The Needles: Master Chief Goes to Washington

[acosn]

While I agree that the government has every right to regulate this sort of thing on the premise that the industry itself is effectively asleep at the wheel on the subject, what we're looking at is anything but that. Ratings awareness has shot up in the last 10 years, the rating system has been made more robust to accommodate different games and the system itself even mirrors the same system put down on movies- G-PG-PG13-R-NC17 is almost identical to E-E10-T-M-A.

Even with that aside statistics suggest that if anything video games are calming the kids. This "Grand Theft Auto" generation is the least violent in years according to the government's own statistics. What's more an actual minority of games made every year are rated "M" and of that few actually achieve high sales.

Really though, what I find reprehensible in all this is that California, who's bankrupt mind you, is spending money to see this through. Doesn't that strike you as a bad idea?

 

[Flauros]

How is it even their RIGHT to "outlaw" a videogame? Is it hurting anyone? Does it get you addicted to heroin? Its really none of their business.

Ok, I understand that you're upset about all this, but you seem to be WAY off the mark here.

There is no "right" to outlaw videogames, but law makers to have the right to make laws, its kinda in their job description. What they plan on doing is to put video games in the same category as porn, in that the government would be allowed to regulate who uses it, and it would not be protected by the first amendment.

Getting addicted to heroine also has nothing to do with this, so, I'm not really sure where you were going with that argument.

AS for it being their buisness, well, it became their buisness when parents came screaming to lawyers desks because their lil' Johnny just Bought CoD: MewTwo, and they heard him yell, "FAG" at the television, and now their panties are in a bunch.

Essentially, people are giving lawyers money to bring video games to court, so that's just what they are doing.

Umm, gee sorry man. I was just giving the standard offended protest, wasnt really expecting anyone here to argue with me. Allow me to correct you.

No, its NOT there job description to make any law they feel like. There are rules and laws to making laws. "regulate who uses it" exactly. Thats why its wrong. The laws are there to protect people, not to regulate what they like. You are allowed to read ANY book you want. YOu are "allowed" to watch rated R movies, yes, even if youre a child. If a parent wants to watch a scary movie with you, they can. Theres no "laws" involved.

"getting addicted to heroin has nothing to do with it" you are obviously just trying to argue, its obvious that I was making a statement that the videogame/movie/book/painting isnt commiting a crime or hurting anyone, so you cant say people cant use it. Obviously

So yes, once again THEY HAVE NO RIGHT. Oops, way off the mark again....

 

[Worgen]

I tend to agree with Derp ^.

I don't see this as much of a 1st amendment killer in the way that many other laws are [such as the hazy pornography regulations].

I'm not going to condone this bill, but the conservative side of me sees the logic to it. And I'll have to look up that bit about R-rated movies, because growing up we always thought our best shot was standing on each others' shoulders and putting on the overcoat -- theatres hold to that regulation as if it were law even if it's not.

are you stupid? never mind, ok here is the problem, the article is 100% right about there being no law against children seeing a rated R movie, currently there are very very few restrictions of freedom of speech, really as long as your not advocating harming another or yelling fire in a crowded theater in order to start a panic you can pretty much say anything you want. The problem with this is that if somehow there is a law that manages to make it on the books that a minor cant buy a so and so rated game then instead of the esrb you have a much bigger govt body that has to regulate it and they get to decide what a violent video game is. The biggest worry is that what happened to the comic industry will happen to the video game one, in other words, imagine grand theft auto but instead of having freedom your only allowed to do certain things, you can only have one car and are not allowed to kill cops or really anyone that isnt a drug dealer and the deaths cant be by shooting they have to be by having them fall off a building or something. Really just look up anything about the comic industry in the 50-60s and youll see what I mean.

