Urgent! The U.S. needs your help!

[Free Speech]

Eleven States Join To Support California Game Legislation In Supreme Court (http://www.gamasutra.com/view/news/29499/Eleven_States_Join_To_Support_California_Game_Legi slation_In_Supreme_Court.php)
THE GAMER PETITION (http://action.theeca.com/p/dia/action/public/?action_KEY=1781)

[Sweetchuck]

I'll be honest, I'm afraid to click any of the links that you post.

You come off as kinda creepy.

[Free Speech]

I'll be honest, I'm afraid to click any of the links that you post.

You come off as kinda creepy.
Fair enough, that's your opinion.

In 2006, a Miami lawyer named Jack Thompson found a sex mini game in Grand Theft Auto: Vice City (need mod or series of cheats to access it).
The following year, Joe Lieberman and Hillary Clinton campaigned to put a stop to selling M and AO titles to children.
Other states did the same, but all were found unconstitutional and thrown out.

California's failed videogame violence bill is now being considered, and might set a president for a cross country federal law.
The petition asks you to voice your opinion on it.
If you sign, you are confirming that you are against making the government act like a parent to your child.

[Sweetchuck]

Fair enough, that's your opinion.

In 2006, a Miami lawyer named Jack Thompson found a sex mini game in Grand Theft Auto: Vice City (need mod or series of cheats to access it).
The following year, Joe Lieberman and Hillary Clinton campaigned to put a stop to selling M and AO titles to children.
Other states did the same, but all were found unconstitutional and thrown out.

California's failed videogame violence bill is now being considered, and might set a president for a cross country federal law.
The petition asks you to voice your opinion on it.
If you sign, you are confirming that you are against making the government act like a parent to your child.

If I didn't allow my kids to play such games, why would I give a shit if the government made it illegal to sell these games to kids?

I don't have a problem with these kinds of laws. I DO have a problem when out legislators, in their never ending quest to legislate the shit out of us makes laws that forbids me to salt my french fries in a restaurant.

To be honest, I think far too many parents are incapable of making rational decisions on behalf of their kids and laws like this aren't a bad thing.

Here's a great law - if a parent is caught buying one of these games and giving it to his kids, it would be perfectly legal for any adult to stab him in the throat with a fucking pencil.

[Free Speech]

If I didn't allow my kids to play such games, why would I give a shit if the government made it illegal to sell these games to kids?
Because you have the freedom to say yes or no now, but the government is taking that freedom away.


I don't have a problem with these kinds of laws. I DO have a problem when out legislators, in their never ending quest to legislate the shit out of us makes laws that forbids me to salt my french fries in a restaurant.
Exactly, they're doing just what they're aren't supposed to, extending law to a private residence, and dictating a lifestyle.


To be honest, I think far too many parents are incapable of making rational decisions on behalf of their kids and laws like this aren't a bad thing.
And just what are you smoking?


Here's a great law - if a parent is caught buying one of these games and giving it to his kids, it would be perfectly legal for any adult to stab him in the throat with a fucking pencil.
I don't think that would go over very well. :laugh:
A parent buying a violent videogame for their child, is really the only loophole, since the law is just for selling it, and not for buying it, but that's not the point.

People think it's a free speech issue, but it's really an ageism issue.
Why should grown ups have all the fun when a celebrity child can have a credit card for Christ's sake!

[avatar4321]

How are you losing the freedom to say yes or no to what your children play when your children can't buy the games on their own? If they have to go through the parents, how does that take the parents choice?

Not saying i agree or disagree. Don't really care about it.

Contrary to popular belief, the first amendment wasn't passed to allow pornography.

[Free Speech]

How are you losing the freedom to say yes or no to what your children play when your children can't buy the games on their own? If they have to go through the parents, how does that take the parents choice?

Not saying i agree or disagree. Don't really care about it.

Contrary to popular belief, the first amendment wasn't passed to allow pornography.
Celebrity kids pay with their own credit cards (this is a California law).
Other kids can pay with earned cash.
Little kids can play online (usually multiplayer).
What's not to get here?

As for the first amendment, look again.
Porn is an industry as well as a community.
Both are protected speech if one pays to see or use porn.
If you can get porn for free, this is not protected speech.

The government goes back and forth over this issue saying there is a difference between indecent and obscene.
I just keep thinking of that famous line "I'll know it when I see it."

[avatar4321]

Exploiting people is not speech.

[Free Speech]

Exploiting people is not speech.
This is the wrong thread to discuss that.
This is about selling violent videogames to minors.

[Nukeman]

Fair enough, that's your opinion.

