So far, America has done well to avoid GOVERNMENT CENSORSHIP. That's the difference. What's going to stop a state government from labeling a non-violent game "Adults Only" because it questions American law? Do you see free speech slowly draining away yet?
The Needles: Master Chief Goes to Washington
- Thread starter Andy Chalk
- Start date
While I absolutely agree with the article, it seems odd that they're even bothering with this law. Nearly every game and electronics store will have customers show ID when they buy an M-rated game. I tried to pick up a copy of Diablo II when I was fourteen, and was denied it by the cashier. They may not be legally obligated to do so, but every game retailer I can think of enforces the restrictions anyway. If the law was such so they were legally obligated to not enforce them, that would noticeably change things for the better. After all, a preteen can go to the library and check out any number of books with violent or sexual content. I certainly agree that video games should be allowed the same freedoms.
The problem is this: A large number of lazy, inept, or otherwise substandard parents WANT it to be the government's job. They don't want to pay attention to what their children are doing; they want to be able to sit on the couch, watch American Idol or the new season of Survivor, and let their minds shut down, comfortable in the knowledge that Uncle Sam is making sure their kids can't do anything, you know, fun.Irridium said:
What? Other people being affected by the law? Everybody knows that only children and shut-ins play video games. Now shut up, I'm harvesting my Farmville field.
Okay, let me tell this. I'm as far on the sliding scale of creative freedom as one can possibly be, which I suppose means I believe depictions of pedophilia that don't involve children should be allowed (unlike that UK law that just passed), and that is pretty much the only ground I'm willing to lose. I think any attempt by the government to tell people what they can and can't enjoy is ridiculous, based on the hateful notion that, if I am a good man and I don't like this, then it must be evil; or worse, that if I am a good man and I don't like this, then those who do are evil. It is pathetic.
I honestly see nothing wrong with this law.
It's stopping minors from buying violent videogames. It's not stopping their parents from buying it from them, if they think they're fit for it. It's stopping them from buying them behind their back. It's defending a parent's right to be selective about what their children play, as much as it's possible.
You say that it would set a precedent as games being seen as an special precedent that's somehow worse than other media. Fine, I buy that. It would also take away most of the air of the large majority of video game haters. Their main argument is 'think of the children'! And our only defence for that is 'hey, there's a system here that prevents children from playing games they shouldn't, never mind that it's run by the industry and it's not enforceable on a massive degree'. If this law passes, it will become 'They can't play it, no more than they can drink alcohol. It's against the law.'
Now, I don't want this law to pass, nor do I think it would be good for the medium as a whole if it did. But it's not the end-all doomsday you make it sound like in the article. If it's the first step of a slippery slope it'll be the least slippery of the slopes.
If gamers should gather around an ideal, it should be to press developers to make better games, more varied, appealing to a greater crowd. If every senator could look at GTAIV and see a variation of something they do on his free time, as they do when they look at a violent movie, the entire argument would lose its footing. Gamers should stop sitting atop their rock and shouting at the Eberts and Atkins of the world, turn around, and ask themselves why they ended up with that opinion.
I honestly see nothing wrong with this law.
It's stopping minors from buying violent videogames. It's not stopping their parents from buying it from them, if they think they're fit for it. It's stopping them from buying them behind their back. It's defending a parent's right to be selective about what their children play, as much as it's possible.
You say that it would set a precedent as games being seen as an special precedent that's somehow worse than other media. Fine, I buy that. It would also take away most of the air of the large majority of video game haters. Their main argument is 'think of the children'! And our only defence for that is 'hey, there's a system here that prevents children from playing games they shouldn't, never mind that it's run by the industry and it's not enforceable on a massive degree'. If this law passes, it will become 'They can't play it, no more than they can drink alcohol. It's against the law.'
Now, I don't want this law to pass, nor do I think it would be good for the medium as a whole if it did. But it's not the end-all doomsday you make it sound like in the article. If it's the first step of a slippery slope it'll be the least slippery of the slopes.
If gamers should gather around an ideal, it should be to press developers to make better games, more varied, appealing to a greater crowd. If every senator could look at GTAIV and see a variation of something they do on his free time, as they do when they look at a violent movie, the entire argument would lose its footing. Gamers should stop sitting atop their rock and shouting at the Eberts and Atkins of the world, turn around, and ask themselves why they ended up with that opinion.
