The Needles: Master Chief Goes to Washington

[FlashHero]

I signed..ill be dammed if we lose this right..cuz guess wat comes next....state regulated internet..and that means porn dammit.

 

[goodwithwords08]

Currently I am attending college and one of my classes is called Ethics In Society. The point of this class is to discuss the moral issues we face in our lives, from poverty and world hunger to abortion. Well our last discussion was about the first amendment and how the government is trying to change it for our better. I don't believe it will be better for it to be changed at all. In my opinion the first amendment is what makes this country (U.S.A.) a free country, it is the basis for our freedom. If we change that in anyway then we are no longer free, we no longer deserve to be free if we allow this. This article is proof that the government needs to re-evaluate their thinking in order to make sure our country stays free. I know for sure that I will be doing all I can to stop them from changing our freedoms, including that of video games.

 

[MelasZepheos_v1legacy]

Of course I had to mention last time how my British-ness keeps me from signing that petition but for the sake of us all I would urge American gamers to sign it, and get all their friends to sign it, lest we see similar registration here, and with our government moving ever more rightward, I would hate to see them steal away something that I use to take some time away from the soulles entity that is their politics.

Please people, don't just think of it as being your right, think of all us who take our cues rightly or wrongly from your society and remember that we are all democracy, whatever else we may be, and that central principle must be upheld. This is our (or your) decision, and your rights which need to be protected.

 

[Andy Chalk]

I don't see a law preventing kids from buying M and, if they exist, AO rated games as an infringement of the First Amendment.

Fortunately, federal courts in 12 separate states have thus far disagreed with your assessment.

Why is it okay to regulate videogames, but not movies, books, music or DVDs?

 

[Blind Sight]

Video Games absolutely SHOULD be protected, but unfortunately in the American legal system the final say doesn't rest within the wording of their Constitution or the spirit of the law. It rests within the political leanings of the majority of members of their Supreme Court.

I'd say "Glad I live in Canada", except that if it passes in the South, we'll likely only be a few years behind.

Not so sure about that, I mean, our government's in a state of severe confusion right now, and look at the way that the Canadian government usually ignores America's whining about our piracy laws.

 

[Bruce Edwards]

The article makes an interesting point - why is some media regulated, but not others?

I've become kind of used to having games, movies and music regulated by a ratings system. (I live in New Zealand, which uses a similar system to England where games and movies are given a rataing which - in some cases - is legally binding. E.g. a game rated 'Restricted 18 for graphic violence' (by far and away the most common rating for games) cannot *legally* be sold to anyone under 18.).

Generally this system works, is consistent with film ratings, and means the parents who complain about violence in GTA games come across as hypocrites.

However, the article raises a good point - why is it OK to rate movies and games, but not books? Music?

I suspect it's because books are still regarded as the medium of choice for the intellectual. True or not, that means that most people regard a ratings system for print as unnecessary.

 

[Irridium]

I don't see a law preventing kids from buying M and, if they exist, AO rated games as an infringement of the First Amendment. It's not preventing people from making such games, or stores from selling those games, it's just making sure that only people of the appropriate age can purchase those games. I don't even know if the law will prevent kids from actually playing them (with parental supervision or approval), it just keeps them from buying the games.

And I, for one, think the law is a good idea. Some of the M-rated games I've played over the years were really disturbing or graphically violent. Modern Warfare 2 immediately comes to mind, especially if you've shot a character in the gut and they're feebly trying to crawl away, leaving a trail of blood behind them or being able to clearly see the open eyes of dead characters. I just don't think that kids have the emotional or mental maturity to deal with stuff like that, and almost certainly they won't accept that those games are inappropriate from them (just look at how man under-aged kids get started with booze and cigarettes).

Which is why almost every gaming establishment already doesn't sell to minors. The ESRB and many retail outlets already stop kids from getting violent games. In fact, they stop kids from getting violent content better than any other form of entertainment.

This law is completely redundant and pointless. And if parents don't want their kids playing the games, then maybe they should actually be a parent and not buy them the games.

Its not the government's job to watch after the kids and regulate what content they get, its the parent's job. And onlythe parent's job.

 

[Not G. Ivingname]

When will these politicans learn, we don't intend for Mature games to go to minors. I don't think Kick Ass had any kids in mind while making this (besides Hit Girl), nor do I think Dante's Inferno was meant to be played by anybody that is old enough to go to collage either. How these politicans seem to think that developer's are walking down the street and hands GTA out to any middle school they see. When will they see that WE HAVING A RATING SYSTEM, WE CAN REGULATE OUR SELVES, AND WE ARE AS LEGITEMATE AN ART FORM AS ANY FILM!

 

[Outright Villainy]

Its not the government's job to watch after the kids and regulate what content they get, its the parent's job. And onlythe parent's job.

Take that sentence right there. Call it X. This is how I envision it:

X= (((The entire point of fighting this change)))

The parenthesis signify the outer shell of a nut, essentially.

 

[Irridium]

Wait, Andy didn't you say in a previous news post about this that Canadians can also sign the petition?

http://www.escapistmagazine.com/forums/read/7.194554-Gaming-Faces-Its-Single-Most-Important-Challenge-at-the-Supreme-Court

A few posts down you say it.

If its still the case, then CANADIANS, ASSEMBLE!