In 2006, a Miami lawyer named Jack Thompson found a sex mini game in Grand Theft Auto: Vice City (need mod or series of cheats to access it).
The following year, Joe Lieberman and Hillary Clinton campaigned to put a stop to selling M and AO titles to children.
Other states did the same, but all were found unconstitutional and thrown out.

California's failed videogame violence bill is now being considered, and might set a president for a cross country federal law.
The petition asks you to voice your opinion on it.
If you sign, you are confirming that you are against making the government act like a parent to your child.This is a problem WHY??????

Why would YOU want to sell adult oriented material to minors. I suppose You're all for selling cigs and booze to children as well!!!!:poke:

How about porn as well??? Huh can we sell that too????? after all some are having sex so it really isn't doing anything to them right??????


Celebrity kids pay with their own credit cards (this is a California law).
Other kids can pay with earned cash.
Little kids can play online (usually multiplayer).
What's not to get here?
."Dude your soo off base with this regardless of WHO pays for it it is still up to the PARENTS to determine IF their child should play or view some of these games. I for one WOULD NOT ALLOW my children to play any of the GTA games... In fact NONE of them are in my house.

IF the states restrict the sale of these games to adults only that is not saying that children can not play them, but it is placing the burden on the parents to actually parent their child by reviewing the game they are about to purchase and let their kids play...

This is not a bad idea just like the sale of tobaco and alcohol to minors is a good idea so is this. Kids do not NEED everything in the world and they especialy do not NEED to know how to steel cars and pimp their ho's for a freaking game just so someone like you can say "freedom".... That is not freedom it is borderline neglect!!!!!!! IDIOT




This is the wrong thread to discuss that.
This is about selling violent videogames to minors.

What are you some freaking minor that is going to have to actually talk to your parents in order for them to buy you a violent game?????????:poke:

[Free Speech]

This is a problem WHY??????

Why would YOU want to sell adult oriented material to minors. I suppose You're all for selling cigs and booze to children as well!!!!:poke:

How about porn as well??? Huh can we sell that too????? after all some are having sex so it really isn't doing anything to them right??????

Dude your soo off base with this regardless of WHO pays for it it is still up to the PARENTS to determine IF their child should play or view some of these games. I for one WOULD NOT ALLOW my children to play any of the GTA games... In fact NONE of them are in my house.

IF the states restrict the sale of these games to adults only that is not saying that children can not play them, but it is placing the burden on the parents to actually parent their child by reviewing the game they are about to purchase and let their kids play...

This is not a bad idea just like the sale of tobaco and alcohol to minors is a good idea so is this. Kids do not NEED everything in the world and they especialy do not NEED to know how to steel cars and pimp their ho's for a freaking game just so someone like you can say "freedom".... That is not freedom it is borderline neglect!!!!!!! IDIOT





What are you some freaking minor that is going to have to actually talk to your parents in order for them to buy you a violent game?????????:poke:
First of all, I really don't like your tone of voice which is uncalled for.
Please make your point calmly and rationally without resorting to shouting or name calling.
PM me if you have a problem with me personally.

You speculate that I sell or want the sale of adult material to kids.
This is not entirely so.
I want kids to have a choice in what they see.

You ask if I was a seller of these products, would I allow the sale of porn.
The allowance of such depends on laws made, otherwise it's only natural a store owner wants to make a quick buck.

You say I don't realize what this controversy is about, paying for the game, or the use of the game.
My comment was a response to a previous post saying that kids have no way to pay for it anyway, which is not true.
This is not about the right a parent has (instead of government) to not allow their children to play the games, but about the right children have to buy the games.

If they do pass this law, it isn't teaching bad or free thinking parents a damn thing, because they can just give it to the kid.

Smoking, drinking prematurely, and everything you mentioned, endangers lives, so it's understandable laws were past against them.
Kids can temporarily get mildly aggressive during violent video games (which would last a few hours at the most) without a real desire to kill, maim, or even mildly injure, therefor it shouldn't be law.

I actually despise graphic and realistically extreme violence.
I'm an adult so it's difficult to find an M rated game that I enjoy.

[Kathianne]

This is my first post in this thread. Just saying.

[Free Speech]

This is my first post in this thread. Just saying.
This is the thread that I started. Just saying. :trolls: ;)

[Gaffer]

:popcorn:

[Mr. P]

:popcorn:

I'm with him.:popcorn:

[Kathianne]

This is the thread that I started. Just saying. :trolls: ;)

And that should make you feel warm and fuzzy. Good job! Yet just like free speech, we all get to practice it, regardless of thread starter. Now it's a private site, so there are limits and owner has the right to exercise them, via his staff.

