds to me like you had goo dparents who actually paid attention to you. And for that, it proves that the lack of parenting is truely to blame for this rediculous law on video games.
The limited rights you refer to are parent's rules. It's a sign of good parenting. But it doesn't mean a child has no rights. And a parents "rules" of their house are not mandated by the government.
I'm not trying to read the constitution? Or am I not trying to see your point? No, I see your point. It however is how it was originally worded. Next time, try rereading your own posts and seeing how it may be perceived to others. Do I feel silly yet? No.
No, g'head, make some comments about my neice and nephew. I mean after all, they are children, they aren't human according to you. Besides, I'd like to see what you have to say regarding this.
As a matter of fact. Without the Constitution there is no control. The government is free to do what they want, when they want and the people have little to no power to stop them (although, we are headed in that direction with the way the government seems to change the constitution without it's people's permission). In fact, without the constitution there'd be some other government. Possibly Anarchy. You're probably one of those people who think Anarchy is taboo and is bad and is total lack of law and control.
Yup. You proved that what you wrote wasn't taken for how it was meant because of the way it was originally typed.
If this is how you read everything, it's amazing you manage to get one foot in front of the other.Moose777 said:
So again, if a 5 year old *really* insists, he too can bare arms?
Ok, which rights? Name them.
Which does not equal "They have no rights". And no, I am not saying they are worthless. I was merely stating fact, which you insist on arguing about from emotion instead of logic.
No, I never said that.
That's the only way your argument has merit, and it's something I never said.
Fair enough, my mistake. No where in the links you provided did it specifically say "for 18 or older" or "legal adult". However, it didn't say, "Don't kill people" either, so I guess that means that's ok? Yes yes, a wild example that you can twist the words in the consitution to forbid, but my point is there is required a certain amount of common sense when reading it.
Did for me as well. And I was referring to the fact that that was the first mention of them.
No, you did. Repeatedly. I said children have limit or minimal rights.
Perhaps. The point was merely raised to illustrate the silliness of your assursion.
So, ultimately, if my child wanted to vote at 6, she could. I mean, it's in the constitution. If I kept her from the polls, I'd be intereferring with her ability to exercise her constitutional rights.
That or you are grossly misunderstanding it.
You should.
And that would achieve, what exactly? I'd merely be doing it for the sarcasm value alone, and my humor can be a bit crude, which I'm sure the mods wouldn't apprecaite. And as this isn't your board, you can't grant me the right to do so.
My beliefs ( nor yours ) are not what are being argued here. At least, they weren't originally, and I can only guess where you'll reach next to make yourself look right (ish).
Side note: Do they teach reading comprehension in school now? I remember that was like the first course in college: Critical reading.
No where have I ever claimed that children have no rights. Quote where you think I did and I will be happy to prove you wrong ( much as I've done in just about every response ). I *am* relating the facts in the matter, as much as you dislike them. It's not really arguable. Children have very limited rights. "Bare minimal" I believe is the exact term I used. You want to prove me wrong, start there: Show me that children do have the full set of rights enjoyed by adults. Further, prove that they are not a very limited subset of rights.
Moose, he said minors have bare minimum rights.. He is correct. Until you are considered an adult, you do not share many of the rights granted to Americans. You cant vote, buy a gun, smoke, drink, etc etc. And while you do get a limited set of rights, your parents are held responsible for many of your actions and are required to give their consent for many things you wish to do. How you can argue this is beyond me.
Aside from that, you say "Who does it hurt? IMO, everyone. It's another law that is taking away a freedom we all have by restricting us." What freedom are you losing? Do you feel the same way about smokes and alcohol?
Preventing a store from selling games considered to be violent/rated R/17+ or whatever is not taking away any right. You have no right to buy these games, it is a priveledge.
For those of you stating this bill is the government trying to raise our kids, you are clueless. If I dont want my son to play GTA, I wont buy it for him.. Easy enough, right? Yeah, easy enough if you ignore the fact some stores will still sell it to him without my input. Thats the problem they are addressing.. Not parents allowing kids to play these games, cause this bill does absolutely nothing to stop parents from being idiots. It stops store owners from undermining a parents' authority.
Aside from that, you say "Who does it hurt? IMO, everyone. It's another law that is taking away a freedom we all have by restricting us." What freedom are you losing? Do you feel the same way about smokes and alcohol?
Preventing a store from selling games considered to be violent/rated R/17+ or whatever is not taking away any right. You have no right to buy these games, it is a priveledge.
For those of you stating this bill is the government trying to raise our kids, you are clueless. If I dont want my son to play GTA, I wont buy it for him.. Easy enough, right? Yeah, easy enough if you ignore the fact some stores will still sell it to him without my input. Thats the problem they are addressing.. Not parents allowing kids to play these games, cause this bill does absolutely nothing to stop parents from being idiots. It stops store owners from undermining a parents' authority.
