Check Out Video of Last Night's Violent Videogames Debate

[Moeez]

Here are my impressions:

The addiction case is more interesting, that could lead to more scientific studies compared to cause-and-effect of children committing actual crimes from playing games, which are unethical as Michael mentioned. I think many gamers would have more to agree on that matter.

George had a good defense on why videogames are no different just because they're interactive, comparing to the Bible and the influence of Beatles on Charles Manson. Pressing a button translating to real life pulling a trigger, has already been argued against:

The $1000 fine idea is hard to argue for. As George said, that could be similar to NC-17 where retailers will be scared to sell those M-rated (or whatever special rating they might introduce) games because they don't want to be fined on the chance of human error. People are already being asked for ID for M-rated games, especially if you look under-age.

It's not quite fair to compare the games industry to banks, since one's for entertainment of a wide audience and the other is self-serving.

And I'm glad James Steyner isn't a crazy person. Although Will Wright, Warren Spector, and Shigeru Miyamoto would disagree that the best game designers make the most violent games

 

[captain_Bubblebum]

I find this interesting (yet extremely boring.....seriously, these guys suck at speaking).

I don't see the problem in the US supreme court making the age rating on the game's packaging to become officially recognized under law - as long as (as Dexter111 just stated) it does not impose on the current rights of adults.


But the parents of a child should know what their kid is playing anyway and act accordingly (in the perfect world this should be enough....but sadly not every parent is capable of intelligent parenting).

 

[dududf]

What the fuck is going on with that camera man?

Did he have a little too much to drink?

 

[IamGamer41]

If only Adam Sessler had been there!

 

[Irridium]

Actually, unless I misheard Mr. Rose, the ESRB already does fine $1,000 if the retailer sells to a minor, in addition to having the employee fired.

Not entirely true. There is no fine, but, at least where I worked, if your caught selling M rated games to minors, you get fired. I'd guess its the same elsewhere as well. But I may be wrong.

 

[Double A]

When I go to the store, I can't buy M rated games unless one of my parents is with me. I seriously don't see what their problem is.

 

[Bobbity]

Why do the courts have to get involved?
Can't they just leave us to our violent and degenerate ways?

 

[Jumplion]

That's bs, it works perfectly fine in mentioned other countries to ask for an ID if someone looks too young... it's not really that hard of a thing to do and said games haven't "disappeared". It also works fine inside the US with things like alcohol or porn, bars and sex shops haven't disappeared because of the age restrictions and fines...

So Video Games are the equivalent to pornography, alcohol, and drugs, and should not be given the same first amendment privilege of movies, books, and music? I realize that's a strawman, but that's what this law says, and if it comes to pass it means that video games are somehow exempt from first amendment rights. Not to mention that the industry already has policies in place regarding children getting their hands on M rated games, and they do so much more effectively than any other industry.

Ah yes, I remember that episode. I went "awww..." at the end when I saw the poor kid crying.

 

[Jumplion]

Actually, unless I misheard Mr. Rose, the ESRB already does fine $1,000 if the retailer sells to a minor, in addition to having the employee fired.

Not entirely true. There is no fine, but, at least where I worked, if your caught selling M rated games to minors, you get fired. I'd guess its the same elsewhere as well. But I may be wrong.

When I did a research paper on the subject (Self insert! [http://www.escapistmagazine.com/forums/read/9.252556-The-Grand-Theft-Auto-Conundrum-an-essay-on-violent-video-games]) I believe the ESRB can fine a company if they do not disclose all pertinent content, like what happened with Rockstar and the Hot Coffee mod.

 

[Therumancer]

Wait don't you need an ID or parent to buy an M rated game? Whats the problem?

Actually you don't.

Understand that rating systems put out by groups like the ESRB and MPAA (for movies) are not legally binding. Those are private groups, and have no abillity to pass or enforce laws. If some guy at a Gamestop decides to sell "M" rated games to minors, there is absolutly nothing that the goverment can do to him for it. The only potential penelty he faces is from the company he works for.

What this debate is about, is to make those ratings a matter of law. Basically the goverment will define a set of standards for video games (which might not be the same as the ones set by the ESRB), and then those standards will be enforcable. It means that if some guy at a Gamestop sells a video game to a minor, he can now go to jail because he has actually committed a crime.

