Illinois Game Law Passes 105
The Illinois law banning the sale of violent games to minors has passed another milestone. The Illinois House has given the law an okay, meaning both the House and the Senate have passed the law. It now moves on to be signed by the Governor. From the article: "... supporters insisted the government has a duty to help parents shield children from violence and sexuality. 'Don't let them become the monsters that we see in these violent games,' Democratic Rep. Monique Davis said."
Emotional Overcharge (Score:2, Interesting)
Re:Emotional Overcharge (Score:3, Insightful)
But as I said, that's me being cynical. If I were rational, I'd say that while it is unfortunate that this legi
Re:Emotional Overcharge (Score:3, Insightful)
Or even talk to your kid about why he won't be playing that game. It's perfectly fine not to let your 8 year old brat play an 18+ rated game, just as it's perfectly fine not to let him watch an 18+ rated film. But the emotional overcharge, as you so aptly put it, is totally off the scale, and completely unnecessary.
Re:Emotional Overcharge (Score:2)
I don't understand (Score:2, Informative)
Re:I don't understand (Score:4, Insightful)
What's more, they see that some games contain nasty things such as guns and violence. We can't have kids experiencing these things. The only possibility available is to ban these games. Forget all the adults who actually enjoy playing games.
All that is really happening here is people are frightened of things they don't understand.
Re:I don't understand (Score:2)
I agree wholeheartedly. It becomes increasingly aggravating when I hear parents complaining about how violent and nasty their young teenage kids have become, especially when they just went out and bought their kids GTA:Vice City.
I'm too tired, insert your own "Fear-Based Culture Of America" rant here.
The word need.... (Score:3, Insightful)
There is no NEED for these games. You may want to play them but no one needs to play them.
What I do not understand is this. "The only possibility available is to ban these games. Forget all the adults who actually enjoy playing games. ".
The games are not banned. The law just requires that ratings to be enforced. An adult can buy any game they want. This is nothing but a tool to help parents. No different than the R r
Re:The word need.... (Score:1)
There are alot of things parents out there don't want there children to have so according to your logic we'd have to ban the sale of of just about everything to minors as just about everything out there is likely to be offensive or unsuitable for their children in the eyes of some parents.
Why should the parents against violent games have a law but not the religious parents who are against there kids having Harry Potter books, heavy m
Re:The word need.... (Score:3, Insightful)
Baloney.
There are many laws that are designed to help parents and or protect minors.
1. A minor may not drive without his parents permission,
2. A minor may not drink at all.
3. A minor may not smoke at all.
4. Some jobs may not be done by minors at all.
5. Minors my not enter into a contract.
What you and most of the little fan boys on Slashdot don't get is the ugly little truth that the people that do not want laws like this CARE NO
Re:I don't understand (Score:2, Funny)
Now the only things that need to be done for the kids in Illinois is to stop posting violent content on the tv news, papers, books, puzzle games, toys, and coke bottles.
Re:I don't understand (Score:3, Interesting)
The difference here is HOW it is used. The ESRB is a voluntary system at every level - the publishers voluntarily put the ratings on the boxes, the retailer voluntarily chooses to restrict sales based on the ratings, and parents voluntarily choose to observe the ratings when they purchase games for their kids. In my experience, the majority of retailers DO restrict sales to minors, and most parents DO understand the ratings system. In
Re:I don't understand (Score:2)
Re:I don't understand (Score:1)
Yes, one would hope. Funny thing is, nobody thought Hitler would dismantle the German government either. Like I said, I know I sound alarmist. But people MUST think about the broader impli
Re:I don't understand (Score:2)
(1) Slippery slope [wikipedia.org] is a fallacy [nizkor.org].
(2) There is a reason for Godwin's Law [wikipedia.org]. Please do not make Hitler comparisons.
In any case, the courts will blow this law away just like they did last time [uscourts.gov], so don't worry about it. Even the law's sponsors seem to believe that if video games are speech, the law is unconstitutional. They just don't think video games are speech, which is absolutely ridiculous, and will be found as such by any reasonable court.
Re:I don't understand (Score:2)
Now if there were rampant problems of movie theaters letting in 8 year olds to R-rated movies, I'm sure the government would step in.
This is a private family issue, though, not a governmental issue. Parents should be monitoring their
Re:I don't understand (Score:1, Flamebait)
Fine. (Score:1)
Re:Fine. (Score:3, Insightful)
I see a problem, and that is YOU are not the one that would make that choice. Not only are "Violent" and "sexual" broad terms that can be mis-interpreted, but the choice really should be the parent's choice. I feel that many people, but not everybody mind you, who supports this are too lazy to do the job of being a parent and say no to video games they don't approve of, and allowing laws to ruin it for kids whos parents allow t
Re:Fine. (Score:1)
Re:Fine. (Score:2)
Re:Fine. (Score:1)
Re:Fine. (Score:1)
Re:Fine. (Score:1)
Re:Fine. (Score:2)
E.g. Will stopping you from freely expressing your ideas online ruin your life? It may make it unpleasant, but it won't ruin it. Perhaps someone should issue a legislation to ban you from posting online then.
