Educator Advocates California's Law Against Violent Games

[Gildan Bladeborn]

See, the thing about this is that deciding somebody who comes out in support of California's legislation must not know what they are talking about? That should be an instant, off the cuff, automatic judgment call that literally everyone, everywhere, makes - no exceptions. This is because the powers that be in the state of California that passed the (already judged to be unconstitutional by two separate courts) law do not know what they are talking about.

To put it bluntly, if you think the California law is justified, I am asserting in no uncertain that you are firmly in the same category as those who denounced rock & roll as "the devil's music" or the visionary minds that gave us the "comics code": in short, that you are in fact a hidebound, reactionary, idiot. The only exception is if you support the legislation without a full command of the facts, in which case you are just woefully ignorant and jumping to stupid conclusions as politicians and pundits play you like a fiddle, which isn't really any better in the grand scheme of things.

Anyone with a full command of the facts and relevant statistics, legal implications, et cetera who can't see this law for the unnecessary and invasive inroads into free expression that it is doesn't deserve the benefit of the doubt before we call them stupid for doing so, and anyone taking a public stance in support of such legislation without a full command of the facts, legal implications, et cetera is themselves doing something stupid - either way, you go on record in support of California's law, you get called an idiot by me, and I will be right.

 

[F-I-D-O]

So...
3%of girls in the school like playing a fun, interactive form of entertainment that no other medium can compete with. Let's say there are 1000 girls in the school. 300 have a gaming problem
4% have gotten to fights. 400 of 300 have gotten into fights?

Or is it 4% of 300? 12 people out of a school is not that bad.

Where did she get this information? I mean, high school students are guaranteed to answer a question about their private lives accurately, right?
And you're saying the ESRB is inadequate?
[HEADING=2]THE PARENT IS THE FINAL WORD[/HEADING] [sub]yay! blue[/sub]
But they're to dumb to see the violence in the game!
Yeah, so a parent will buy their child splatterhouse because they can't see the cover? Or watch a trailer on it?
Let the parent [HEADING=1][sub]PARENT[/sub][/HEADING] That is all the study you need to do. A responsible parent who is doing their job right, will do the right thing. If the child ends up bad, it's not the kid's fault, it's the stupid parents.

Happy Holidays. Now get off the sane people planet.

 

[Choppaduel]

Apparently Americans are ignorant of their own Constitution.

Its the damn [a href=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution]first amendment.[/a] READ IT!

 

[kikon9]

I seriously doubt that violent content is withheld in most games for hours of playtime. Most games are either gratuitously violent right from the get go, or maintain Mario levels of violence the whole way through, they don't just skip back and forth.

Also, parents could, possibly, just only buy the childish games for the children, a strange concept, I know, but hear me out. Parents, if this message reaches your eyes, READ IT: Have your kid check with you before you buy it. Then, maybe look into the game online. If you think the game is friendly enough for them to play, THEN buy them the game.

 

[Chal]

Not worth a rebuttal. Stereotyping an entire medium is ridiculous and someone willing to do that is not going to be persuaded otherwise.

 

[superline51]

I got another solution, parents should actually try being parents and spend time with their children.. oh wait but that would actually fix the problom.

Assume the law is in place and minors can't just buy M rated games. Now their parents have to go in and get it for them. Their attention will be much more likely to be drawn to the game and the content as described on the back. Now they're paying at least a bit more attention to what their son/daughter is playing and will hopefully not buy it. Now they don't walk in on a decapitation and complain on Fox News. Where is the problem with this?

The problem is, most parents go in and buy their kids M rated games in the first place. You would not believe how many times I've been in a Game Crazy/Game Stop/Game Whatever, and had a parent just walk up and say "I'm looking for X game for my child", and just flat out buy it with no questions asked. Ultimately, this will only cause big name stores too fearful to stock said games out of fear of prosecution.

 

[mitchell271]

I didn't make it far enough in farmville to kill a cop or set a woman on fire.

Anyway, maybe the ESRB should change the wording of and maybe even add an extra rating to their scale so as to make it negligent-parent idiot proof. Her input doesn't really change anything though. The decision isn't hers to make.

edit Is anybody else strongly reminded of Dolores Umbridge from the Harry Potter movies when they see that woman's picture?

oh my god! he/she's right! she looks like a slightly younger version of Umbridge!. maybe that's why she does anything to stop parents being responsible and saying which games their kids can/cannot play or using the parental controls. THOSE EXIST FOR A REASON!

also, what game has you kill a cop so you can burn a woman to ashes as an objective?

 

[Jabberwock xeno]

...Why are we giving these people free publicity? Let them languish in the obscurity they richly, richly deserve.

My feelings exactly.

We should be reporting on the supporters, if not both.

 

[Wolfenbarg]

Video games are one of the most prevalent forms of media in the world right now, and violent crimes are at a low in modern history. Sure, that's not exactly a super scientific argument, but the fact that violent crimes were higher before we had this type of media really sells these asinine arguments short. If only they could get a taste of what video games were actually about.

 

[mornal]

All I have to say about that, is that's some shady statistics. There's no indication that the 8% of girls who've carried a weapon are the same as the ones who've played games. And if they were part of that gaming group, that's about 4 girls who've carried a weapon out of 4028 students.

 

[The_root_of_all_evil]

Seems fair, but then we have far more than 30 years experience to tell us that Parent-wise tips actually don't do anything, so why listen to her?

 

[ninetails593]

I bet none of these people actually play games. This is like saying that the news turns you into a reporter, terrorist, police officer, and weather man. A.K.A.: RETARDED, UNCONSTITUTIONAL.

 

[CD-R]

You are so lucky your comments section appears to be broken right now lady.

 

[ShadowsofHope]

"These games are uniquely interactive with kids shooting, maiming, even decapitating human beings for amusement," she wrote. The California law is important because a parent cannot play the game and make decisions for themselves."That's because often the brutality comes only after hours of play and that, for instance, a player must first kill a cop before burning a woman."

..Didn't this twat, like, kill her own opinion with that one statement?

I mean, she is an adult and a parent.. right?

In other words: Asinine argument is asinine.

 

[Royas]

I got another solution, parents should actually try being parents and spend time with their children.. oh wait but that would actually fix the problom.

Assume the law is in place and minors can't just buy M rated games. Now their parents have to go in and get it for them. Their attention will be much more likely to be drawn to the game and the content as described on the back. Now they're paying at least a bit more attention to what their son/daughter is playing and will hopefully not buy it. Now they don't walk in on a decapitation and complain on Fox News. Where is the problem with this?

The problem is that the CA law doesn't disallow the sale of M rated games, it disallows the sale of "violent" games, defining them as a form of pornography. There is no way for a merchant to tell before hand if the game they are selling will qualify for that category or not. It's a vague law, dealing with subjective opinions, and will enforced at the "discretion" of the courts.

Also, it's not a good idea to allow the censorship of anything that can be avoided. I don't want some government flunky deciding for me what media I can consume, and how hard it's going to be to get said media. The slippery slope may be a logical fallacy, but in regards to politics it has some validity. Let's not start down that path, shall we?

 

[Double A]

Oh look! A person from an older generation who thinks video games are corrupting children! You don't see this every day.

What next? People doing drugs in California? What is the world coming to?

 

[Ken Sapp]

The daft thing is, restricting violent video games sales to children is surely a good thing, along with dvds of movies and TV?

Is there no way we can make this happen without casting video games into some pit of artless condemnation?

I'm assuming there's too much cash in Hollywood, and so the laws on DVD ratings won't change?

There are no laws regarding DVD ratings(other than those regarding pornography of course).

The Motion Picture Association of America (MPAA) is an independent organization that reviews and assigns ratings to movies based on theme, language, violence, nudity, sex and drug use. The movie industry is not required to submit their movies to the MPAA for a rating assignment; it is strictly voluntary.

The MPAA was first established in 1968 in response to public pressure for parental movie guidelines. The National Association of Theatre Owners (co-founders of the MPAA) first enforced the new rating system in their theatres and today, movie ratings have become an industry standard.

The MPAA Rating Board has 10-13 members consisting of parents from varied backgrounds with no ties to the movie industry. The members watch each movie and independently assign a movie rating based on the content. The Board submits their ratings and votes on a final rating assignment.

http://lmgtfy.com/?q=who+assigns+movie+ratings&l=1

After all of that it is up to individual retailers to decide whether to enforce ratings for DVD sales. Most follow the MPAA ratings to avoid being sued by irate parents(and it would be a civil court case not criminal).

The Videogame industry operates much the same way with the ESRB.

 

[NiceGurl_14]

I got another solution, parents should actually try being parents and spend time with their children.. oh wait but that would actually fix the problom.

Assume the law is in place and minors can't just buy M rated games. Now their parents have to go in and get it for them. Their attention will be much more likely to be drawn to the game and the content as described on the back. Now they're paying at least a bit more attention to what their son/daughter is playing and will hopefully not buy it. Now they don't walk in on a decapitation and complain on Fox News. Where is the problem with this?

The thing is is that there's already a law that does this (at least where I live) and I've seen it time and again, a parent walks into a game store and just picks up a game for their kid without even so much as glancing at the rating clearly printed on the box. I know I've pissed a few kids off when I've seen some of them asking mommy to buy them GTA. I've talked to some parents in the store and explained the rating system for them.

 

[LT Cannibal 68]

Am i supposed to take the opinion of a 40 or 50 something teacher on what my kids should and shouldn't play? Technical answer NO! i don't need a bunch of narrow minded idiots trying to scrutinize gaming based on their misguided opinions. It should befall the parents to decide what to buy their children and on the whole it takes several hours to get to violent content excuse here is my answer: read the esrb label on the back of the game before you buy it!

 

[KeyMaster45]

Apparently Americans are ignorant of their own Constitution.

Its the damn [a href=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution]first amendment.[/a] READ IT!

*coughs* erm...thanks for typecasting all of us as ignorant? ....I think...

This lady kinda missed the boat on the whole issue didn't she? I mean the case was held in november, why are we hearing about her now? Did she go on fox news and join glenn beck in a "Save Teh Children!!" speech?