Starting a thread doesn't give ownership, general principle of private ownership of board. If you have concerns, please pm any staff person.:beer:

[Kathianne]

Yeah, me too. :popcorn:

[Nukeman]

First of all, I really don't like your tone of voice which is uncalled for.
Please make your point calmly and rationally without resorting to shouting or name calling.
PM me if you have a problem with me personally..

HAHAHAHAAH....... You don't like my "tone of voice" give me a break when did you HEAR me??????????????? I have not shouted the BOLD was for emphasis on specific points... Get it?????????????



You speculate that I sell or want the sale of adult material to kids.
This is not entirely so.
I want kids to have a choice in what they see.

Dude it is not a Grey area, either your for it or against it. "Kids" have the choice to LISTEN to their parents!!!!!! Period!!!!!!!!!! Now if they are in a family that is abusive or dysfunctional that is an entirely DIFFERENT matter!!!!


You ask if I was a seller of these products, would I allow the sale of porn.
The allowance of such depends on laws made, otherwise it's only natural a store owner wants to make a quick buck.

I will take that as a resounding YES!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!


You say I don't realize what this controversy is about, paying for the game, or the use of the game.
My comment was a response to a previous post saying that kids have no way to pay for it anyway, which is not true.
This is not about the right a parent has (instead of government) to not allow their children to play the games, but about the right children have to buy the games.

Wrong numb skull it is still the RIGHT of the parent but when the PARENT IS NOT PRESENT TO OVERSEE WHAT THEIR CHILD IS DOING. That is when the law takes affect... Do you get that???????????????

So your telling everyone here that if a parent FORBIDS their child from purchasing a game than YOU would sell it to them when they are not around even though YOU might know it against their parents wishes??????? You are a piece of work!!!!!!!!!

If they do pass this law, it isn't teaching bad or free thinking parents a damn thing, because they can just give it to the kid.


Smoking, drinking prematurely, and everything you mentioned, endangers lives, so it's understandable laws were past against them.
Kids can temporarily get mildly aggressive during violent video games (which would last a few hours at the most) without a real desire to kill, maim, or even mildly injure, therefor it shouldn't be law.

Care to back that up with a full study conducted and peer reviewed to establish credibility!!!!!

Violence can do as much harm to a young impressionable mind as drinking and doing drugs. It desensitizes them to their actions especially when all you have to do is press the "RESTART BUTTON"




I actually despise graphic and realistically extreme violence.
I'm an adult so it's difficult to find an M rated game that I enjoyWell good for you, yet your willing to let a young impressionable mind have FULL access to this type of "extreme violence" even if the parents of these children don't want them to, just so you can make a buck..... How pathetic!!!!!!!

[Sweetchuck]

Because you have the freedom to say yes or no now, but the government is taking that freedom away.


Exactly, they're doing just what they're aren't supposed to, extending law to a private residence, and dictating a lifestyle.


And just what are you smoking?


I don't think that would go over very well. :laugh:
A parent buying a violent videogame for their child, is really the only loophole, since the law is just for selling it, and not for buying it, but that's not the point.

People think it's a free speech issue, but it's really an ageism issue.
Why should grown ups have all the fun when a celebrity child can have a credit card for Christ's sake!

I think nukeman addressed your comments accurately.

Your rationale is that the government also took away my right to kill my neighbor, rape his wife and shit on his doorstep.

[Free Speech]

HAHAHAHAAH....... You don't like my "tone of voice" give me a break when did you HEAR me??????????????? I have not shouted the BOLD was for emphasis on specific points... Get it?????????????




Dude it is not a Grey area, either your for it or against it. "Kids" have the choice to LISTEN to their parents!!!!!! Period!!!!!!!!!! Now if they are in a family that is abusive or dysfunctional that is an entirely DIFFERENT matter!!!!



I will take that as a resounding YES!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!



Wrong numb skull it is still the RIGHT of the parent but when the PARENT IS NOT PRESENT TO OVERSEE WHAT THEIR CHILD IS DOING. That is when the law takes affect... Do you get that???????????????

So your telling everyone here that if a parent FORBIDS their child from purchasing a game than YOU would sell it to them when they are not around even though YOU might know it against their parents wishes??????? You are a piece of work!!!!!!!!!

If they do pass this law, it isn't teaching bad or free thinking parents a damn thing, because they can just give it to the kid.



Care to back that up with a full study conducted and peer reviewed to establish credibility!!!!!