Bruce Edwards said:
It's not. They should -all- be regulated[footnote]This is absolutely not an advocation of censorship: regulation and restriction do not involve the banning or outlawing of media; just its viewing by specific age groups.[/footnote]. I'm an Australian, and my system is close to perfect, with two huge, glaring omissions. No R18+ rating, and no rating above that. Which means that my government can decide what I can and can't watch/play/read/etc. This is wrong. However, the ESRB's rating system is also near perfect, except for two problems. It's not law. It should be. There's absolutely no reason why media shouldn't be rated, but at the same time, there's also no reason private companies or organisations should be allowed to determine what's in the public's interest to see or hear. That's the second problem - the ESRB is a private organisation, not a government one. It needs to be, so it can be transparent, and accountable.Andy Chalk said:
As far as the pending Supreme Court challenge goes, you're dead on: games must not be regulated differently from other media. But I'm of the opinion that it should -all- be restricted to age-appropriate groups, not just opened up to anyone.
I think that this debate could have a middle side. Even with freedom of speech, if everyone did whatever they wanted and said whatever nasty things came to mind to people on the street, they'd get arrested. The ESRB rating system is a good one, if careful scrutiny of a game shows it to be not for minors, it should not be played by them. Then again, it is always the parent's choice what their children's priviliges and maturity level are. So, do not sell mature games to minors, unless parental confirmation is there. A 12 year old asks for GTA, the clerk confirms age, asks for parental confirmation. Parents give confirmation. Problem solved. Of course, often games are played by teens that were meant for older adults. The age minimum might just be lower than the rating permits, but its a start. A 15 year old can by Halo on their own, a 10 year old cannot.
Also, I'm Canadian, and some of this First Amendment stuff is pretty loose to me.
Also, I'm Canadian, and some of this First Amendment stuff is pretty loose to me.
What do you mean there are no laws against minors seeing R-rated movies? It's illegal to sell a ticket for an R-rated movie to a minor. There are other laws like this already in effect in the US. It's not that big a deal. All the kid has to do is ask his/her misinformed parent to buy it for them.
One thing I must say: The industry already stops kids from buying violent games, which makes this law completely pointless. The gaming industry also has the highest age compliance of all other forms of media.The Random One said:
I can't stress this enough, this law is just pointless and redundant.
Everything else I agree with.
Incorrect. The rating system is voluntary, and movie theatres prevent minors from purchasing tickets as company policies. Laws aren't on the books, however. It isn't illegal to go see an R rated movie if you're under 17. You can't be arrested for it. The theatre has the right to throw you out because it's against their rules, but you can't be arrested. Big difference.JUMBO PALACE said:
This is a big deal because, if this law passes, it would be a restriction against the 1st Amendment. The one that guarantees you the right to say, read, or write anything you want. The one that protects all forms of artistic expression. All it takes is one little injustice, one restriction, and that opens the door to more infringements on our rights. It's the apathy and ignorance of folks like you that make me truly afraid this country could start losing some of its defining characteristics, and some folks won't even notice.
AHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAFenixius said:
Ahem. Sorry.
Honestly, I'm surprised that you'd come down on the "their oughta be a law" side of the equation. I would think that if anything, the Australian experience would demonstrate precisely why government regulation of creative expression (talking about all media here, not just games) is a bad thing.
They ended up with those opinions out of ignorance and a determination to apply old media standards to new media.The Random One said:
And I'm curious as to why you think game developers should be making games that are more palatable to politicians, but don't seem to have a problem with movie studios that churn out idiotic, blood-soaked bullshit. Why is there a double-standard?
Couldn't an adult just pick up the game and then give it to their kid later?
If so, that law wouldn't be very effective.
If so, that law wouldn't be very effective.
As an american I can see a new business showing up soon. Yeah that?s Ed he sells drugs at this school, over there, yeah that?s Jon. Jon sells M rated video games for a 10% markup, welcome to 9th grade. My parents didn't do too much damage raising me without government protection. I don't need other people's opinion of decent shoved down my throat; I learned from my parents what was required from me. I also learned many things from my own experiences, to be shown the answer is not worth as much as learning on your own. When did Cali decide to enforce laws on peoples rights, we have other crazy states for that.
Maybe we should become violent to show how well adjusted we are?
-2fish
Maybe we should become violent to show how well adjusted we are?
-2fish
Your logic on that is rather erroneous as it relies on the fact that parents don't buy M-rated games for their kids. The problem with that fact is that is an untrue fact. There are many documented cases where a parent specifically bought an M-rated game for their child, even despite warnings from the clerk about the content in the game, then later got outraged at what they discovered within.The Random One said:
Basically, the problem isn't that kids are able to sneak behind their parents' backs to buy these games. The problem is that parents consistently under-estimate the amount of content in some games and then buy the games anyway. Seriously, go read some articles about parents outraged about a game. In roughly 9 of 10 articles you'll read that the parent isn't pissed that their kid was able to buy the game, they're pissed because THEY THEMSELVES bought the game and didn't know what kind of content was in the game (despite usually having been warned).
