ESRB Ratings "Awareness" May Be Maxed Out
- Thread starter Andy Chalk
- Start date
Recommended Videos
J Tyran said:
Its a combination of paranoia and a misunderstanding of what freedom of speech means.
By that logic, the fact that games were challenged under first amendment grounds should mean that there is some reasonable argument they're not art.Andy Chalk said:
I go back again to the Whitewater scandal and the fact that they had a solid case against the Clintons but instead chose to make it about sex in the White House. You're relying on the faulty logic that humans will take the most reasonable course, something that can be demonstrated false pretty readily.
No surprise, these media also rubbed against free speech, even though that's logically a bad plan of attack. I would repeat, it's almost like people don't always make the right decisions.
Another tangential news example, but did you know that the man who shot and killed abortion provider George Tiller had attempted to sabotage the abortion clinic the week before she shot Tiller in Tiller's church?
Logically, this man should have been in jail by the time he commited that murder. Whether or not you agree with the law, there was a federal protection in place that should have kept him from killing George Tiller.
I think it's only reasonable, therefore, to assume that since there was a reasonable case to keep Roeder in jail, George Tiller must still be alive. Now, you can choose to ignore subsequent evidence of his death, or you can reside solely in the realm of what's logical.
What is logical and what we as humans do are not always in step and it is wholly unreasonable to assert that just because it hasn't been attempted means there's no good grounds for it. Hell, it took Republicans 40 years to come up with an idea to backdoor Roe v Wade legally.
As for whether or not games shouldn't be curtailed, this is a nonpoint but I don't think they should be regulated either. However, whether you or I think they should is meaningless in the case of whether they can, and under what protections. Brown v EMA was pretty specific on why it overturned the law as-is, so we might actually see a commerce argument come forth. If obscenity laws were a thing of the past when Rock music was around, we might have seen it then. But the fact is, we saw rock stations, stores and businesses shut down for being "obscene."
I don't know how old you are or what the scene was like in Canadia, but it wasn't that much before I was born that people were still fighting for the rights of books and music in the country where the First Amendment applies. Seriously. You still saw radio stations being shut down or sanctioned, book and music stores come under legal attack, etc in the mid-seventies, and maybe later. Nowadays, most censorship is corporate in the first place.
My best guess as to why we keep seeing people try and tackle the First Amendment is that it's easier to rally people on obscenity and moral outrage.
I cant reply to everyone individually, to many posts but as a general reply to the freedom of speech issue... The thing is the anti game lobby are not going to go away, even worse is the way the gun lobby are behind the anti game lobby to try and redirect attention away from them.
Politically the longer any industry defies regulation the worse it is when the hammer eventually drops, in the UK violent games where added under the same classification as movies and get 15 or 18 ratings if they are particular violent. Shops or individuals supplying anyone with age restricted material can be prosecuted, in practice its usually stores never parents or friends getting fined etc.
These laws completely pulled the teeth of the anti game lobby in the UK, sure they still carp on but the simple fact is that kids legally shouldn't have them and it leaves them no room for argument. Like it or not the game industry in the US will face regulation sooner or later, it might just gain momentum or you could get another Anders Breivik claim he used games for training and boom there will be whole raft of laws.
Accepting some regulation like legally binding age restrictions will deflect harsher censorship in the future, plus it would be good for games because it means a game with heavy violent or sexual content is less likely to be banned as it would be age restricted. Any witch hunts in the future would be based around "how did the kids get them" rather than "we shouldn't have these on sale at all".
Politically the longer any industry defies regulation the worse it is when the hammer eventually drops, in the UK violent games where added under the same classification as movies and get 15 or 18 ratings if they are particular violent. Shops or individuals supplying anyone with age restricted material can be prosecuted, in practice its usually stores never parents or friends getting fined etc.
These laws completely pulled the teeth of the anti game lobby in the UK, sure they still carp on but the simple fact is that kids legally shouldn't have them and it leaves them no room for argument. Like it or not the game industry in the US will face regulation sooner or later, it might just gain momentum or you could get another Anders Breivik claim he used games for training and boom there will be whole raft of laws.
Accepting some regulation like legally binding age restrictions will deflect harsher censorship in the future, plus it would be good for games because it means a game with heavy violent or sexual content is less likely to be banned as it would be age restricted. Any witch hunts in the future would be based around "how did the kids get them" rather than "we shouldn't have these on sale at all".
The difference is, if I might be so bold, Tyran...
The USA isn't, as a whole, using 1984 as a GUIDE.
Unlike the UK where you can be tossed in jail for FINDING A GUN and REPORTING IT.
The UK is turning more and more into the police state they once fought against during WW2.
The USA isn't, as a whole, using 1984 as a GUIDE.
Unlike the UK where you can be tossed in jail for FINDING A GUN and REPORTING IT.
The UK is turning more and more into the police state they once fought against during WW2.