Well put. As bad and wild as my nephew is he doesn't need to play these games. Reminds me of when i was 6 playing Contra on an NES cept no blood and sex so it was ok since on transformers u could watch them hit each other.-freon- said:
ikellensbro
[H]ard|Gawd
- Joined
- Feb 14, 2004
- Messages
- 1,410
-freon- said:
If parents were actually watching every now and then to see what games they were palying, you wouldn't need to have stores enforce restrictions on what kids can and can't play, because the parent(s) would be doing their job.
Do people have the right to buy violent games? Technically, no, but does the government have the right to take them away from you? If I wanted to use the Constitution to back my argument, I could say that California is potentially taking away my and game developer's freedom of speach by not letting them speak to everyone they were formally able to.
For those who are skimming through this thread and don't really understand what this bill does:
This bill doesn't pose a fine for selling games rated M by the ESRB to kids under 17. It poses a fine for selling any game that California determines is
where:California said:
Under those definitions, Madden is illegal to be sold to minors, as is NFL2k5, Need For Speed Underground (you can win a race by endangering the life of another racer by crashing into their car), Spider-Man, any Legend of Zelda title, Mario Kart (same as NFSU), Tony Hawk (running people over and winning by spattering other skaters blood everywhere), Enter the Matrix, Medal of Honor, Call of Duty, World of Warcraft, Warcraft III, Comand and Conquer, Sim City, Age of Mythology, and Battlefield 1942. Notice anything similar about those games? They were all best sellers from the last 3 years, and are rated E or T by the ESRB. Hopefully, legislators will only spend actual time (as in 10 seconds tops) deciding if M rated games such as GTA (duh) will be declared NC-18. This law is still trying to do a parents work for them, yet is giving the finger to the ESRB when they should just be trying to enforce their ratings. A lot of people dislike California already, and this is just going to give people even more reasons to wonder how these legislators could be voted into their positions.Those retards I didn't vote for because I can't said:
rowbear62468
Limp Gawd
- Joined
- Jan 16, 2004
- Messages
- 319
ikellensbro said:
i dont think you can really blame this on California. you can however blame this on parents who are to lazy and/or uninterested in raising thier kids. isnt there allready states that have a similiar law/bill?
PopeKevinI
2[H]4U
- Joined
- Mar 25, 2002
- Messages
- 2,880
I don't have a problem with the restriction of the sale of mature content to adults only. Teenagers are still legally children and thus their rights are already largely in the hands of their parents; if parents want them to have access to a game, they can get it for them.
I dislike the attempts of politicians to define what is and is not mature content, though. Games are already accurately rated...simply restrict the sale of M-rated material to minors and save a few trees with the reduction in paperwork.
I dislike the attempts of politicians to define what is and is not mature content, though. Games are already accurately rated...simply restrict the sale of M-rated material to minors and save a few trees with the reduction in paperwork.
Badger_sly
[H]ard|Gawd
- Joined
- Mar 20, 2002
- Messages
- 1,594
Good job on Arnold part, for signing it to law.
So who actually is going to determine which games are not suitable? Is the state of California actually going to go through every single game before it is released to determine whether or not they should be purchasable by minors? I find it a tad hard to believe that they'd go through all this trouble, considering how the ESRB basically already does it anyway. I'd expect this law to be invoked in special cases, like GTA, and not so much with run-of-the-mill games.
ikellensbro said:
you and others talk as if its an attainable goal for all parents in america to be perfect and always know what their kids are doing. but it aint gonna happen in this present reality or in any reality. so these restrictions are a good idea to compensate.
Nasty_Savage
Fully [H]
- Joined
- Mar 19, 2001
- Messages
- 32,609
Next: Ban newbs from server griefing.
PopeKevinI
2[H]4U
- Joined
- Mar 25, 2002
- Messages
- 2,880
Bo_Bice said:
More to the point: I have to wonder how many of the people saying that "if parents would just do their jobs this wouldn't be a problem" are parents themselves. I have a 1-year-old and it's hard enough to keep him out of trouble. I know how much I got away with in junior high and high school that my parents didn't approve of, in large part because even then I knew significantly more about computers than they did. I could easily hide an installation of GTA from your average 30-something parent today.
You're not supposed to be able to get into an R-rated movie or topless bar or adult bookstore without being above a certain age. I'd say that's a very clear precedent for restricting certain kinds of content from being easily accessible to minors. If they circumvent the law that's fine. But let's hold adults responsible for selling content to children that is deemed inappropriate for children by a large percentage of the populace. That way a parent can buy something for their children if they believe their children can handle it and no one's rights are infringed.
rowbear62468
Limp Gawd
- Joined
- Jan 16, 2004
- Messages
- 319
PopeKevinI said:
nobody is asking parents to be perfect. just dont push your parental crap on me. i dont have nor do i want kids. but, lately it seems as though every law, rule or whatever is geared toward protecting the kids. well i pay my taxes and have served in this countries military and i deserve the right to play whatever games i choose, watch whatever i choose and listen to whatever radio program i choose. all of these are my "right" as a citizen of this country. most parents i know, would rather have the government protect thier kids from offending images, music, games, etc... its not that they are bad parents, its just that work etc. takes up a lot of thier time. they try to take an interest and teach them some common sense, but if thier not at work, there is football or baseball or hanging with friends. NO, you cant always be there and they will see naked women, or violence (actually, that one is a bad example. we, as a country have no problem with violence) but you get the drift... in summation, i, nor anybody else, should be denied access to material because some child might also have access to it.