 

[the_maestro_sartori]

The US constitution is considered by many to be one of the most successful constitutions in the world

isn't that just the same as saying it's considered by "many" NOT to be one of the most successful in the world?

having only been amended 27 times since its inception. That is a pretty good track record by anyone's standards.

you mean since it was written it's "only" been amended 3-4 times per generation? I stand corrected, that clearly is awesome... If each generation are only changing it 3-4 times it was clearly bang on the money, which sorta proves my point, the more time passes the more parts of it become out-dated and redundant. That's exactly why these revisions are being made, because topics like this obviously didn't exist until the technology was available for kids to play what effectively, are simulated murders

dammit, can you have a conversation with an American without the words 'freedom' and 'rights' coming up?

Sure you can, they're the rare ones it's just the Americans you can't converse with without it cropping up are a dime a dozen

 

[ionpulse2]

While I agree that the government has every right to regulate this sort of thing on the premise that the industry itself is effectively asleep at the wheel on the subject, what we're looking at is anything but that. Ratings awareness has shot up in the last 10 years, the rating system has been made more robust to accommodate different games and the system itself even mirrors the same system put down on movies- G-PG-PG13-R-NC17 is almost identical to E-E10-T-M-A.

Even with that aside statistics suggest that if anything video games are calming the kids. This "Grand Theft Auto" generation is the least violent in years according to the government's own statistics. What's more an actual minority of games made every year are rated "M" and of that few actually achieve high sales.

Really though, what I find reprehensible in all this is that California, who's bankrupt mind you, is spending money to see this through. Doesn't that strike you as a bad idea?

See my above post for the rebuttal to your first statement.

As for your second statement, yes it is striking me very odd how California is spending imaginary money on this. I'd like to know how they can even afford to pay the government workers that it takes to do this shit.

 

[acosn]

While I agree that the government has every right to regulate this sort of thing on the premise that the industry itself is effectively asleep at the wheel on the subject, what we're looking at is anything but that. Ratings awareness has shot up in the last 10 years, the rating system has been made more robust to accommodate different games and the system itself even mirrors the same system put down on movies- G-PG-PG13-R-NC17 is almost identical to E-E10-T-M-A.

Even with that aside statistics suggest that if anything video games are calming the kids. This "Grand Theft Auto" generation is the least violent in years according to the government's own statistics. What's more an actual minority of games made every year are rated "M" and of that few actually achieve high sales.

Really though, what I find reprehensible in all this is that California, who's bankrupt mind you, is spending money to see this through. Doesn't that strike you as a bad idea?

See my above post for the rebuttal to your first statement.

As for your second statement, yes it is striking me very odd how California is spending imaginary money on this. I'd like to know how they can even afford to pay the government workers that it takes to do this shit.

You're over-reacting.

 

[Sikachu]

As a final point of refutation, why can't videogames be the first to accept some regulation? Could we not bring ourselves up into such a standing that we are seen as the 'the most mature' medium rather than the 'the least' and hold us regardless of the age of our medium? You may see us as being picked on, but if a perhaps lesser recognized medium such as our falls under fair regulation, couldn't the others follow suit in a domino effect?

So you're suggesting that the videogame industry should surrender its First Amendment rights so it can lead the charge toward an across-the-board loss of these rights in other industries?

That's really quite a position to hold. Can you tell me what led to it? Have you ever called for legislated restrictions on the sale of movies, or books?

I honestly don't mean to argue from the position of "it is because it is," but there is simply no reason why the legal regulation of videogame sales would be necessary or acceptable, but not the regulation of other media. A number of you think that other media should be regulated - which would essentially spell the end of the First Amendment, and what happens to the Constitution after that is anybody's guess - and while I'm not terribly surprised that non-Americans would take the position, I'm absolutely blown away that American gamers would be so willing to let their rights slide.

Of course the First Amendment isn't perfect. I don't Germany or Australia have it quite right either. The UK had trouble just deciding who gets to make the rules, but they did manage to keep Manhunt 2 off the shelves for a year - not just out of the hands of kids, but out of the hands of everyone. Seems to me that nobody's come up with a perfect system yet, so why should we (well, they, or you, I suppose) change the system to make it more like something that we all know is no better, and quite possibly worse, than what's already there?

The bottom line is this: If you believe that videogames should be regulated, and you'd like to see some steps taken toward the erosion of the First Amendment, then do nothing. Just sit quietly and let a few vote-chasing government agencies do their thing and pretty soon, if you're lucky, you'll get what you want - and, I daresay, what you deserve.

The rest of us will be over here, standing up on your behalf.

I've made the point already, but it bears repeating: you admit that in practise, in the experience of users, this regulation is in effect. There is an NGO in the industry the regulates who has access to what content, and you seem to think that such regulation is desirable. I guess my question has to be why do you not trust the deomcratically elected organs of state (democratic in many people's opinions, not mine) to do that job just as well (because they have some responsibility to the public) if not better? Making the 'why us?' argument is facile - better explain why films (etc) are justifiably protected and why that also applies to videogames (preferably focusing on the prior - few think games are different to other media).

 

[namako]

Maybe I'm paranoid, but I can't help but imagine this is some kind of attempt at making a back door to the regulation of textbooks. The inspiration being many stories from the last year about various US states trying to Christianise history, social studies and biology textbooks and remove history books detailing the rather nastier (slaves, indians, etc) areas of US history.

Here in the UK ridiculous laws are often passed by pushing forward something stupid, having it fail, and then pushing through all the pieces, which now sound quite sensible in comparison to the original.

 

[Andy Chalk]

I've made the point already, but it bears repeating: you admit that in practise, in the experience of users, this regulation is in effect. There is an NGO in the industry the regulates who has access to what content, and you seem to think that such regulation is desirable. I guess my question has to be why do you not trust the deomcratically elected organs of state (democratic in many people's opinions, not mine) to do that job just as well (because they have some responsibility to the public) if not better? Making the 'why us?' argument is facile - better explain why films (etc) are justifiably protected and why that also applies to videogames (preferably focusing on the prior - few think games are different to other media).

Does the state need to do everything? What is it about this issue that makes it inherently better served by the government, especially when we can look at other countries where the government does regulate game sales and see that it's being handled in a demonstrably poorer fashion?

As for why I don't have unquestioning trust in "the government" to regulate game sales without impinging upon my freedoms, read this.

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/03/13/education/13texas.html [http://www.nytimes.com/2010/03/13/education/13texas.html]

And why not "why us?" I don't feel particularly compelled to provide a thoughtful reply to what is really a very silly suggestion.

 

[QueenWren]

I'm a little confused here. I live in the UK and the law here (which I know cause I used to work in a shop where it applied) is that it is not illegal to buy a game rated older than you are, but it IS illeagal for the shop to sell it to you. Most people get around this buy getting someone older to buy the game for them which is legal as far as I'm aware. The idea is that if a parent buys an 18 rated game for their 12 year old then they are deciding through parental discretion that it is ok to play it. Same thing applies with DVD's etc. For cinema's they won't let you buy a ticket if they think you're younger than the rating.

This sounds like the law they're trying to pass in America to me, am I wrong? Because I'm really not sure it's such a bad idea. Admittedly a lot of parents are idiots and will give their kiddies completely inappropriate games anyway but the main idea (atleast here) is not to stop younger players/viewers using the item but to make sure that some discetion is used

 

[Sikachu]

Does the state need to do everything? What is it about this issue that makes it inherently better served by the government, especially when we can look at other countries where the government does regulate game sales and see that it's being handled in a demonstrably poorer fashion?

As for why I don't have unquestioning trust in "the government" to regulate game sales without impinging upon my freedoms, read this.

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/03/13/education/13texas.html [http://www.nytimes.com/2010/03/13/education/13texas.html]

And why not "why us?" I don't feel particularly compelled to provide a thoughtful reply to what is really a very silly suggestion.

First, thanks for responding. Here are some thoughts:

1. I'm aware of that story and it is as scary as it is unsurprising. States the world over re-write history to assist in the control and manipulation of their populace. It does appear to be accelerating at an alarming rate in the USA, over here they just refuse to teach about the British Empire in schools. So I agree that you're very right to distrust governments. However, for every Germany or Australia, there are several UKs and Frances and Swedens that back up these agencies with legislation and continue to work at the same rate. Even in Australia the problem isn't that the government is doing it, but that the government is doing it wrong, and the solution that slowly seems to be coming there is by democratic means - a motivation that would not affect non-democratic institutions. Unless you mean your link to be evidence that there shouldn't be governmental regulation of what is taught in public schools (USA meaning) then it isn't really an analogue.

2. No the state doesn't need to do everything, but if the harm of not regulating videogames (at all - not the status quo) is children accessing unsuitable material and having their mental problems aggravated to the point where they are a danger to society and/or themselves (of which I am not convinced at all, but then I wouldn't regulate it at all) then surely that is as much within the remit of government as alcohol or tobacco. If that isn't the perceived harm that existing regulation is there to protect against then please detail what it is as I don't know.

3. On 'why not 'why not us?'' I have to say that I read your article as a semi-call to arms for people to support the position that you are advocating. The reason that I think you need to have rigorous arguments in such a case is that you convert more people when you can demonstrate why you are right in principle rather than merely by analogy. You may well motivate more people (particularly in a preaching:choir situation like this) by playing the 'videogames=victim' card, because there does exist persecution of the industry, but in order to arm those people with sensible arguments that are worth listening to if they are going to lobby, you need to win the argument in principle. It's like if I argue for the legalisation of marijuana with merely comparisons that showed it is just as harmful as tobacco and therefore is unfairly picked on (not really the case - just go with it for argument's sake) I am as convincing for the legalisation of marijuana as I am for the outlawing of tobacco, whereas if I show the harms of legalising marijuana and why those harms are counterbalanced by the benefits and why we should accept them.

To be honest, I keep asking for you to win the argument here because I'm interested in how that plays out.

 

[thenumberthirteen]

Ok. I know there have been lots of comments covering this issue so I may repeat some points that have already been stated (I've read all the comments so far).

First off I live in England where our convoluted political history means we don't really have a constitution to base our laws around, only the ideals at the time (as an aside I'm glad we don't have one),and as such there is no overriding protection of free speech per se (the reality is FAR more convoluted). I work at a cinema, and as such I can be fined a large sum (£1000 I think) if I let anyone into a film when they do not meet the age restrictions. The point is it is MY ass on the line as the one who sells the ticket (or DVD or Game), and not the person who sees the film, or buys the DVD, or plays the Game. This is what needs to change.

I actually support the legally backed age restriction laws. I agree, as most people do, that not all content is appropriate for all ages. To prevent the viewing of inappropriate content for minors restrictions should be placed on the availability of such content. It should not be sold or viewed without parental consent. Such restrictions should be in place universally in all retailers, outlets, etc, and such should be controlled by the only body with the power and authority to do such a thing, the state. I do not, however, believe that the ratings organisation has the right to ban the sale, or censor the material they control, and that all content should be made available to adults.

 

[Shynobee]

Umm, gee sorry man. I was just giving the standard offended protest, wasnt really expecting anyone here to argue with me. Allow me to correct you.

No, its NOT there job description to make any law they feel like. There are rules and laws to making laws. "regulate who uses it" exactly. Thats why its wrong. The laws are there to protect people, not to regulate what they like. You are allowed to read ANY book you want. YOu are "allowed" to watch rated R movies, yes, even if youre a child. If a parent wants to watch a scary movie with you, they can. Theres no "laws" involved.

"getting addicted to heroin has nothing to do with it" you are obviously just trying to argue, its obvious that I was making a statement that the videogame/movie/book/painting isnt commiting a crime or hurting anyone, so you cant say people cant use it. Obviously

So yes, once again THEY HAVE NO RIGHT. Oops, way off the mark again....

They aren't making any law they feel like, people are coming to law makers with something that their ignorant brains see as a problem. ie: uneducated parents see videogames with violence in them being played by their children, they become concerned and don't know what to do about it. The first conclusion that they come to is that the government should step in and regulate it, much like the government regulates alchohol, driving, porn, and (depending on your state) guns. That is what these parents are connecting videogames with, and that is why lawmakers are making these laws.

As for it being a crime, I agree with you, videogames are definetly not inherantly bad in any way, shape or form. Unfortunately there are people who do not see it that way, and they are the ones trying to pass these laws.

And yes, you still are way off the mark, they do have a right to do what they are doing, just as much as we have a right to play video games.

Trust me, I'm not doing this for the sake of argument, its just that I'd like for people to be arguing rationally and not sounding like idiots to the opposition.

 

[Shynobee]

The US constitution is considered by many to be one of the most successful constitutions in the world

isn't that just the same as saying it's considered by "many" NOT to be one of the most successful in the world?

having only been amended 27 times since its inception. That is a pretty good track record by anyone's standards.

you mean since it was written it's "only" been amended 3-4 times per generation? I stand corrected, that clearly is awesome... If each generation are only changing it 3-4 times it was clearly bang on the money, which sorta proves my point, the more time passes the more parts of it become out-dated and redundant. That's exactly why these revisions are being made, because topics like this obviously didn't exist until the technology was available for kids to play what effectively, are simulated murders

Ok, let me explain this a little more clearly;

As for the 27 times of being amended, yeah, that is an amazing track record, considering that every other country that has an amendable constitution has been amended far more times than that. The US constitution is a dynamic document that allows for change with the times. It even has a clause specifically allowing for change and expansion of power where need be, (this is what allowed the creation of an Air Force, NASA, and the application of Amendments to States.)

isn't that just the same as saying it's considered by "many" NOT to be one of the most successful in the world?

By many I meant historians, you know, the people who study these things for a living?

 

[benbenthegamerman]

Well, since anything i would want to say that would add insight to the issue has already been said, so ill just say this: I know that people are offended by China forcing people to ask for government approval for raising a child, but the only reason that this is an issue is because parents are getting more irresponsible. Also, im somewhat baffled by the fact that a child needs ID in order to get an M-rated game, meaning that the only way a child could get an M-rated game would be via the parent (or at least thats how i see it, seeing that the only M-rated game i own is Dragon-Age: Origins, which i got as a birthday present.) Anywho, why would someone who bought a product as an adult who would believe their child was mature complain when they see their child playing (gasp, choke) a violent game that was rated M for a reason? Lack of responsibility at its finest >.<

i honestly think that some people need to have a liscence in order to be a responsible parent or guardian. It is required in my state by law to take a class on how to babysit i order to legally babysit, so why not with parenting?

 

[The3rdEye]

Second question: Do you think state or federal governments in the U.S. have the legal right to prevent children from accessing this content?

Legal right? No. Do I suspect that this is as much a combination of trying to avoid letting mature content into immature hands as it is parents telling the government "We have no f*cking idea what the hell an 'FPS' is. Take over, I've got to put 8 month old johnny in the tub and then make dinner" and that power should be taken away from them? Hells yes. Simple and sweet, videogames have evolved at an incredible pace and a majority of the older generations just can't wrap their heads around them. Add in the media shock outlets calling them (vgs) porn and murder simulators, and those gens BELIEVING it, then yeah, they look pretty incompetent without Big Brother steering them around. It's a breech of the first amendment, but what the hell are they supposed to do when people are so incredibly incompetent? I'm not going to cry if this sort of thing gets passed, but I am going to lose it if several years from now it gets worse or can't be repealed, once people who can tell a joystick from their ***** are in the vast majority.

Proper answers can be found anywhere along the scale between confusion and outrage over the continuing drive of governments to hold videogames, as a medium, separate and distinct from all other forms of expression despite repeated Constitutional smackdowns. It's been 30-some years since Space Invaders and we're still waiting for Ragnarok, yet you'd think from the way some people carry on that the end-times are upon us and the only salvation is to turn videogame violence into a new form of pornography.

That's because they ARE a fundamentally different artform. In sculpture, comic books and movies communication only happens in one direction, from the artist to the viewer. Video game's whole appeal is that it takes input from the viewer in order for the entire piece to be seen and even to determine what the final "image" looks like. It's an awesome new medium that's evolving at a fantastic rate and that's what has people so confused.


Okay, long story short: Why did you not go to see R rated movies when you were a kid? More appropriately, who were you hiding the fact that you were going to see an R rated movie from? Not laws per se, and the denial of admission to minors is a company to company thing, but what ruling body is directly above a minor? And what happens when that ruling body has no interest in being truthfully informed, and delegates to a higher ruling body which, ironically enough is driven by people of similar opinion?

Also, we're talking about a country who was actually able to sign away the rite of habeas corpus, and that is an actual legal structure that has been around for about 200 years as opposed to a form of expression that after only thirty years is now coming into it's full maturity.

 

[DarkSpectre]

When we start to give away the rights of others to the government soon we will found that one day the government will come for our rights. Our ignorance is leading to our loss of freedom and the abuse of our liberties. If you allow one group to be silenced soon you will be the one they are trying to silence. All men deserve the freedom to speak as the please and enjoy media they like. Ignorance and idiocy is their right to choose. Either all is allowed or there is no stopping those in power. This is why our country is not a democracy for then we would be beholden to the tyranny of the strong masses. No we are free under the rule of law. To abandon that freedom is foolish. Eventually we will not be the ones in power and then who will protect us?

 

[Sikachu]

When we start to give away the rights of others to the government soon we will found that one day the government will come for our rights. Our ignorance is leading to our loss of freedom and the abuse of our liberties. If you allow one group to be silenced soon you will be the one they are trying to silence. All men deserve the freedom to speak as the please and enjoy media they like. Ignorance and idiocy is their right to choose. Either all is allowed or there is no stopping those in power. This is why our country is not a democracy for then we would be beholden to the tyranny of the strong masses. No we are free under the rule of law. To abandon that freedom is foolish. Eventually we will not be the ones in power and then who will protect us?

This is ridiculously misplaced and analytically lacking, not to mention that chances are you don't even agree with yourself. How do you feel about the freedom to enjoy pornographic pictures of children, or snuff films?

 

[DarkSpectre]

First the only issue I have with those are the manner in which they are produced. A child has to be abused to make child porn. Your freedoms do not allow you to infringe upon other people's freedoms. You can make whatever kind of media you want unless it requires the infringement of other people's rights. Children are too young to be able to decide if they want to engage in pornographic media. Video games do not require the infringement of somebodies rights to produce. They may be a bad influence on children but that is for the parent to decide not the government. Everybody has the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. The primacy of these is in that order as well. You are free to pursue happiness by any means unless you seek to infringe upon another persons rights. Just because somebodies choice of what makes them happy is unpleasant to you doesn't mean you can stop them from pursuing it unless they are trying to infringe upon another person's rights. If you don't protect everybody's rights equally then you open up the system to the tyranny of the strong and powerful. If you allow them to ban video games for kids what is to stop them from banning them for adults? You have allowed them to move the line once and beak the written letter of the bill of rights. What is to stop them from doing it again? Slow creep is how a free people move towards tranny. Look at the wealth of historic evidence. Mankind is willing to give up freedom when they have taken it for granted. It happened to Rome. Straight democracy is no good either because then the minorities are at the whim of the majority. Eventually only the strong remain in power and we have set ourselves back hundreds of years as a civilization.