So in the end, what we're stuck with is this: Little Jimmy told mom that he wanted her to buy a game for him because Gamestop wouldn't let him buy it. She agreed to do so, bought the game, saw what was in the game, then freaked-out and is now petitioning that her son shouldn't be allowed to buy the game... that he wasn't being allowed to buy in the first place.
They ended-up with their opinions because they're classic cases of old men demonizing something they aren't familiar with. Or do you forget that 60 years ago they were trying to ban Rock and Roll? Simply put, just because someone has an opinion, doesn't mean that their opinion is educated or justified (even if the person holding the opinion is usually fairly educated himself). When schools were teaching you about how an opinion is never wrong, what they were saying is that YOUR opinion is never wrong TO YOU (so long as you truly believe your reasoning behind it).
So yeah, TO EBERT, games will never be art. But let's not forget that Ebert has spent probably less than one hour total in his entire life playing them.
Nice!tsu-money said:
Brevity is the soul of wit.. and that good sir is a great way to look at it!
OT: We don't need the government concerning itself with gaming; or for that matter, how this will end some mutant form of censorship. Either way; The US is broke, we don't need to be spending money on some line of bureaucrats who's job is too restrict and enforce ratings and such.
Waste of time and money... it really is... don't we have bigger fish to fry?
The notion that restricting the sale of videogames to minors is a Freedom of Speech issue is frankly ridiculous. I would stand behind the above statement if you replaced 'videogames' with 'books, films, tv, etc ad nauseum'. The point of any such legislation is to prevent unsuitable materials being bought by children without parental involvement. They are not restricting the type of games made and published, they are merely cutting out the most vulnerable from being able to enjoy this on their own, legally. That there is already a system in place that more or less makes this happen (in each of these media areas) shows that there is probably a need for sales to be regulated and I can't see why (and you haven't provided the why, merely the 'they don't do it to films or books') backing this body with legislation infringes anyone's freedom to speak. If such a restriction really is a restriction of freedom of speech, shouldn't something be done about the ESRB (and analogues in other media) de facto restricting freedom of speech?
Basically, no, your article is intellectually wrong and doesn't really spell out any of the harms that such a move would make (mostly because there don't seem to be any). You've fallen victim the the 'Freedom of Speech' propaganda that is really Supreme Court over-relying on the First Amendment because it is one of the new commandments and therefore inherently justified rather than its relevance to the case at hand. Is it not better to harmonise the practise (restricting video games sales to minors) and the law, rather than allow non-governmental 'volunteer organisations' to decide who can and who can't buy things?
P.S.
Addendum: My personal politics on this subject says deregulate completely, anyone should be allowed to buy whatever games, films, books, music that they want to buy, kids are a lot more resilient and parents need to be more involved in their kids' thinking about the world as a whole. Promoting a healthy understanding that media is entertainment rather than a guide for how to live your life from a young age can only benefit people. The comments before this addendum are criticism rather than an account of how I think things should be.
Basically, no, your article is intellectually wrong and doesn't really spell out any of the harms that such a move would make (mostly because there don't seem to be any). You've fallen victim the the 'Freedom of Speech' propaganda that is really Supreme Court over-relying on the First Amendment because it is one of the new commandments and therefore inherently justified rather than its relevance to the case at hand. Is it not better to harmonise the practise (restricting video games sales to minors) and the law, rather than allow non-governmental 'volunteer organisations' to decide who can and who can't buy things?
P.S.
Hysterical comments like this harm your credibility. Jail is not the only sanction that infringement of a law can land someone in. Chances are that any regulatory law would impose sizeable fines for non-compliance. So no-one's going to end up in jail either way.Andy Chalk said:
Addendum: My personal politics on this subject says deregulate completely, anyone should be allowed to buy whatever games, films, books, music that they want to buy, kids are a lot more resilient and parents need to be more involved in their kids' thinking about the world as a whole. Promoting a healthy understanding that media is entertainment rather than a guide for how to live your life from a young age can only benefit people. The comments before this addendum are criticism rather than an account of how I think things should be.
You know? All I can think now is "It's about time the crazy anti-videogame movement" left Australia and headed to you guys. I have strangely little sympathy, really.
Think of it this way: you guys are taking one for the team and letting us have a turn. Except that doesn't really work, since our government is already full of twits.
Think of it this way: you guys are taking one for the team and letting us have a turn. Except that doesn't really work, since our government is already full of twits.