Jack Thompson's bill approved

[Cliff_m85]

Censorship is evil and unAmerican.

Nobody is censoring anything, they are just making sure that people don't sell M or 18+ rated games to minors, and i see nothing wrong with that.

Not the government's job. That's the parent's job.

 

[theSovietConnection]

Compared to some of Jack's earlier shenanigans, I find myself agreeing with this one. If it means whiny little snot-nosed brats are being prevented from playing CoD4 and the like online, then I don't mind it.

 

[elricik]

Its really a trap. Jack Thompson but a loophole somewhere in the bill so that he would eventually outrank the ESRB in Utah. He would ban all the video games and then he would conquer other states with his law and eventually evoke a civil war. Hes like Emperor Palpatine in star wars, we turned the whole system on its head and took control of a whole government right under peoples noses.

 

[Frank_Sinatra_]

It's only Utah. They're not a state.

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

But seriously, I live in CO... If the winds blow wrong and some legislation goes down here, there're gonna be alot of disappointed kids...

Dude I'm in Colorado too and that shit is in place right now. Maybe it's just this town.

 

[Sethran]

Why are people getting agitated by such a lame example of a non-issue?

Ok... so retailers aren't allowed to sell Mature games to underage gamers. Isn't that... exactly the same rule as before?

I couldn't get Dawn of War 2 without getting carded, and I don't even look underage. So this puts a fine on people who can't remember to do what they're supposed to do anyway, what's the big deal?

 

[rekabdarb]

It's only Utah. They're not a state.

so mean... yet so true... (don't tell my teacher that, its her favorite state =O) (mormons...)

 

[gigastrike]

The law it's self (is that how it's spelled?) is probably a good thing. What I'm annoyed about is how he continued to imply that GTA4 requires you to get a blow job and kill the hooker.

 

[Pimppeter2]

so they're trying to get them to do what there supposed to do?

Im not sure anyone actually buys Gta for the "Gentlemens club" mostly for the running people over part

 

[matrix3509]

You know movie theatres could just do what mine did. That is: Refuse every person under 16 years old, unless being accompanied into the movie by a parent or legal guardian. None of this bullshit about 21 year old brothers or sisters getting in their 9 year old siblings. It was seriously awesome to work there after that. No matter how much parents complained, we were allowed to tell them that we weren't a baby sitting service, and that they better take care of their kids or not come to the movies. I can't tell you how good it felt to be as condescending as I possibly could to those damn baby factories.

 

[BoilingLeadBath]

Well, #1, let's stop with the "jack finally won something" jokes. Getting out of committee is significant, but the bill has a way to go yet.

Anyways, it is important to recognize that there is a significant difference between the current system - in which vendors voluntarily withhold access to certain content - and a hypothetical government-sponsored system.
Foremost, the former (but more-or-less NOT the latter) is constitutional. There are some situations in which government control has been deemed to be acceptable under that document, but the regulation of pap-for-access entertainment media (as opposed to public airwaves - the FCC gets away with a great deal of regulation I don't think it should) isn't one of them.
(Frankly, I'm surprised at how willing you guys are to give the government control over the sale of this medium, and rather distraught at the reasoning along the lines of "it'll get the little kids off mah servorz". Such commentary belies a fragmented and thus ineffective public voice.)

However, this bill (though I haven't read the full text or anything...) seems to be coming at the issue from a "truth in advertising" angle. I suspect that this makes the bill legal, if somewhat less potent.

 

[Lonan]

I agree entirely with the anti-GTA stance. That stuff really does put bad values in you, and I play games solely for the violence. Frankly, I hate everything from Rockstar.

I'm having a hard time wrapping my little mind around this. The GTA series features violence, hookers, snarky comments from the talk radio stations, curse words, drunk driving, and more violence. I would think that the violence would be the first thing people would get hung up on. For you, is it the hookers and profanity? Do you also not like Manhunt simply because it's made by Rockstar? That game is over-the-top violent, but doesn't have the other seemingly bad points of GTA games. I guess that I'm first confused by which bad values you think people are taking from GTA, since you're ok with and play games solely for violence.

Secondly, I'll offer up myself as someone who loves killing in GTA, as well as the other features. I'll get a hooker, and kill her after I'm done! I'm just plain raw in GTA. When I'm done playing in GTA (playing = killing/hookers/profanity/etc), I'll go volunteer and help people who can't afford the 360. Serious, on top of school and work, I still put about 4 hours a week into a free clinic downtown. Obviously, I didn't pick this up from GTA. This is because I, like most, do not act out what I do in a game. My values are unaffected by gameplay, and I'm not an exception. Those who act out what they do in a game are the exception, and should be treated as such.