Violence can do as much harm to a young impressionable mind as drinking and doing drugs. It desensitizes them to their actions especially when all you have to do is press the "RESTART BUTTON"



Well good for you, yet your willing to let a young impressionable mind have FULL access to this type of "extreme violence" even if the parents of these children don't want them to, just so you can make a buck..... How pathetic!!!!!!!
This is not what I meant at all.

Putting all the letters of a word in caps in multiple quotes seems like you are shouting (my advice is use smilies in that situation).
If I am wrong, all you have to do is tell me so, not be so sarcastic about it.

What I meant was that I wouldn't be in that position because that is exactly what the manager and his boss wants, a quick buck.
Even when The Guy Game went AO because of a topless minor was in the M game, Electronic Boutique still had it on it's shelves.
By the way, carding is nothing new for store volunteer programs.

The parent not being there is irrelevant, that's what this whole thing is about, determining if kids can buy it.

My beliefs are not in question, but if I was the guy behind the counter, I would have to do what I am forced to do, but in a way you are correct.
It is my personal belief that everyone has the right to see or do what they want (if not illegal) if it is possible for them to do it.
I am not being a hypocrite because I don't like violence but would sell it.
The fact is I don't look for nor want to play those games, and many children do.

If I can find the articles again, I will show you the study.
That one (admittedly done on a small scale) was done because a previous study was flawed.
The second study looked for strong emotions in relation to character action, competition with a second player, an emotional release in problem solving, and of course pownage/bragging rights.

[Free Speech]

I think nukeman addressed your comments accurately.

Your rationale is that the government also took away my right to kill my neighbor, rape his wife and shit on his doorstep.
All 3 are rightfully illegal, and immoral acts.
Buying violent videogames are not.

Hey, a new study just came out:
http://gamepolitics.com/2010/07/12/study-playing-violent-games-helps-stress-and-depression
Letter to Joe Lieberman:
http://www.daniweb.com/news/story296992.html

[LuvRPgrl]

Fair enough, that's your opinion.

In 2006, a Miami lawyer named Jack Thompson found a sex mini game in Grand Theft Auto: Vice City (need mod or series of cheats to access it).
The following year, Joe Lieberman and Hillary Clinton campaigned to put a stop to selling M and AO titles to children.
Other states did the same, but all were found unconstitutional and thrown out.

California's failed videogame violence bill is now being considered, and might set a president for a cross country federal law.
The petition asks you to voice your opinion on it.
If you sign, you are confirming that you are against making the government act like a parent to your child.


You are simply wrong.

This law wont have the govt taking the role as parent, and giving the parents less say so, or control over their kids, in fact, just the opposite.
In fact, it will give the parents more power and control over their kids, as it will prevent the kids from renting, buying such material behind their back.
It does not in any way, shape or form restrict the parents from obtaining such games, and therefore, if the parent wants their kids to have access, the parent can easily allow it.


From the petition:
"It is no exaggeration to state that their hearing represents the single most important moment for gamers, and the pivotal issue for gaming, in the sector’s history."
IF THAT IS TRUE, ITS A VERY, VERY SAD COMMENTARY ON GAMERS.

Also, gaming is NOT speech, in my humble opinion, and the supreme court has no longer been making rulings on free speech based on the Constitution any more. The original intent and language of free speech, was "Political speech"

ANd, by the way, I am an extreme libertarian, I hate, HATE seat belt and helmet laws. I have recently come to the conclusion and opinion that nobody, NOBODY should be forced to pay taxes. I have come to realize it is immoral, illegal, unethical and just plain wrong. So, for me to side with govt control, is not usual for me. In other words, unlike some, and how I used to be, I dont have knee jerk reactions to such laws anymore.

[avatar4321]

All 3 are rightfully illegal, and immoral acts.
Buying violent videogames are not.

Hey, a new study just came out:
http://gamepolitics.com/2010/07/12/study-playing-violent-games-helps-stress-and-depression
Letter to Joe Lieberman:
http://www.daniweb.com/news/story296992.html

Corruption of minors is illegal and immoral however.

[SassyLady]

It is my personal belief that everyone has the right to see or do what they want (if not illegal) if it is possible for them to do it.

It is possible that my toddler grandchild may want to crawl into the swimming pool...and not illegal. Should I, as a parent, sit back and let him do it just because he has the right to do what he wants to?


I am not being a hypocrite because I don't like violence but would sell it. So, you don't have any ethical, moral or integrity problems with selling something to children that you personally believe to be wrong?



The fact is I don't look for nor want to play those games, and many children do. Many children want to smoke, take drugs, drink alcohol....are you saying you would facilitate their desires, knowing that all these things are unhealthy and dangerous to their health.........as are the extreme violence found in these games and the exposure to porn?