Where did you get that idea from? You have to be at least 18 to buy a gun anywhere except Vermont where it's 16, and 21 to buy a handgunZachary Amaranth said:
It doesn't matter much if said child can go get a parent to purchase it for them. A-lot of uneducated (on media/games) parents really don't care about buying their kid 'ShootyMcShooter 18: Double Guns". And at least they aren't able to access AO games as most retailers don't carry them.RicoADF said:
Even if they put as stringent age verification on video games as cigarettes or liquor it doesn't matter if an ignorant parent or a parent who doesn't care goes and purchases it for them despite the clear rating and description on the box.
Unless you do a rating like NC-17 in the states where regardless of a parent authorizing said purchase, the retailer will not be allowed to sell it if they suspect it may be for someone under the age restriction.
Hell, I've been carded more often while purchasing games than buying movies or going to the theatre.
There is that whole freedom of speech bollocks. Personally, I don't see a problem with forced ratings, since a majority of the world use it. Grand Teft Auto is R18 in New Zealand. "What's that, you're only four days to your eighteenth birthday? Lol, not good enough, *****.". But then again, the US's rating system for everything is lax as shit. It's ridiculous.J Tyran said:
E for everyone
T for Teen
M for Mature 17+ (Although many stores require you to show I.D. and won't allow you to buy unless you're 18)
A for Ault (Rarely seen EVER, and most A rated games aren't found in stores or public sales)
I started playing Contra with my mum at age 3 (although I was HORRIBLE at it), and other games like Mario at age 4. I've been a gamer my whole life, and the ESRB system has been burned into my memory harder then anything I learned in school. I can look at virtually any game and guess it's rating without even playing it. So when some idiot in a suit who has probably never picked up a damn controller in their life tries to tell us that the rating system doesn't work, or that games are too violent, they can SUCK IT!
T for Teen
M for Mature 17+ (Although many stores require you to show I.D. and won't allow you to buy unless you're 18)
A for Ault (Rarely seen EVER, and most A rated games aren't found in stores or public sales)
I started playing Contra with my mum at age 3 (although I was HORRIBLE at it), and other games like Mario at age 4. I've been a gamer my whole life, and the ESRB system has been burned into my memory harder then anything I learned in school. I can look at virtually any game and guess it's rating without even playing it. So when some idiot in a suit who has probably never picked up a damn controller in their life tries to tell us that the rating system doesn't work, or that games are too violent, they can SUCK IT!
Guns are DESIGNED to kill. That is LITERALLY their entire purpose, and the entire reason they still exist. Any argument saying that people should be allowed to own them is VOID. It means NOTHING that you can commit murder with anything else, or that you need them to hunt. Guns ARE the most lethal and easy to use killing tool available to the public. If someone goes insane and decides to rampage inside a school with a knife, or a bow and arrow, it's SOOOOOOO much easier to stop or prevent harm then by dealing with someone with a gun. And saying EVERYONE should be armed with a gun is even MORE stupid, considering alot of gun related deaths are accidents or someone committing murder simply because they got angry and didn't think about their actions.
For some idiot to try and validate the freedom to own/use firearms like toys by blaming societies problems on videogames, is something so incredibly stupid that they should be put into a mental hospital for the sheer lack of common sense they are displaying. YES videogames DO increased aggression (As gamers we have ALWAYS seen and known that ONE friend or gamer who tosses controllers or shouts at the screen till they're red in the face). But aggression and violent/sociopathic tendencies are two SEPARATE problems that are results of a individuals personality, not the sole creation of a videogame.
For some idiot to try and validate the freedom to own/use firearms like toys by blaming societies problems on videogames, is something so incredibly stupid that they should be put into a mental hospital for the sheer lack of common sense they are displaying. YES videogames DO increased aggression (As gamers we have ALWAYS seen and known that ONE friend or gamer who tosses controllers or shouts at the screen till they're red in the face). But aggression and violent/sociopathic tendencies are two SEPARATE problems that are results of a individuals personality, not the sole creation of a videogame.
Australian rating system
G - General . everyone. not restricted
PG - Parental guidance recommended for persons under the age of 15
M - Recommended for persons over the age of 15
MA - RESTRICTED to persons over the age of 15
R - RESTRICTED to persons over the age of 18
X - RESTRICTED to persons over the age of 18 and to licensed resellers (porn .. don't know of anything else in Oz under the X rating)
I see no problem with legally enforced age restrictions on games, movies, music, books etc.
It does NOT take away anyone's freedom of speech. Censorship and age restrictions are NOT the same thing. Not by a fucking long shot. And if people can't differentiate between the two.. then.. i don't know what to say.
People in the US seem to have no problem that pornography (i believe) is age restricted by law. What is the difference. I to be honest would rather my kids see some tits and a vagina or penis than someone sawing someones head off with a piece of piano wire, but maybe that's just me. Mind you, preference doesn't mean i WOULD let my kids see that.
If you have a problem with your kids viewing/interacting with porn and are happy that it is regulated then you SHOULD have a problem with them viewing/interacting violence and want that regulated too.. in my opinion of course.
G - General . everyone. not restricted
PG - Parental guidance recommended for persons under the age of 15
M - Recommended for persons over the age of 15
MA - RESTRICTED to persons over the age of 15
R - RESTRICTED to persons over the age of 18
X - RESTRICTED to persons over the age of 18 and to licensed resellers (porn .. don't know of anything else in Oz under the X rating)
I see no problem with legally enforced age restrictions on games, movies, music, books etc.
It does NOT take away anyone's freedom of speech. Censorship and age restrictions are NOT the same thing. Not by a fucking long shot. And if people can't differentiate between the two.. then.. i don't know what to say.
People in the US seem to have no problem that pornography (i believe) is age restricted by law. What is the difference. I to be honest would rather my kids see some tits and a vagina or penis than someone sawing someones head off with a piece of piano wire, but maybe that's just me. Mind you, preference doesn't mean i WOULD let my kids see that.
If you have a problem with your kids viewing/interacting with porn and are happy that it is regulated then you SHOULD have a problem with them viewing/interacting violence and want that regulated too.. in my opinion of course.
Sure, but I have to stand with Tyran here... Honestly, I don't think it's the sort of freedom restraint that hurts anyone. In my opinion it should be legally enforced by the stores, allowing minors to purchase the game only accompanied by their parents (or anyone responsible). Why? Because many games get high ESRB for very stupid things, things that really won't harm the kid any more than seeing Bugs Bunny blow up a dog with a rifle. It's all in the parenting, it's all in the good sense and in feeling your child, each kid is unique, and while some won't sleep at night at the mere mention of the boogey man, others not care at all for that sort of thing.lax4life said:
becasue thats one of the stupidies idea ever. regulation based on age only works on homogenous species. humans are not.J Tyran said:
Does ESRB public their rating criteria (not this game has violnce ect but what earns a game certain rating)? no. then they should stop talking about having full exposure.
people in US are obessed with pornography to the extent of madness. They should not be allowed to make such restrictions in the first place for they are not mentally sound on the subject.
Parents: Stop being so bloody ignorant. I don't care if you're "aware" of it, if you don't seem to give a flying fuck.
Stores: Stop. Selling. To. Minors. For god's sake, what is so hard about that?
Stores: Stop. Selling. To. Minors. For god's sake, what is so hard about that?
Oh, hello Godwin's Law. Haven't seen you in a while.Tanis said:
Uh, yes, yes they do: http://www.esrb.org/ratings/latestratings.jsp Gives a pretty detailed explanation.Strazdas said:
Rubbish, genuinely finding a gun and calling the police would not get you prosecuted at all. "Finding" a gun and carrying it around might get you arrested, I am sure you can see why. "oh sorry officer I was just on my way to the police station with this gun" owning a gun for years before deciding to hand it in might get you as far as court, finding your Granddads WW2 trophy during a house clear out wouldn't.Tanis said:
I will also add that British citizens are far better protected against abuse from the state than American citizens, there are occasional incidents in general and some very nasty ones in the conflict in Northern Ireland but did you see the British police blasting at cars full of innocent members of the public when Raoul Moat or Mark Duggan where on the rampage?Tanis said:
No you didn't.
That's true and I wouldn't be suprised if some do it over here too, however it would be their responsability for purchasing it and any complaint about kids playing GTA puts the blame on the parents. We don't have the silly arguments of the US, neither does the UK, because its setup where its the parents responsability.Lucem712 said:
BLUF: US Gun Laws are actually complicated and not the "free-for-all, everybody has an M-16" situation people seem to think is the case.DVS BSTrD said:
This idea that America is a place where people hand out guns like candy and anybody can have any gun is one of the most preposterous suppositions out there about the US in the International mindset.
The US doesn't actually allow all people to have any and all types of firearms. As a matter of fact, I'd wager that most people in the US don't own, never will own, and probably never have or will hold a firearm. The 0.75 Guns per capita statistic that I see bandied about doesn't take into accounts the guys who own thirty or forty firearms.
Furthermore, military-grade firearms are actually banned, and have always been banned. The Glock Model 18, for example, is an illegal gun (It's a pistol capable of fully-automatic fire). The so-called "assault weapons" ban has only ever effected cosmetic features of weapons, with only two of said features actually having any sort of effectiveness of the weapon - "high capacity" magazines and threaded barrels. There are numerous iterations of firearms which are both legal and illegal under the "assault weapons" ban because the legal version has, say, a fixed, wooden stock instead of a folding, metal one.
Call me crazy, but i think the fixed stock might actually make it a slightly more dangerous weapon.
Hell, the M9 Beretta is illegal under the assault weapons ban. The standard-issue, nigh-ubiquitous sidearm used by the police, military, and quite a few civilian shooters, and the image everybody conjures when they think of a "pistol" is illegal (It accepts a 15-round magazine and may have a threaded barrel), whereas the M 1911 - which fires a .45 calibre round and has notably more stopping power - isn't.
I think the ESRB labels are about as blunt as possible about their target audience. The 15% of parents who can't figure them out are too stupid to be parents.