I don't like Manhunt at all. It forces you to open your mind to creative ways to kill people. Instead of looking at a plastic bag as something to hold groceries in, you look at it as the key to completing your next mission. I think prostitution and hookers are great, (not from experience) minus the STI's(ditto). However, I have met people who are, let us say "easily influenced" and not say stupid. Video game violence should be set in a place far from home, such as North Korea, and the fields of France and Germany. When you're encouraged to shoot police on streets which look quite a bit like your own, there's a problem. When you're encouraged to drive over people and into light posts,(well, that's what everyone does even if you aren't encouraged too) there's a problem. For most people, if they envision a GTA street while they are driving in real life, they will snap back into reality. But for some people, a very small number of people, they might not do that, likely intentionally. If you give me evidence that this has never happened, I'm going to say "fine, whatever." This game brings out the most barbaric in people. It focus's on the lowest form of human life having it's way with the world, and feels justified in doing so, and are some kind of oppressed minority and feel like the skateboarders in Yahtzee's beautiful Skate 2 review. I just finished Crysis and Warhead, and it was great fun. I killed North Koreans and aliens. What I didn't do was kill police in city streets which look like my own, and feel like I was justified in doing so. You can say it's just a game, but one must have a high level of mental power to not be sucked into harbouring a little dislike for the police and feeling that a little chaos is a good thing, and that anyone who would try to stop you is a bad person. As for you having fun and claiming you are not effected by it, I obviously would need to know you in person to make up my mind on that, but for now I'll believe you. Assuming you are indeed strong minded enough to not be effected by the game, it would be wrong for the game to be banned and you and anyone who is strong minded enough to not be able to have fun. However, "the retard babies the working class has been squirting out by the truckload," to quote Yahtzee, are not strong minded and are more inclined to do such things. What really matters is what you would do if everyone turned into an angry mob that was angry at everything and waged war against the police and all that. Some people who were already inclined to that way of thinking would be more likely to join the mob because of GTA. If things were up to me, there would be a nice law which would keep the stupid in line, and prevent them from leaving their stupid cells until they were smart, thus preventing them from playing GTA. Unfortunately, everyone is equal under the law, so that would never happen.

 

[Bofus Teefus]

I agree entirely with the anti-GTA stance. That stuff really does put bad values in you, and I play games solely for the violence. Frankly, I hate everything from Rockstar.

I'm having a hard time wrapping my little mind around this. I would think that the violence would be the first thing people would get hung up on. For you, is it the hookers and profanity? I guess that I'm first confused by which bad values you think people are taking from GTA, since you're ok with and play games solely for violence.

Snip!

My values are unaffected by gameplay, and I'm not an exception. Those who act out what they do in a game are the exception, and should be treated as such.

Snip!

When you're encouraged to shoot police on streets which look quite a bit like your own, there's a problem. When you're encouraged to drive over people and into light posts,(well, that's what everyone does even if you aren't encouraged too) there's a problem.

Snip!

Some people who were already inclined to that way of thinking would be more likely to join the mob because of GTA. If things were up to me, there would be a nice law which would keep the stupid in line, and prevent them from leaving their stupid cells until they were smart, thus preventing them from playing GTA. Unfortunately, everyone is equal under the law, so that would never happen.

There's alot to that response, so I'm cutting it down to just a couple things, more because I'm about to sign off and wanted to respond than due to any lack of merit.

If I understand, you're ok with warlike violence then, and not with random violence against regular civilians. That's really not that uncommon, and I can see why Rockstar would irritate the everloving crap out of you. I'm one of those who think real life violence of any type is bad, but pretend violence (within my own arbitrary limits, of course) is all fine and dandy. Yes, both fine and dandy. I think that boils down to our opinions, which we're both entitled to.

What we do agree on is that bit up in the quote about people already inclined to that way of thinking. I think the approach of banning games like GTA is flawed because I believe that those people would just find another image (from a game/TV show/movie) to model their behavior after, and that banning a game based on those types doesn't really accomplish anything. I'm sure studies can be found that prove that it does or does not help, but I tend to think that an approach of letting the game fly and holding criminals accountable for their actions is the way to go.

 

[Tarmon'gaidin]

ugh Jack Thompson is such an annoying man, he just wastes time nothing more.

 

[SimuLord]

I may not like the messenger, but the simple fact is that if age ratings are to have any teeth, there needs to be legal enforcement behind them. Won't change the fact that idiot parents will still buy violent games just to get Junior to stop bitching. You could turn America into a Soviet-style police state and idiots would still find ways to cock everything up.

 

[Your once and future Fanboy]

as all of us know, the original GTA came out in '97, and ever since 97, crime has been on a all time low (http://www.ncpa.org/studies/s229/s229.html see here)

it are fact, game no bad, game no make crime.
even if jack is retarded, he should be able to understand this.

 

[EzraPound]

Fuck censorship of any ilk.

 

[Shadow Tyrant]

I...What?

What does this do, exactly? Stores are already not supposed to sell those things to minors, what does passing a bill about it do?