If I can find the articles again, I will show you the study.
That one (admittedly done on a small scale) was done because a previous study was flawed.
The second study looked for strong emotions in relation to character action, competition with a second player, an emotional release in problem solving, and of course pownage/bragging rights.

10,000 studies cannot change what I see with my own eyes. I have watched the behavior of my grandson deteriorate as he is playing video games.......and they are not even the violent ones ... he's just playing mario brothers .... but he gets aggressive because he wants to get to the next level........soooooooooo, imagine what he's like when any type of violence is part of the game.

I personally do not like government telling me what I can and cannot do with my children .... however, having a law that helps me protect my children from violent influences that I am not aware of is OK with me. The law is not telling me that I cannot buy and give game to my child if I choose to expose them to violence ... it's is just keeping a child from being able to buy something that is inappropriate for their age level.

The only reason the government feels the law is needed is because the gamers and store owners are too corrupt or lazy to be trusted on their own to monitor what they sell. Government intervention is only needed when society cannot be trusted to do the right and moral thing. You even said that you don't like the violence and yet you would willing to sell it to anyone. THAT is why the laws are needed.

[DragonStryk72]

Eleven U.S. state attorneys general have banded together to support the California law that restricts the sale of violent video games to minors, which was struck down by an appeals court but will be reconsidered by the Supreme Court of the United States.

An amicus brief obtained by Gamasutra was filed today by the attorneys general of Connecticut, Florida, Hawaii, Illinois, Louisiana, Maryland, Michigan, Minnesota, Mississippi, Texas, and Virginia. The brief is comprised of arguments to the Supreme Court that the states hope will inform its upcoming decision.

According to those officials, their states are "vitally interested in protecting the welfare of children and in helping parents raise them," but believe that the decision of the appeals court to strike down the law "unreasonably restricts their authority to do that."

They claim that it is "consistent with the First Amendment and this Court’s longstanding precedents" that laws can constitutionally "prevent minors from buying or renting without parental approval a defined class of video games which invite players to commit digital homicide, torture, and rape." Similar laws have been struck down numerous times on constitutional grounds.

Okay, first off, First Speech said it wrong, and presented his arguments badly. We'll try mine:

The video games industry does not in any way attempt to hide what games are violent, using title and box art to let you know what to expect. Games like God of War III, Just Cause 2, Call of Duty 2 Modern Warfare, these are all games that they are going after. The thing is, however, that the games already having a ratings system, the ESRB rating on the back of the game, that rates it. M rated games are those like the Call of Duty series, which are a series of US military First-Person shooters, most of which take place in the WWI/WWII era (with the exception of the mordern warfare games, which are essentially current day). Yes, there is violence, but it is within the context of the wars it is set around.

Another M rated game, and a perennial favorite of the anti-video game nutters is the Grand Theft Auto series. Now come on, who here reads the title of that game alone without going, "Huh, I think this game involves the theft of automobiles?" You can't fault the game industry cause you bought your kid a game named after a major felony, and it contains material based around the concept it was named for.

The game industry has done what it can, and most all stores nowadays don't sell the games to minors. This is more of the "FOR THE CHILDREN" rhetoric that's led to the belief that it's abuse if you smack your kid in public even once, and all the idiotic stranger danger crap being stuffed down our throats.

[Nukeman]

Okay, first off, First Speech said it wrong, and presented his arguments badly. We'll try mine:

The video games industry does not in any way attempt to hide what games are violent, using title and box art to let you know what to expect. Games like God of War III, Just Cause 2, Call of Duty 2 Modern Warfare, these are all games that they are going after. The thing is, however, that the games already having a ratings system, the ESRB rating on the back of the game, that rates it. M rated games are those like the Call of Duty series, which are a series of US military First-Person shooters, most of which take place in the WWI/WWII era (with the exception of the mordern warfare games, which are essentially current day). Yes, there is violence, but it is within the context of the wars it is set around.

Another M rated game, and a perennial favorite of the anti-video game nutters is the Grand Theft Auto series. Now come on, who here reads the title of that game alone without going, "Huh, I think this game involves the theft of automobiles?" You can't fault the game industry cause you bought your kid a game named after a major felony, and it contains material based around the concept it was named for.

The game industry has done what it can, and most all stores nowadays don't sell the games to minors. This is more of the "FOR THE CHILDREN" rhetoric that's led to the belief that it's abuse if you smack your kid in public even once, and all the idiotic stranger danger crap being stuffed down our throats.
The only reason the "law" needs to be in place is the same reason it is in place for alcohol and tobaco.