Re:Fine. (Score:2, Funny)
Re:Fine. (Score:1)
With such
You control your kids, I'll control mine (Score:1, Insightful)
It would make as much sense if I supported a law to *FORCE* your kids to play violent and sexual games. You wouldn't like it either.
Stick to your own turf, and look after your own kids.
Re:You control your kids, I'll control mine (Score:1)
Re:Fine. (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Fine. (Score:1)
Help the parents? (Score:5, Insightful)
Does the government have a duty to help the perents only if the parents want help or does it include forcing the parents to use a prescribed set of "morals"?
Not saying children should be exposed to violence and sexuality but as we are all well aware, both terms (especially sexuality) can be widely interpreted. Some parents would as say a mere romantic kiss is sexual content, some would even go as far as saying two same-gender people holding hands is sexual.
Governments should be allowed to assist parents to be parents, they should not do the parenting themselves.
Re:Help the parents? (Score:1)
As you say, parents might have different standards. If I had a 13 year old, for example, I might let it play a 15+ game, but would not allow it to play an 18+ game.
Re:Help the parents? (Score:3, Informative)
The law doesn't stop you from doing that. What it does is prevent the clerk behind the counter from making that decision for you.
Re:Help the parents? (Score:1)
The law doesn't stop you from doing that. What it does is prevent the clerk behind the counter from making that decision for you.
I know. I should have made my position clear in that post too: I support banning the clerks from selling to underage customers. Too often the clerk will act "cool" and get more business by breaking the age limits, so a ban should be legally enforced. Like liquor lic
Re:Help the parents? (Score:3)
And maybe with this law, idiot parents will finally be forced to realize that they are responsible for what video games are brought into their house.
Which means maybe, just maybe they will finaly sit down and shut up with respect to this whole bitching-about-violent-games-making-people-violen t thing.
Which is good, because I am seriously going to lose all vestiges of sanity if
Re:Help the parents? (Score:2)
And while we're being short-sighted, do you think it'd be smart to have governments decide how to raise our children? Given that elections usually end up 50/50 (or less), you could deduce that government does NOT represent the values of most people. Thank god, otherwise my children would be learning creationism instead of evolution
You're assuming they want to be parents (Score:1, Troll)
This whole "you're not gonna do my parenting" idea is one of the big problems with America. We've got millions of parents who are in no position finacially or emotionally to be parents, but by God they're not
Where's the sense? (Score:5, Insightful)
Newsflash: Everybody has sexuality. Everybody has a penis, or breasts and a vagina. Sexuality isn't something you *shield* people from. Sexuality is something you encourage kids to become familiarised with. It's something you educate them about. It's something you nurture to maturity. This maturity, and confidence in sexuality, is part of being civilized.
Violence, on the other hand, is in a totally different ballpark. You aren't born weilding a weapon, with blood on your hands and murderous intent. The absence of violence is part of being civilized.
Why is it, then, that American culture is accepting of displays of violence in movies and on TV, but the hint of a nipple in a game or TV show is so scandalous? Fucking insane.
Common sense and reason allow one to distinguish between theatrical or game violence, and real life violence and death. I see nothing wrong with playing violent games as long as one has developed those rudimentary mental faculties, hence age restrictions are somewhat sensible.
The same applies to sexuality versus perversion. Young minds should be taught about the human body and sexuality, and nudity as not beingn perverse in itself. The perversion of sexuality is something young minds would benefit by being shielded (age restrictions, again, seeming somewhat sensible) from until they are able to distinguish between the two.
My point is although there *can* be seen to be valid motive behind restrictions on both violence and nudity, but the generally accepted reasons are completely turned on their heads and turned into pure emotionalism and sensationalism. Why, oh why, are people so fucking stupid?
Re:Where's the sense? (Score:1)
Why is it, then, that American culture is accepting of displays of violence in movies and on TV, but the hint of a nipple in a game or TV show is so scandalous?
This sort of blanket generalization is just as ignorant as those being made by the people passing the law.
Anything that excites or arouses in ANY manner is bound to be considered dangerous by somebody.
Why, oh why, are people so fucking stupid?
Because they can!
Re:Where's the sense? (Score:1)
The action of a few stupid kids... (Score:2)
Movies / Games (Score:1)
Re:Movies / Games (Score:1)
This bill's dead as soon as it becomes law (Score:4, Interesting)
a) The Illinois State Police has basically said that they have better things to do than waste their time busting video game retailers when they should be busting drug dealers and murderers.
b) At least two politicians that voted for it said they had no choice but to vote for it for fear of their vote against the bill being used against them come re-election time.
c) One politician called it for what it actually is: A publicity stunt by the governor of Illinois to boost his Presidential bid in 2008(like that's really going to work out for him, look at how Lieberman fared in his Presidential campiagn last year).
d) As soon as the governor signs it into law, it's going to challenged in Federal court and ruled unconstitutional, just like all the others before this one.