The issue here is that the goverment is not supposed to be able to regulate speech or the media. What's more the way how zoning laws work, it means that the goverment could use these laws to effectively ban games through "backdoor" means. It's sort of like how someone can't just open an adult bookstore anywhere they want to, they need to open it in a business district that is zoned to allow for adult media, and probably buy liscences to sell material rated that way. Opening this door means that people can and will do things like prevent businesses that want to operate in general business areas from selling mature rated games, rather you'll have to go to the same type of areas on the fringes of society like adult
shops in order to purchuse them. Those various politicians who rant and rave about games will have some great tools to effectively ban games in their area, not directly, but simply by refusing to allow the zoning and liscences.

My basic attitude is that ratings are intended as guidelines, and it's up to parents to actually be parents. Simply put kids young enough to worry about are generally not going to have access to a lot of money on their own, and also are going to be around their parents quite a bit. If the parents aren't parenting and paying attention to what their kids do, while presumably objecting to this kind of material, that's not the fault of the guys selling the video games.

I don't think that video games should be regulated any more than movies do, and similar attempts have been made there and failed.

What's more establishing a precedent that allows the goverment to regulate one form of media, it means it can snowball into other things. People who claim that it won't, are being very foolish. For example once it's ruled that it's okay to regulate video games now, nothing prevents that from being used as a springboard to go after Hollywood again for example. Things like the protection of speech are areas we can't allow any cracks to appear in.

I'll also say that a lot of the central issues are alarmist as well. People are violent, and people need to just accept that. I think a big problem with the US is that our sense of morality has expanded to the point where we are are increasingly out of context with our inherant nature. When we look at children we like to think that they are naturally passive, and that violence is a learned behavior, when it's really an instinctive thing and what's more part of our inherant survival instincts. If humans weren't so aggresive we never would have dominated the planet to the extent that we have. I think we need to dial back a lot of our morality back to be more in sync with reality. Channeling our violence in positive directions, and even using things like video games to vent, are far better than trying to do something as counter productive as striving to erase the instincts.

 

[Irridium]

Actually, unless I misheard Mr. Rose, the ESRB already does fine $1,000 if the retailer sells to a minor, in addition to having the employee fired.

Not entirely true. There is no fine, but, at least where I worked, if your caught selling M rated games to minors, you get fired. I'd guess its the same elsewhere as well. But I may be wrong.

When I did a research paper on the subject (Self insert! [http://www.escapistmagazine.com/forums/read/9.252556-The-Grand-Theft-Auto-Conundrum-an-essay-on-violent-video-games]) I believe the ESRB can fine a company if they do not disclose all pertinent content, like what happened with Rockstar and the Hot Coffee mod.

I'm mainly talking about game retailers. Rather than game developers themselves.

 

[Jumplion]

Actually, unless I misheard Mr. Rose, the ESRB already does fine $1,000 if the retailer sells to a minor, in addition to having the employee fired.

Not entirely true. There is no fine, but, at least where I worked, if your caught selling M rated games to minors, you get fired. I'd guess its the same elsewhere as well. But I may be wrong.

When I did a research paper on the subject (Self insert! [http://www.escapistmagazine.com/forums/read/9.252556-The-Grand-Theft-Auto-Conundrum-an-essay-on-violent-video-games]) I believe the ESRB can fine a company if they do not disclose all pertinent content, like what happened with Rockstar and the Hot Coffee mod.

I'm mainly talking about game retailers. Rather than game developers themselves.

Ah, in that case, I have no idea if the retailer can be fined by the ESRB, though if this law were to pass most likely they would be potentially fined.

 

[The Night Shade]

Oh my... They talk so slowly... So monotone... Can't keep... Awake.. Eyes closing...

ghbyhihiulhiukhiukj

*zzzzzZZZZZZzzzzzz*

Thisssssszzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz seriously is so boring

 

[Rooster Cogburn]

Why would you want adolescents to be able to buy games clearly not meant for them without their parents approval?

Is this your perception of the current state of affairs in the United States? If so, it's way off.

 

[coolkirb]

Here in Australia it's the law and things have worked out fine besides our R18+ debacles. Why don't you just make the ESRB legally enforceable? I don't understand why everyone cares that much. If they want to make it the law that if a child wants a game above their age bracket their parent has to buy it that makes perfect sense. I really don't understand the opposition on this issue. What could possibly go wrong if it's worked fine over here for years?