If the parents aren't there to over see what their children are purchasing how can they stop them....

Some place continue to sell alcohol and tobaco to minors EVEN THOUGH it is AGAINST THE LAW.. Free_speech has already admitted that (he/she) would sell to make a buck regardless of parental wishes untill it bacame a legal issue. That is the point. I am not saying "this is for the chidren" but i am saying it is an extension of the parents being able to parent their own children without someone usurping their authority by selling them games they don't want their children purchasing..

At the current time all we have is an honor system just like the movie ratings and they don't stop all kids under 17 from getting into a rated R movie.

[DragonStryk72]

The only reason the "law" needs to be in place is the same reason it is in place for alcohol and tobaco.

If the parents aren't there to over see what their children are purchasing how can they stop them....

Some place continue to sell alcohol and tobaco to minors EVEN THOUGH it is AGAINST THE LAW.. Free_speech has already admitted that (he/she) would sell to make a buck regardless of parental wishes untill it bacame a legal issue. That is the point. I am not saying "this is for the chidren" but i am saying it is an extension of the parents being able to parent their own children without someone usurping their authority by selling them games they don't want their children purchasing..

At the current time all we have is an honor system just like the movie ratings and they don't stop all kids under 17 from getting into a rated R movie.

Well, for one, they can catch them after the fact (not hard since most video game systems are kept in the living room, and the violent games are also the loudest, and have audio cues you need to play the games.), take the game away, and punish the kid who violated the rule. If they do it again, take away the the video game system. If you find out they played it at a friend's house, knowing they weren't supposed to, ground them.

Nothing would change with this law that isn't already occurring. The same people not carding now, won't card after, same as when they won't card for alcohol or cigarettes. It will not increase effectiveness of the ESRB, nor will it stop kids from getting their hands on these games.

As well, all game systems come with Parental Controls that can be activated upon turning it on, or by going to the settings menu, ensuring that the video games in question cannot be played on the system. this is an instance where no law is needed, because it is already vastly more effective than any movie ratings:


While the intent of this legislation would be to hold retailers accountable for compliance with their stated policies—presumably in that negligible 6 percent of instances where they fail to comply—the unfortunate reality is that it would introduce a liability that will likely force many retailers to seriously consider abandoning their voluntary policies and ratings education programs, undoing years of progress made on behalf of parents and their children.

Read More http://www.wired.com/geekdad/2009/03/the-esrb-search/#ixzz0uKVSWCUt


http://www.wired.com/geekdad/2009/03/the-esrb-search/

[LuvRPgrl]

Well, for one, they can catch them after the fact (not hard since most video game systems are kept in the living room, and the violent games are also the loudest, and have audio cues you need to play the games.), take the game away, and punish the kid who violated the rule. If they do it again, take away the the video game system. If you find out they played it at a friend's house, knowing they weren't supposed to, ground them.

Nothing would change with this law that isn't already occurring. The same people not carding now, won't card after, same as when they won't card for alcohol or cigarettes. It will not increase effectiveness of the ESRB, nor will it stop kids from getting their hands on these games.

As well, all game systems come with Parental Controls that can be activated upon turning it on, or by going to the settings menu, ensuring that the video games in question cannot be played on the system. this is an instance where no law is needed, because it is already vastly more effective than any movie ratings:



http://www.wired.com/geekdad/2009/03/the-esrb-search/

Saying the kids will still get the games is simply not true. I KNOW when I was in high school, it was far easier to get drugs than booze. Yea, if we realy wanted, we could get our honds on booze, but it really took some work.
If this targets kids including under 10 years, which it does, comparatively, it would be almost impossible for a 9 year old to get an adult to buy booze for them. Same would be for these games, if a 16 year old were outside \Gamestop, then adults, some, would be inclined to buy him a game, but not kids say, 13 and under.

And to say that it wont change anything is wrong. Its pretty rare these days to find a store that will sell booze to minors, they dont want to lose their license to sell liquor, its not worth the risk. As a matter of fact, when I was in high school, the way we got it, and I still see kids doing it, is we would hang out in front of a liquor store and ask an adult to buy it for us.
Now, we were 17, maybe 16 at the time. SOmetimes we failed and gave up and went and got stoned instead. I guarantee you if 13 year olds are hanging out trying to buy some booze with the help of an adult, it would be prett;y rare for them to get it.

[Free Speech]

You are totally off base on this one, and here's why:

It is possible that my toddler grandchild may want to crawl into the swimming pool...and not illegal. Should I, as a parent, sit back and let him do it just because he has the right to do what he wants to?
Actually this is illegal.
You are endangering the life of your grandchild.