PopeKevinI
2[H]4U
- Joined
- Mar 25, 2002
- Messages
- 2,880
rowbear62468 said:
See, this particular law wouldn't affect you at all. You can buy whatever game you want because *gasp* you're not a child! Just like you can buy tobacco and probably alcohol at the corner store, but they can't. Just like you can buy porn at an adult bookstore, but they can't. Just like you can buy a gun but they can't.
I'm against banning things outright "for the protection of children". I just think that as a nation we all benefit if we make it a little easier for parents to judge what is and is not appropriate for their own children. I'm in favor of lifting FCC content regulations, but only if parents are given an accessible and effective way of limiting content in their homes. The V-chip is a good start, but I've played with it some and it doesn't work all the time.
The government shouldn't be in the business of parenting. Unfortunately, we all bear the burden when parents fail. So as a compromise, the government can do what it can to make a parent's job a little easier and less complicated without infringing the rights of other people.
What's wrong with this bill? You have to be 17 to get into an R rated movie. Why should it be any different for video games? If your parents don't want you playing those games tough shit. It's their house, their rules.
The only thing I see wrong with it is that it reinforces the myth that violent games cause violent behavior. Which they don't, otherwise there would be many, many scientific studies to back it up.
The only thing I see wrong with it is that it reinforces the myth that violent games cause violent behavior. Which they don't, otherwise there would be many, many scientific studies to back it up.
PopeKevinI
2[H]4U
- Joined
- Mar 25, 2002
- Messages
- 2,880
S1nF1xx said:
There is some evidence that frequent exposure to violent media is related to violent behavior. I'm inclined to think that it simply reenforces violent tendencies that already exist, in the same way that soothing music relaxes people who are already at ease.
So when a thug listening to gangsta rap gets keyed up and kills someone, the music didn't make him do it. He was thinking about doing it anyway, and the music reenforced his line of thinking by expressing the same thoughts. This works the same way with just about anything: a Republican listening to conservative talk radio is going to hear his ideas with a positive spin, thus reenforcing his ideas that he's right. A Democrat listening to liberal talk radio will have the same effect.
If you take an angry, probably depressed teenager and feed him a steady diet of sugar, violent movies, angry music, and violent video games, don't be surprised when he goes on a shooting rampage. The media feeds what's already there.
ikellensbro said:
The only games you list that are even closely described by the legislation would be the FPS wargames like Battlefield, MoH, etc, but the intent of the bill isnt even focused on those games. They keep throwing around the word "Ultraviolent" for a reason. The key words of the bill are "a game that depicts serious injury to human beings in a manner that is especially heinous, atrocious or cruel." Therefore, it is focused on games like GTA, Manhunt, True Crime, etc where gratuitous violence and torture is the intent of the game. You are rewarded for being ultraviolent in those games.
rowbear62468
Limp Gawd
- Joined
- Jan 16, 2004
- Messages
- 319
PopeKevinI said:
i dont have to worry about this particular law currently. but what happens when m rated games still get into kids hands, and we all know they will. when does the banning of certain material start. im not saying that they are banning things, just moving in that general direction. it makes me very nervous to think that hl2 could be banned. or gta (which i personnaly didnt like). hell, when i was 16 i got into my first strip club. i, and plenty of other people, got into r rated movies.
rowbear62468 said:
Well, considering how R movies still get into kids' hands, along with pretty much everything else not intended for them, and they're not banned for adults (or at least if they are, like certain drugs, it's most certainly not because kids get their hands on them), I highly doubt they'll ban video games for adults, or even go in that general direction. If the government ever tried to do this, well then I'll grab a pitchfork and join everyone else in the revolution.
rowbear62468
Limp Gawd
- Joined
- Jan 16, 2004
- Messages
- 319
spymonkey said:
but some movies get a nc17 rating and many studios wont release it. "the aristocrats" is a prime example. luckily that got released, but a lot of other movies dont and the director has to go back and cut his/her movie to get a rating. as for the revolution, sheep dont revolt.
Yeah but NC-17 material isn't banned by the government, not to my knowledge anyway. If movie theaters don't play NC-17 movies, it's mostly because of the stigma associated with them by other people, not the government. It's the theater's decision whether or not to play the movie.
ikellensbro
[H]ard|Gawd
- Joined
- Feb 14, 2004
- Messages
- 1,410
You've probably seen it by now, but the ESRB is suing California over this bill. Not very surprising, I just really hope the ESRB wins this year, if that happened along with both Arnold and Dubya being taken out of office like they should, I wouldn't ask for any other presents
Master Bob
Limp Gawd
- Joined
- Sep 8, 2005
- Messages
- 378
No, it supercedes it; at leasts thats how I view it.Stiler said: