Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments
typodupeerror delete not in
  • Preferences

Comments: 306 +-   NY Governor to Target Violent Video Games on Wednesday April 18 2007, @11:43AM

Posted by ScuttleMonkey on Wednesday April 18 2007, @11:43AM
from the answer-to-all-the-worlds-evil-obviously dept.
politics
government
entertainment
games
NoMoreGuns writes to tell us that Governor Eliot Spitzer is planning to target violent movies and video games in a new bill. "Spitzer said he wants to restrict access to these videos and games by children, similar to motion picture regulations which prohibit youths under 17 from being admitted to R-rated movies without a parent or adult guardian. Under Spitzer's proposal, retailers who sell violent or degrading videos or video games to children contrary to the rating would be sanctioned."
story

Related Stories

This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.

NY Governor to Target Violent Video Games 50 Comments More /

 Full
 Abbreviated
 Hidden
More
Loading... please wait.

  • Election time already? (Score:5, Insightful)

    by TomRC (231027) on Wednesday April 18 2007, @11:46AM (#18784119)
    Back to focusing on trivial things, while important problems go un-addressed.

  • Bad headline! (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Rob T Firefly (844560) on Wednesday April 18 2007, @11:46AM (#18784121) Homepage Journal
    Unless I'm really misreading this, he isn't targeting the violent games at all. What he's targeting is the sale of violent games to minors, in the manner of R-rated movies.

    I expect that sort of misleading headline from the mainstream press, but Slashdot should really have fixed it.

    • Re:Bad headline! (Score:5, Insightful)

      by sqlrob (173498) on Wednesday April 18 2007, @11:50AM (#18784185)
      *NOT* in the manner of movies. That's the problem.

      Movies do not have this regulation. All media or none.

      • ???

        What? So I, hypothetically assuming I was 12 for example, could go out and buy Blood-Murder-Death-Sex 3 from my local Blockbuster? I could go ask the nice mister at the counter to take my allowance for Death-Death-Death-And-Blood 7 and he'd do it?

        There are already restrictions on buying R rated movies, at least where I live, and the same goes for video games (Already). This is really a non-issue if he means M rated by violent.

        • Re:Bad headline! (Score:4, Informative)

          by AndersOSU (873247) on Wednesday April 18 2007, @12:05PM (#18784453)
          There are legal restrictions preventing sale of porn to minors, but no legal restrictions for violence. If your blockbuster won't let twelve year olds rent "Death-Death-Death-And-Blood 7" it is due to store (or corporate) policy, not due to regulation.

          • Re:Bad headline! (Score:5, Funny)

            by Fred_A (10934) <fredNO@SPAMfredshome.org> on Wednesday April 18 2007, @12:08PM (#18784529) Homepage
            It really went downhill after "Death-Death-Death-And-Blood 5" anyway...

          • There are legal restrictions preventing sale of porn to minors, but no legal restrictions for violence. If your blockbuster won't let twelve year olds rent "Death-Death-Death-And-Blood 7" it is due to store (or corporate) policy, not due to regulation.


            It's a matter of local and state laws, not federal laws. There are no federal laws banning the sale of any movies to minors, AFAIK. However, most states have laws regarding the sale of pornography or movies with strong sexual content. Surprisingly, most states do NOT have laws concerning violence.

            So what we as a society are saying is that it's okay for kids to see people shooting, stabbing, kick boxing, or whatever else to each other in a violent rage, but HEAVEN FORBID if any minors see NAKED PEOPLE or, worse, two people engaged in a perfectly normal act that is part of our biological survival process as a species. Hmmm, I wonder which would inhibit the development of a child more...?

            • Re:Bad headline! (Score:5, Interesting)

              by RedHat Rocky (94208) on Wednesday April 18 2007, @12:30PM (#18784915)
              "So what we as a society are saying is that it's okay for kids to see people..."

              Incorrect. The body of law may seem to imply that, but certainly I as a parent don't. And I'm sure most of my fellow parents feel the same way.

              Parents should be responsible for their children, not the government.

                • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

                  by omeomi (675045)
                  laws in this country, at least in theory, represent the collective will of the people.

                  A fair amount of them represent the collective will of the small percentage of the people who speak the loudest and most often...

                • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

                  by ElleyKitten (715519)

                  Parents are responsible but its not just solely them children are also raised by their environment. Unless your children are isolated from their society in a 'cave' they are also being raised by the society they live in (which includes their peers.)

                  WE NEED A REAL RATING SYSTEM so parents can realistically exercise their parental rights.I should be able to set my TV, computer, and consoles with detailed instructions on exactly what I will allow shown. I don't care who applies ratings but I do think federal g

            • Re:Bad headline! (Score:4, Funny)

              by Hoi Polloi (522990) on Wednesday April 18 2007, @01:57PM (#18786365) Journal
              "but HEAVEN FORBID if any minors see NAKED PEOPLE"

              I survived seeing lots of bare breasts in German TV ads when I went to Iceland (they show some German channels). I came back unscathed but I did buy a lot of German shampoo for some reason.

          • Re:Bad headline! (Score:4, Insightful)

            by Mister Whirly (964219) on Wednesday April 18 2007, @01:58PM (#18786395) Homepage
            Yeah, we better fill that hole with a useless law. My God, for a second there parents were almost responsible for their own children's actions. I will feel much more relieved when the government is raising children again!

            On a side note, does anyone else recall that in the 80s a 14 year old kid had no problems renting R rated movies? I would do it all the time. Only one place I rented at actually required parental permission for kids to rent R rated movies. If mom and dad said it was okay, they would rent them to you.

            But then again myself and all my age related peers ARE all psychopathic serial rapists and murderers now due to this very fact.... Damn you Jack Thompson you were right!

        • Re:Bad headline! (Score:5, Informative)

          by SEE (7681) on Wednesday April 18 2007, @12:15PM (#18784653) Homepage
          There are no laws enforcing the movie ratings system. It is perfectly legal to allow a six-year-old to rent or buy a film rated R or NC-17. It is merely social custom and private policies of vendors which restrict such activities.

          Laws prohibiting the sale of indecent materials to minors do exist, but they exist independent of the ratings system, and already fully apply to video games.
            • It depends where you are. Every Canadian province has laws regarding film and video classification, with penalties for non-compliance (including exhibition, sale or rental of "unclassified" materials.)

              I think we were talking about the U.S. here. On the whole, Canadians seem to accept a much higher degree of government interference than I think would be acceptable in the U.S. (This may or may not be due to a greater degree of trust in their government, but I'd argue anyone who trusts any government is a fool
          • Any enforcement of the ratings on movies (or games for that matter) is currently on a voluntary. While some theaters or stores may have policies to restrict kids from buying/renting R or M material, the vast majority of them DO NOT.

            You're right about it being voluntary, but I think you're wrong in saying "the vast majority do not." I can't think of any major theater chain in the U.S. that doesn't enforce the MPAA ratings on movies. If you can find one that doesn't, it's just because the employees are looking the other way, not because of any official policy. I mean, the theater owners have representatives in the MPAA -- they sit on the appeals boards for rating movies. (Go see "This Film Is Not Yet Rated" if you want to know names; it's basically a who's-who of theater ownership.)

            Movie rental and sales may be a little more lax, because they're more focused on making a buck. However, the big chains all at least pay lip service to the MPAA ratings, and any difference between policy-as-written and policy-as-enforced (like being lax about the "R" rating, because it would hurt sales too much) is just going to get blamed on the employees.

      • The Book Test! (Score:3, Interesting)

        by PCM2 (4486)

        Movies do not have this regulation. All media or none.

        Here's a simple test. Would you have this regulation apply to books? Are there some books -- and I'm talking about the kind with just words in them, now, no pictures -- that are not only inappropriate for anyone under the age of 17, but that should be illegal to sell to those under 17?

        Here's me, the pimple-faced kid with the cracking voice from The Simpsons, and I'm behind the counter at a bookstore. Lisa walks up with a copy of Tropic of Cancer and

    • I expect that sort of misleading headline from the mainstream press, but Slashdot should really have fixed it.

      You must be new here.

    • Re:Bad headline! (Score:4, Insightful)

      by Ngarrang (1023425) on Wednesday April 18 2007, @12:33PM (#18784975) Journal
      And here I thought it was the parent's job to monitor the video game habits of their children. Silly me. Thank goodness the government is here to save me.

      • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

        by HTH NE1 (675604)

        a ban on selling violent games to minors is the same [to the minors' perspective] as if [the games] were banned outright
        But it still hurts the gaming companies in lost sales due to the illegality. And if it's legislated like alcohol, it'll be illegal to buy the games on the behalf of a minor, or even for parents to allow a minor to play violent games, even with supervision.

        Why crush the head when the throat is such an easy choke point, right Homer?

  • I don't see the problem with this law (Score:5, Insightful)

    by SilentChris (452960) on Wednesday April 18 2007, @11:49AM (#18784167) Homepage
    Maybe I'm missing the big picture, but what's the problem with preventing minors from buying games specifically market for adults? I know legally there's been no teeth in it up until now (and parents should really be watching out for their kids) but what's the objection to this? The only group I would think could possibly object is minors.
    • There is no equivalent for movies. There is also a potential chilling effect.

      Kids should not get their hands on these games, but that's the responsibility of the parents. They have the tools.
      • "Kids should not get their hands on these games, but that's the responsibility of the parents. They have the tools."

        Correction... it should read "My Kids should not get their hands on these games, but that's the responsibility of the parents. They have the tools."

        When you state that universally "kids" should not get their hands on the games, you validate the idea of creating a law. After all, if it is an absolute truth that "kids" should not get their hands on the games, then the only time the law wo

        • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

          by theantipop (803016)
          You're seperating the act of buying the game from the act of playing the game. The goal of laws like this are to stop a kid from playing the game, not from buying it per se. A parent definitely has the tools to take this game away and return it if they don't approve.

    • Re:I don't see the problem with this law (Score:5, Insightful)

      by Khaed (544779) on Wednesday April 18 2007, @11:55AM (#18784269)
      I'm an adult, and I have a problem with it.

      If the law just targets video games, then that is unfair. Other than pornography, there are no laws about content being sold to minors.

      Video games, like movies, are voluntarily rated. There is no law to enforce the movie ratings, as far as I am aware, and so there shouldn't be one for video games.

      Another poster here said, "All media, or none." And I agree.

          • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

            by Khaed (544779)
            The majority of voters in America are seniors who still hate comic books for "destroying America's youth."

            Don't tell them now, but comic books no longer carry those stupid "Comics Code Authority" labels advertising their safe-for-children content. Now they have ratings, just like everything else.

            Gasp, shock, horror.

  • While we're at it... (Score:5, Interesting)

    by KenshoDude (1001993) on Wednesday April 18 2007, @11:51AM (#18784199)

    Lets ban children from watching, listening to, or reading the news. There are all kinds of accounts of anti-social behaviors contained in the news. Shouldn't we be "protecting the children" from that too?

    Besides, are social problems like school related shootings really being encouraged by video games, or is it possible that massive news coverage plays a larger role? I mean, I take what I see on TV to be a lot more "real" and "possible" than anything I see on a video game.

  • Here we go again. (Score:5, Informative)

    by MrShaggy (683273) <chrislight@@@gmail...com> on Wednesday April 18 2007, @11:53AM (#18784237) Homepage Journal
    Interesting that the supreme court(?) has just struck down this very same bill, in Louisiana. The Judge berated the state for trying to undermine the constitution, as well as not seeing what has happened to very similar bills in other states. They also made the state pay out the 94,000$ in lawyer fees that the gaming industry had to pay in order to fight this.

    Apparently there was a quote from the group responsible for the bill saying that they would try again. Millions of dollars wasted in 'thinking of the children', when most stores do that anyway.
  • So he wants to make sure that certain violent games, let's presume for the moment he means M rated for the sake of argument and then deal with T, cannot be bought by people younger than 17...does New York not already have this law? I know for a fact that in Arizona selling an M rated game to a minor is illegal and actually punishable by some law, I had to show my driver's license to buy Counter Strike.

    The only thing I can see about this bill that might concern people is the definition of violent. If, by that, the bill means M rated then who cares. M rated is supposed to be sold to 17 year olds or older, so now it'll be enforced by law, that's nice. Now then, if by violent the bill intends for all games with violence, with no care to the rating, to be sold to 17 or older then we have a problem, especially since every game has violence except the most absolutely boring arcade games.

    That's all I'm concerned about, how is a violent video game defined? I'd presume by the movie part as well that it means M rated but hey, it's politics, they could very well mean to ban all games in one fell swoop.

    • Re:Let me see if I've got this... (Score:4, Informative)

      by oneiron (716313) on Wednesday April 18 2007, @12:11PM (#18784567) Homepage
      I know for a fact that in Arizona selling an M rated game to a minor is illegal and actually punishable by some law, I had to show my driver's license to buy Counter Strike.

      So, you don't think it could just be a store policy that prompted them to ask for your driver's license? Not all store policies are based on laws, you know. You really should be a bit more sure before you use a phrase like, "I know for a fact..."

    • Re:Let me see if I've got this... (Score:5, Interesting)

      by bockelboy (824282) on Wednesday April 18 2007, @12:25PM (#18784827)

      I know for a fact that in Arizona selling an M rated game to a minor is illegal and actually punishable by some law

      I know for a fact this is not true. For a writeup of this, see:
      http://arstechnica.com/news.ars/post/20070223-8915 .html [arstechnica.com]
      Video game restrictions, unless if it has something to do with pornography, are voluntary, just like movie restrictions are. Now, mind you, you have to look hard to find someone willing to violate these restrictions, which is why many people mistake this for a law.
  • I'm all for a law like the one mentioned but it won't work at all anyway since Grandma will buy Junior any game wants for Christmas. They need to teach clerks at stores to ask people who the game is intended for so they know what they're buying.

    I know a ten year old who was playing GTA San Andreas and thought that the dildo he found in the police station was a purple balloon. He's running around beating people up with it when I walk in and ask him where he found that weapon. Well, I'm still laughing. His mu

  • "Society" doesn't know best (Score:4, Insightful)

    by MikeRT (947531) on Wednesday April 18 2007, @11:56AM (#18784309) Homepage
    Parents have been basically regulated into the ground by governments like this one. They can't punish their kids without social services show up, can't buy their kid a handgun and let them carry it in their own car to a range, even if the kid is a 100% balanced eagle scout, can't let them drink, can't let them do that. All the while the parents shoulder most of the blame if their kid does anything wrong.

    That's why I say fuck the "community." The only person raised by a village was a feral, tribalist, not a civilized human being.
    • No, I think parents have down in quality. Because they can't help but blame other people for their problems. A kid carrying a gun for you seems like a accident waiting to happen. If you let your kid do this you need to remove both of you from the gene pool asap before you hurt someone. You may not hit your kid so hard that they need medical attention but generally corpral punishment is still legal. I can spank my kid or rap his knuckles but punching him in the face is a bit much.

      Parents are too caught up wi

  • gamestop (Score:3, Insightful)

    by otacon (445694) on Wednesday April 18 2007, @11:58AM (#18784337) Homepage
    Gamestop's new policy seems to be working, I'm 23, about 6'2'' 210lbs...and definatley look older than 16...and I got IDed at gamestop buying F.E.A.R. and I don't carded for cigarettes or alcohol.

  • There are NO regulations on movies in the USA (Score:4, Insightful)

    by bigbigbison (104532) on Wednesday April 18 2007, @11:59AM (#18784353) Homepage
    So when "Spitzer said he wants to restrict access to these videos and games by children, similar to motion picture regulations which prohibit youths under 17 from being admitted to R-rated movies without a parent or adult guardian." Either Spitzer is ignorant about the law, he is lying just to get headlines, or just possibly he knows there aren't any such laws and so it would be technically correct to say that there will be regulations "similar" to film regulations.

    Either way he is an ass.

    There are no laws in the USA regulating the sale of any entertainment medium. There are regulations on things like porn, but those are a genre and they are notoriously vague in that at least once a year a comic book store gets busted for selling comic books with drawings of boobs.

    If videogames were to be singled out there would have to be a mountain of evidence that shows that they are dangerous to children. No such mountain exists. Therefore, it is just singling out videogames because it is an easy way to look like you are "looking out for families."

    • Re: (Score:2, Informative)

      by SighKoPath (956085)
      In New York, it is illegal for movie theaters to admit children under 17 to R-rated films without a parent present (I know, I grew up there, and every time I'm there, I still get ID'd for R-rated films). Spitzer simply wants to extend this regulation to the retail sale of BOTH video games and movies. Also, the article mentions that it is according to the RATINGS of the media.

      I know it's too much to expect those here on /. to RTFA, but all of the above is mentioned in TFA, though in far fewer words.
    • They are refering to the fact that you can't go to a movie theatre to see an R rated movie if you are under 17 without a parent or guardian. I don't know if that's law or if it's just a very very very common practice done by movie theatres, but all they were doing is making a comparison to make us understand what he is trying to accomplish.
    • Films have ratings in the US, right? So you're seriously telling me it's totally legal for a movie theater to knowingly let a minor into an adult-rated movie over there? I'm quite surprised, if so.
  • On of the producers of Penny Arcade [penny-arcade.com] quipped, "I am willing to allow that gamers are more prone to violence so long as we agree that this violence is largely directed against peripherals." I haven't seen any real evidence that violent video games have any detrimental effects on kids in general, and in my personal experience I've seen the opposite [slashdot.org].

    But frankly, I'd be perfectly happy to have things be a bit more European around here, with less tolerance for violence in the media and also less prudish reserve

  • Wouldn't it be novel if, instead of telling us how the poor children need to be protected from violent video games or movies or comic books or sinful negro music, a politician who claims to be concerned about our children's welfare has a major campaign to get them better medical care and education?

  • Eliot Spitzer not an ass (Score:4, Informative)

    by prakslash (681585) on Wednesday April 18 2007, @12:25PM (#18784831)
    First of all, Spitzer is not an ass.

    Like many slashdotters, I have an extremely low view of politcians but Spitzer is a good man.

    When he was in New York District Attorney's office, he single-handedly ended the Gambino crime family. When he became New York's Attorney General, he showed a great zeal in going after biggest Wall Street firms like Goldman Scahs, JP Morgan that were inflating stock prices and giving biased investment advice to customers. He did it inspite of a great deal of pressure. Then, he went after music companies practising "payola" schemes to get their songs played on radio. He didnt even spare huge insurance companies like AIG and chip manufacturers practicing price-fixing and other fraud.

    Even in the current case, he is NOT against violent video games. He is just against the SALE of mature-rated video games to minors. This is no different than preventing minors from purchasing tickets to R-rated movies

  • It's about time! (Score:3, Funny)

    by Biff Stu (654099) on Wednesday April 18 2007, @12:29PM (#18784887)
    I'm sick of getting my butt kicked by teenage punks in Unreal Tournament.

  • Attn: Developers - New Game Idea (Score:4, Interesting)

    by bagsc (254194) on Wednesday April 18 2007, @01:19PM (#18785777) Journal
    Let's develop a game that shows the world that violence isn't the problem.

    In this game, you should get points for:
      humiliating and ostracizing people who are different from you,
      evading taxes by exploiting questionable tax breaks,
      using barely legal accounting practices,
      manipulating other people's emotions for political objectives,
      taking campaign contributions that create conflicts of interest,
      and suing people under immoral circumstances for profit.

    Personally, I'd rather kids pretend to shoot people.

    • Re:Fine, sanction the retailers... (Score:4, Interesting)

      by Skye16 (685048) on Wednesday April 18 2007, @11:52AM (#18784215)
      Actually, no. Attack the consumers with a vengeance. Which consumers am I referring to? The parents who buy GTA San Andreas for their 10 year old son.

      Make it illegal for retailers to provide the game to kids. That way, when the kid gets it from his inept, irresponsible, moronic parents, and actually *does* do something he saw in the game (probability dictates some retarded insane person is going to do it eventually, and you *know* what the media is going to focus on instead of them being retarded and/or insane), then the game companies and the publishers and the retailers can all say "look, the game says Adults Only, but that kids' parents got it for him, so they are obviously to blame." It will all be on mommy and daddy's shoulders then, and they won't have a leg to stand on.

      That wont' stop the media from blaming video games entirely, of course, but it still weakens their argument.

      • That way, when the kid gets it from his inept, irresponsible, moronic parents

        As the saying goes, "you can't legislate stupidity." Parents are increasingly irresponsible and clueless when it comes to what their children say and do. We're having trouble with my 10-year-old stepson because he feels we're being unfair because we won't let him have games rated T-for-Teen, or have his own cell phone. He rails at us because we won't simply let him go where he wants, when he wants, and we won't continuously feed his bad habits. He constantly tells us how "other kids' parents don't do this," to which my standard reply is "I don't care what other parents do." And I don't, because I see how other parents let their children push them around, guilt them into buying them things, browbeat them when they don't get what they want. And these people cave in!

        But again, that's what they decide to do. Parents will do stupid things and while you can make those things illegal, you can't make people not do them. Parents have to decide for themselves that buying these games for their children are a bad idea.

Search
BTW: I have a better name for the software .... Microsoft Internet Exploder. -- George Bonser

All trademarks and copyrights on this page are owned by their respective owners. Comments are owned by the Poster. The Rest © 1997-2009 Geeknet, Inc.