So, you don't have any ethical, moral or integrity problems with selling something to children that you personally believe to be wrong?This is not what I meant.
Videogames do not endanger the life of the buyer, nor would it hinder other situations.

Many children want to smoke, take drugs, drink alcohol....are you saying you would facilitate their desires, knowing that all these things are unhealthy and dangerous to their health.........as are the extreme violence found in these games and the exposure to porn?I would feel obligated not to sell it if they put their lives in danger, however if I was ordered to I would.
Give me an example that doesn't put the life of the child or anyone else in danger, oh wait, you have!
Videogames do as much damage as reading books with foul language, listening to rock an role, dancing to a disco beat, playing pinball machines, or listening to heavy metal.
I'm not counting punk because that is dangerous.




10,000 studies cannot change what I see with my own eyes. I have watched the behavior of my grandson deteriorate as he is playing video games.......and they are not even the violent ones ... he's just playing mario brothers .... but he gets aggressive because he wants to get to the next level........soooooooooo, imagine what he's like when any type of violence is part of the game.You asked for a study, and I gave you one.

You answered your own question about your grandson.
He was releasing stress on each level by competing with or improving on his last score.
This is what a game is all about be it Monopoly, Risk, or even Tug-O-War.

I personally do not like government telling me what I can and cannot do with my children .... however, having a law that helps me protect my children from violent influences that I am not aware of is OK with me. The law is not telling me that I cannot buy and give game to my child if I choose to expose them to violence ... it's is just keeping a child from being able to buy something that is inappropriate for their age level.Well duh, a parent CAN give a violent game to his or her child.
That's not in dispute nor the issue.
The issue is the freedom for a child to buy it.
I remember a similar argument with a child buying objects that may be used for pornography, such as a Hello Kitty neck massager (Hello Kitty parent company in sex toys and dolls).


The only reason the government feels the law is needed is because the gamers and store owners are too corrupt or lazy to be trusted on their own to monitor what they sell. Government intervention is only needed when society cannot be trusted to do the right and moral thing. You even said that you don't like the violence and yet you would willing to sell it to anyone. THAT is why the laws are needed.The economy is not a corrupt business.
Granted some stocks are (maker of Sexy Beach 2 & 3), but most are not.

If a child looks for an M rating, wants the mature game, can pay for the item, it doesn't damage the child, and doesn't harm others, then yes, I feel the child should be able to buy it.

I also feel the government and police should keep their end of the deal, not to extend law into a private residence and change a lifestyle, and that's what gaming is, a lifestyle.

[Free Speech]

Okay, first off, First Speech said it wrong, and presented his arguments badly. We'll try mine:

The video games industry does not in any way attempt to hide what games are violent, using title and box art to let you know what to expect. Games like God of War III, Just Cause 2, Call of Duty 2 Modern Warfare, these are all games that they are going after. The thing is, however, that the games already having a ratings system, the ESRB rating on the back of the game, that rates it. M rated games are those like the Call of Duty series, which are a series of US military First-Person shooters, most of which take place in the WWI/WWII era (with the exception of the mordern warfare games, which are essentially current day). Yes, there is violence, but it is within the context of the wars it is set around.

Another M rated game, and a perennial favorite of the anti-video game nutters is the Grand Theft Auto series. Now come on, who here reads the title of that game alone without going, "Huh, I think this game involves the theft of automobiles?" You can't fault the game industry cause you bought your kid a game named after a major felony, and it contains material based around the concept it was named for.

The game industry has done what it can, and most all stores nowadays don't sell the games to minors. This is more of the "FOR THE CHILDREN" rhetoric that's led to the belief that it's abuse if you smack your kid in public even once, and all the idiotic stranger danger crap being stuffed down our throats.
First off it's "Free Speech" (as in what I'm fighting for) not First Speech.

The extremely graphic games are only one part of what they want to block.
Indications of blood such as Teken, moral conflict such as playing the evil Spiderman, and endangering character lives with intense emotions such as Spiderman VS Venom, is what they feel parents won't monitor even if they can.
If that's the case, I think it's their own fault and nobody else's.

The title of Grand Theft Auto, does not say anything about shooting police officers or beating hookers.
I thought it would be similar to NASCAR Racers and Spyhunter, only with a steal or be stolen theme.
Even a Disney's Cars theme would be better.

By the way, the game industry puts on a SUGGESTED rating.
The ESRB suggests changes or edits if necessary.
The final product with rating goes to (forgot the name) who can scrap the entire game if necessary (BMX XXX fell through the cracks before the ESRB got better policies).

The industry doesn't do a damn thing about ratings as you suggest.