== BearDogg-X ==
Re:This bill's dead as soon as it becomes law (Score:1)
Re:This bill's dead as soon as it becomes law (Score:2)
They also have better things to do than bust convenience stores for selling cigarettes or alcohol to minors. What they will do is every so often is bust a few stores to keep the rest honest.
Even though the rhetoric of the supporters is over the top, I have no issues with the bill. Why shouldn't the default for a minor tr
Re:This bill's dead as soon as it becomes law (Score:1)
From a logical standpoint, I don't see anything truly objectionable with the idea of stopping sales of M-rated games to children (not to imply that you d
Re:This bill's dead as soon as it becomes law (Score:2)
Double Standards (Score:1)
Re:Double Standards (Score:2)
Because video game companies can't afford to bribe politicians?
Re:Double Standards (Score:1)
Monsters (Score:3, Funny)
Wouldn't it be, like, wicked cool if some of the kids who played these games became real zombies, goblins and orcs and stuff? Would make for an interesting drive through the suburb.
Me: "Orc, 11'clock"
Friend 1: Click! "Dang, shotgun jam!"
Me: *sverve* BANG! "Eat car door!"
Friend 1: "Wow! Cool!"
Me: "Crowd of zombies!"
Friend 1: "Man the M2!"
Friend 2: "Ok!" rattattattatta
Re:Monsters (Score:1)
Re:Monsters (Score:1)
When I was a kid... (Score:1)
Re:When I was a kid... (Score:1)
I play video game, so I'm a terrorist (True Story) (Score:2, Funny)
They asked a bunch of stuff about what I did for a living, where I went to school, knew I had thought about joining the Navy after high school, etc etc, before getting to the meat of it all. The Marshall then said that they had records dating back to 1996 of me requesting maps of municipal water and electric systems, city maps, county maps, lots of platt records, DOT road maps, and t
Re:I play video game, so I'm a terrorist (True Sto (Score:2)
The Shrub says that the terrorists hate us for our freedom. It is apparent that his solution is to do away with our freedom.
Re:I play video game, so I'm a terrorist (True Sto (Score:1)
Help parents parent (Score:2)
Its a parents duty to make sure their child has the best upbringing they can and to decided what is and is not suitable . A an Age advisory is fine , but enforcing it with legal powers does noone any good
Parents should know their children well enough to know if they are ready to handel a violent game or violent movie and if the parent deems it aceptable then it should be for the child
ofcourse this dosn't help bad parents any , but neither do l
A reminder to all of you.... (Score:2)
Is that so bad?
Re:None Parenting Parents....... Lazy Bastages! (Score:1)
thanks! (Score:5, Funny)
My email to Rep. Monique Davis (Score:2)
Miss Davis, I hate to tell you this, but a videogame is the last thing
that's going to make someone a monster. Ditto for movies, television,
and music. Want to know what *really* makes children into monsters?
Bad parenting, no parenting, or, worst of all, abusive parents. It's a
cinch that a kid who's living in a crack house or being abused is
gonna turn out pretty fucked up. It doesn't matter whether he plays
videogames. Another big one is g
Re:My email to Rep. Monique Davis (Score:2, Informative)
Re:My email to Rep. Monique Davis (Score:2)
Besides, I don't live in Illinois. I doubt she cares about what someone who won't be voting for or against her thinks.
WAHOO!!!!!!!!! (Score:3, Interesting)
I guess it boils down to this choice.......
either violent video games cause kids to be violent, or......
violent kids buy violent video games.
Hmmm, I wonder which is more logical? My opinion is that the fault lies in the parenting, though I think most parents don't want to accept this responsibility, so they find the nearest scapegoat (which they purchased for their child).
Easily Overlooked (Score:2)
It is written not in the same wording as morally objectionable content like pr0n, but socially dangerous material like tobacco.
This law makes an assumption that there is a casual relationship between violent video games and crime. That lays the groundwork for lawyers to start suing retail stores if little Jimmy robs a bank.
So while everyone argues about responsibil
Re:Easily Overlooked (Score:1)
I love it.
-Jeff
Re:Easily Overlooked (Score:1)
Re:Easily Overlooked (Score:1)
Is censorship always the best answer? (Score:1)
Vague use of the word "violent" (Score:2, Funny)
It's blatently obvious that this devious behavior is none other than the result of years of playing violent video games such as SUPER MARIO Bros and SUPER MARIO BROS 3, where innocent children are misguided into playing the role of the malacious character 'MARIO' in STOMPING koopas to death!
Not only does it induce children to stomp out the life of other beings, but it also teaches children
Re:Vague use of the word "violent" (Score:1)
Re:Vague use of the word "violent" (Score:1)
Thank yet another Democrat (Score:1, Interesting)
Just like banning the
The underlying issue (Score:1)
just because..... (Score:1)
Re:Whats the big deal? (Score:1)
This isn't censorship. Censorship would be if someone went round through Game Studios and made them cut out all blood, as an example.
This is regulation of sales to minors. They're not banning it or preventing it from being there, but are unhappy with the fact that a 7-year old can just go into a store and buy it.
It's the same way the govern