Because one of the most fundamental rights afforded to americans is the ability to publish material for public consumption without infringement, and making sales to kids illegal counts as infringement on that right.

-m

Edit: To anyone who's not up to speed on american constitutional law, this fight isn't going to make sense - but it's a very important fight in terms of the recognition of games as a legitimate form of expression.

Right, so it's not about the law as such, it's the infringement of constitutional rights and trying to show that games should not be treated any differently. Makes sense now.

I never got that wholl thing, children cant vote, cant drive, cant buy pornography, cant own a gun, I dont see how not allowing them to buy M rated games is some big contutional debate, but then again I'm not american and not up to date on the American constituion as I havent looked at it since my American history class and I doubt you want to know about the canadian constiution as it is rather boring you Americans have Life, Liberty, Property (or maybe Im qouting John Lock) We Canadians get peace, order, and good government.

 

[Prof. Monkeypox]

Sign that I am very tired. With gaming on my mind, I read "law professor" as Professor Layton.

Tedium induced dyslexia. Still, that sounds like an awesome debate to watch.

 

[Prof. Monkeypox]

Here in Australia it's the law and things have worked out fine besides our R18+ debacles. Why don't you just make the ESRB legally enforceable? I don't understand why everyone cares that much. If they want to make it the law that if a child wants a game above their age bracket their parent has to buy it that makes perfect sense. I really don't understand the opposition on this issue. What could possibly go wrong if it's worked fine over here for years?

Because one of the most fundamental rights afforded to americans is the ability to publish material for public consumption without infringement, and making sales to kids illegal counts as infringement on that right.

-m

Edit: To anyone who's not up to speed on american constitutional law, this fight isn't going to make sense - but it's a very important fight in terms of the recognition of games as a legitimate form of expression.

Right, so it's not about the law as such, it's the infringement of constitutional rights and trying to show that games should not be treated any differently. Makes sense now.

I never got that wholl thing, children cant vote, cant drive, cant buy pornography, cant own a gun, I dont see how not allowing them to buy M rated games is some big contutional debate, but then again I'm not american and not up to date on the American constituion as I havent looked at it since my American history class and I doubt you want to know about the canadian constiution as it is rather boring you Americans have Life, Liberty, Property (or maybe Im qouting John Lock) We Canadians get peace, order, and good government.

Kids can't do any of those things. This is true. The issue is a bit more complicated than it sounds, but basically, there is no legal restriction on a child buying an R-rated movie (it is the salesperson's responsibility to prevent that). M-rated games are similar to R-rated movies, so there should be (and is no need for) government regulation of its sale (as game sales are self moderating, to a greater degree than movie or book sales).

For this law to be constitutional, games would have to be classified as outside the bounds of the first amendment. Thus, they would be considered to have no redeeming value. Essentially, they'd be the legal equivalent of porn.

Watch the Extra Creditz video on this if you want. They explain it way better than I.

 

[tthor]

this was an interesting discussion, i felt all sides raised some interesting points, but throughout the whole debate the one thing that I kept thinking was, "Quit nodding and frowning at everything said, Steyer, it makes you look like a jackass!"

 

[SL33TBL1ND]

Here in Australia it's the law and things have worked out fine besides our R18+ debacles. Why don't you just make the ESRB legally enforceable? I don't understand why everyone cares that much. If they want to make it the law that if a child wants a game above their age bracket their parent has to buy it that makes perfect sense. I really don't understand the opposition on this issue. What could possibly go wrong if it's worked fine over here for years?

Because one of the most fundamental rights afforded to americans is the ability to publish material for public consumption without infringement, and making sales to kids illegal counts as infringement on that right.

-m

Edit: To anyone who's not up to speed on american constitutional law, this fight isn't going to make sense - but it's a very important fight in terms of the recognition of games as a legitimate form of expression.

Right, so it's not about the law as such, it's the infringement of constitutional rights and trying to show that games should not be treated any differently. Makes sense now.

I never got that wholl thing, children cant vote, cant drive, cant buy pornography, cant own a gun, I dont see how not allowing them to buy M rated games is some big contutional debate, but then again I'm not american and not up to date on the American constituion as I havent looked at it since my American history class and I doubt you want to know about the canadian constiution as it is rather boring you Americans have Life, Liberty, Property (or maybe Im qouting John Lock) We Canadians get peace, order, and good government.

I'm not American, I'm Australian. Some advice, read the whole quote chain before replying. Thanks.