 

[JusticarPhaeton]

When will these politicans learn, we don't intend for Mature games to go to minors. I don't think Kick Ass had any kids in mind while making this (besides Hit Girl), nor do I think Dante's Inferno was meant to be played by anybody that is old enough to go to collage either. How these politicans seem to think that developer's are walking down the street and hands GTA out to any middle school they see. When will they see that WE HAVING A RATING SYSTEM, WE CAN REGULATE OUR SELVES, AND WE ARE AS LEGITEMATE AN ART FORM AS ANY FILM!

I think the difference is the exposure level. How many kids will see Kick-Ass or American Psycho? How many kids will see someone playing GTA or Dante's Inferno? With movies, it's a one-time, 2-hour deal, which takes place in a living room late at night or in a theatre, whereas games are bandied about with much more casual attitudes and much more publicly. I know I'm walking a fine line by saying this in the wake of the Ebert issue, but games really are a different form of media and that may warrant treating them in a different way. Does it need legislation? Prolly not, in my opinion, but it seems to me that the ERSB and the ratings systems we have in place aren't really very effective as you can go to any intermediate school and all the kids will know what GTA is and how you play it.

 

[Not G. Ivingname]

When will these politicans learn, we don't intend for Mature games to go to minors. I don't think Kick Ass had any kids in mind while making this (besides Hit Girl), nor do I think Dante's Inferno was meant to be played by anybody that is old enough to go to collage either. How these politicans seem to think that developer's are walking down the street and hands GTA out to any middle school they see. When will they see that WE HAVING A RATING SYSTEM, WE CAN REGULATE OUR SELVES, AND WE ARE AS LEGITEMATE AN ART FORM AS ANY FILM!

I think the difference is the exposure level. How many kids will see Kick-Ass or American Psycho? How many kids will see someone playing GTA or Dante's Inferno? With movies, it's a one-time, 2-hour deal, which takes place in a living room late at night or in a theatre, whereas games are bandied about with much more casual attitudes and much more publicly. I know I'm walking a fine line by saying this in the wake of the Ebert issue, but games really are a different form of media and that may warrant treating them in a different way. Does it need legislation? Prolly not, in my opinion, but it seems to me that the ERSB and the ratings systems we have in place aren't really very effective as you can go to any intermediate school and all the kids will know what GTA is and how you play it.

Blame the parents on that one, since most stores I go to uphold the rating systems. It is the misinformed parents that don't notice the big M for MATURE that has to go out and buy these games, not the children themselves.

 

[Alar]

Edit: Can we swear on these forums? I've never really got an answer.

I believe minor swearing is fine, as long as it backs the idea of what you're trying to say in a semi-constructive way, rather than just swearing to swear or to troll.

Dammit.

 

[JusticarPhaeton]

Blame the parents on that one, since most stores I go to uphold the rating systems. It is the misinformed parents that don't notice the big M for MATURE that has to go out and buy these games, not the children themselves.

But isn't that just the problem? The ratings systems prevent sales to the inappropriate audiences, but it reaches those people nonetheless.

Of course, this is just more proof that legislation wouldn't solve anything, but what I am saying is that this should be addressed too.

Actually the ESRB is very effective because video game publishers won't publish a game until the game gets the appropriate rating that the publisher wants and this includes games that want an E rating instead of a T rating.

Also Justicar, of course kids are going to know about GTA and there are many reasons why. They are hot topic games that even the lightest search of any sort of information media have talked about it. Same applies to other hot topic games like Call of Duty:Modern Warfare because we as a gaming community are older and getting older. These games are held up as the reasons why but let me ask you something Justicar. Do you think kids that do not actively pursue the hobby of video games know about games such as Night Trap? Do you think all those politicians and pundits for video game legislation actually understand the meaning of Bioshock or the satire of games like No More Heroes or 3D dot game heroes or understand the active attempt of an industry to tell a story like Heavy Rain and Indigo Prophecy? The answer is simple, no, because games like Manhunt and GTA are the ones held up to be scrutinized and ya know what? They don't need defending at all because the point of the game is to be violent but the story of the games like GTA 4 is the attempt for immigrants to achieve the american dream which has always been a concept.

But I'm not saying that it's the games that need to be defended; as you say, violent games are meant to be so. I'm saying that the problem is that the games are filtering down to the inappropriate audiences *after* they get their ESRB stamp, meaning that despite the upholding of the ratings, the kids get the games anyways, through parents or older siblings or other friends.

 

[Ravek]

I'd let a young child read American Psycho. If he can get through the book I think he's mature enough to handle the content.

If you said no, congratulations: You're part of the vast majority of Americans who believe that not all content is appropriate for all ages.

That's a bit biased, don't you think? Not everyone visiting the escapist is American, and I'm sure you don't intend to write only for Americans.

Edit: Haha, I hadn't actually read to the last line yet when I wrote this post. I'm sure you get my point then.

 

[Sartan0]

Video Games absolutely SHOULD be protected, but unfortunately in the American legal system the final say doesn't rest within the wording of their Constitution or the spirit of the law. It rests within the political leanings of the majority of members of their Supreme Court.

No need to insult the US Supreme court. They do a better job interpreting the constitution then you might think.

 

[ObsessiveSketch]

...wait...don't people get carded for this sorta stuff? Like, for R-rated movies, ID is required. Same for M-rated video games. How does this law change anything whatsoever?