Rhode Island Proposes Jail Time for Underage Game Sales
- Thread starter Andy Chalk
- Start date
I was going to call that draconian and improportionate...
...then I realised that it's significantly less harsh than the penalties we already have here in the UK.
Theyshould really be going after the store managers and policy makers rather than the staff member at the til.
...then I realised that it's significantly less harsh than the penalties we already have here in the UK.
Theyshould really be going after the store managers and policy makers rather than the staff member at the til.
....you do realize parents are buying the games for their underage kids, right?
What happened to you Rhode Island? I thought you were cool.
What happened to you Rhode Island? I thought you were cool.
Catkid906 said:This... this seems kind of strict... but I guess it's fair. Only if they include movies though... underage movie sellers too. THEN it's fair.
Calumon: I don't even have a birthday... I'm never old enough for anything.
Awwwww, poor Calumon, would you like some choclate birthyday cake?
Anyway, On topic this is stupid, all it would do is add more inmates too prisons, and one year sounds steep, i mean, i've heard stories of people vandalizing places and getting less time in jail.
This is one of those things that are a little iffy. It is easy with things like alcohol, cigs and porn to know what we are taking about and where the line is drawn. With games however it is not that clear cut. The things that are objectionable are a very much a subjective thing. What is "excessive" in excessive violence? What kind of language can we condone? And what about very complex themes like hate, racism, the meaning of life, the nature of sentience and so on. And which of these questions can children actually handle and at what age. So the question becomes whether or not people can actually be allowed to enforce their beliefs over those of others.
On the one hand if retailers are not following their own ratings system, there should be some sort of penalty. The penalty should not be aimed at parents. They are in their full right to go out and buy the stuff and give it to their children (and then take on the responsibility of that action). The problem is when kids can themselves go into a store and buy the 18+ rated game. This should be penalized and the only ones you can hit are the retailers. Jail time should however be out of the question.
And then there is the thing about fairness and the "slippery slope". If games should have this legal penalty thrust on them what about movies? and now that we have monies what about art? Theater? Music?
The issue here is far more complex then what meets the eyes and there is no way to boil the arguments down to bite size. If you do the truth gets lost in the translation and the argument will soon degenerate into name calling and insults.
The best you can do is say "This is what I believe" and then live that belief.
Sermon over.
On the one hand if retailers are not following their own ratings system, there should be some sort of penalty. The penalty should not be aimed at parents. They are in their full right to go out and buy the stuff and give it to their children (and then take on the responsibility of that action). The problem is when kids can themselves go into a store and buy the 18+ rated game. This should be penalized and the only ones you can hit are the retailers. Jail time should however be out of the question.
And then there is the thing about fairness and the "slippery slope". If games should have this legal penalty thrust on them what about movies? and now that we have monies what about art? Theater? Music?
The issue here is far more complex then what meets the eyes and there is no way to boil the arguments down to bite size. If you do the truth gets lost in the translation and the argument will soon degenerate into name calling and insults.
The best you can do is say "This is what I believe" and then live that belief.
Sermon over.
I work in a UK retailer and the BBFC continulary tries to fuck with us. they send in vaugley underage looking kids that took the term child actor from Melrose place circa 1990's (Ie- they look about 30) And then tell them to go to stores and try and buy MW2 or GTA or whatever other current controversial flavour of the month is. Then if we fail to ask for ID, a heft fine and a criminal record. Not for the store or the company- directly given to the poor minimum wage cashier who happens to be doing their job normally- Cunts.
Seems silly, but if it works then maybe it'll shut up some of the parents who won't stop bitching about violence in video games.
That's a little extreme...I mean yes, we won't have anymore of those little kids who are so irritating playing anymore but, putting people in jail for it is just going too far.
Totally agree, took the words right from my keyboard.ma55ter_fett said:
No that wont help kids at all. What kids need is a good couple of years in the slammer. Put more funding into jails and on a long term plan we can get the whole country behind bars.Irridium said:
But seriously, jail isn't what's needed. If it is to be punished make it a fine and use that money to something useful rather than putting more money and more people into jails.
If selling games to those who aren't old enough to play were to be punished how would that help? There are enough of those who drink before they're of legal age, how do they do it? Get someone old enough to buy it. Aah, the stupidity of politics.
$1000 or a year in jail? How in high hell can people enacting legislation even feesably put those two terms next to each other over a small misdemeanour and think that it's reasonable? Yet another overly stupid move regarding computer games.
I believe it should carry the same punishment as giving/selling a minor pornographic material. If in Rhode Island it is a "fine of up to $1000, or one year in jail" then I agree with it.
So does this mean that they're finally going to restrict kids under 18 from R rated movies?
In all seriousness, it does seem a bit overboard. But then again, I never knew that they had already enacted a fine. Anyway, call me old fashioned, but it doesn't seem all that bad to me. So kids can't play certain games until they're 17/18. It's not like they're enforcing this on T-rated games and under 13s.
In all seriousness, it does seem a bit overboard. But then again, I never knew that they had already enacted a fine. Anyway, call me old fashioned, but it doesn't seem all that bad to me. So kids can't play certain games until they're 17/18. It's not like they're enforcing this on T-rated games and under 13s.
Jail time isn't appropriate, and I'd say the fine's too big.
That said, I don't understand how this is a 1st Amendment violation.
That said, I don't understand how this is a 1st Amendment violation.
Well, when I worked for blockbuster if you were found renting a lot of M games or R movies to those under 17, and enough of their parents complained, that was your job right there. This was for the corporate stores, and about 7 years ago, so don't ask me if the policy still applies. But, considering that it's not even mandated by a law, that seems penalty enough. Hell, you can't even sue Blockbuster for First Amendment rights issues because they have the right to not rent something to however they want as long as the reasons were not discriminatory. And since no one under 18 can rent at blockbuster unless they work there, the reason is "Is it ok with your parents?"