[DragonStryk72]

Saying the kids will still get the games is simply not true. I KNOW when I was in high school, it was far easier to get drugs than booze. Yea, if we realy wanted, we could get our honds on booze, but it really took some work.
If this targets kids including under 10 years, which it does, comparatively, it would be almost impossible for a 9 year old to get an adult to buy booze for them. Same would be for these games, if a 16 year old were outside \Gamestop, then adults, some, would be inclined to buy him a game, but not kids say, 13 and under.

And to say that it wont change anything is wrong. Its pretty rare these days to find a store that will sell booze to minors, they dont want to lose their license to sell liquor, its not worth the risk. As a matter of fact, when I was in high school, the way we got it, and I still see kids doing it, is we would hang out in front of a liquor store and ask an adult to buy it for us.
Now, we were 17, maybe 16 at the time. SOmetimes we failed and gave up and went and got stoned instead. I guarantee you if 13 year olds are hanging out trying to buy some booze with the help of an adult, it would be prett;y rare for them to get it.

All you need is one friend, sibling, or sibling of a friend old enough. And as previously stated, almost all stores at this point id for M rated games, and it's voluntary. It still does not answer the question of parental responsibility. where are they going to play this game? And on what system? See, problem solved, it simply requires a small degree of involvement from the parents.

It won't change anything. Kids know the stores that'll sell them booze these days, they get fake IDs, there's a whole list of things they pull, and I say this having worked a convenience store previously.

As well, comparing violent video games to cigs or booze is a false analogy, as no one has gotten lung cancer or driven drunk on video games. it is more akin to movies, where 50% of the time, the kids will get into the movie anyhow. Yeah, the unmotivated might hit a snag, but everyone will still end up with the game.

Also, how much money are parents giving their kids these days for allowance? I mean, right off the shelf, you're looking 60-70 bucks these days for those games.

With video games, you have months of time to plan before they even come out, meaning that really, once you get down to it, the "hanging around outside the gamestore" thought is completely useless. Friends, family members, what have you, they'll still end up playing. Or they'll get it over the internet downloaded to their computer, thus again rendering the law useless.

The only thing that will stop a kid from playing violent video games are parents being involved in what their kids are doing.

[DragonStryk72]

Care to back that up with a full study conducted and peer reviewed to establish credibility!!!!!

Violence can do as much harm to a young impressionable mind as drinking and doing drugs. It desensitizes them to their actions especially when all you have to do is press the "RESTART BUTTON"



Well good for you, yet your willing to let a young impressionable mind have FULL access to this type of "extreme violence" even if the parents of these children don't want them to, just so you can make a buck..... How pathetic!!!!!!!

Really, I'm desensitized? I guess that's why I kill people so often these days. I mean, you'd think I would get tired of disposing of bodies, but there you have it, video games are the problem.

<object width="480" height="385"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/LWr4htYp9dM&amp;hl=en_US&amp;fs=1"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/LWr4htYp9dM&amp;hl=en_US&amp;fs=1" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="480" height="385"></embed></object>

<object width="480" height="385"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/MZ7comwLPFY&amp;hl=en_US&amp;fs=1"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/MZ7comwLPFY&amp;hl=en_US&amp;fs=1" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="480" height="385"></embed></object>

<object width="480" height="385"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/GLBx9XOhsm8&amp;hl=en_US&amp;fs=1"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/GLBx9XOhsm8&amp;hl=en_US&amp;fs=1" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="480" height="385"></embed></object>

Now, if you would be so kind as to present some actual legitimate evidence that say that violent video games do lead to it, that'd be great. As well, Nuke, you impugn your own argument by claiming that we are detached because we have a reset button. Either we're impressionable and can be swayed by pretty light and colors, or we are too detached because we can always reset the game.

Actually, the second point is closer to the truth, where the vast majority of gamers are completely detached from the game experience itself. What they see are point totals, enemies, achievement unlocks, powerups, and the various game elements related to them. Many skip past all story point when they play FPS actually, wishing to just go from mission to mission as quickly as possible to rack up more points. That's about it, really, if there's some funny in there to be had, awesome, but it doesn't really go any deeper than that. It's the same while playing Super Mario Bros. as it is when playing Call of Duty.

[DragonStryk72]

First off it's "Free Speech" (as in what I'm fighting for) not First Speech.

The extremely graphic games are only one part of what they want to block.
Indications of blood such as Teken, moral conflict such as playing the evil Spiderman, and endangering character lives with intense emotions such as Spiderman VS Venom, is what they feel parents won't monitor even if they can.
If that's the case, I think it's their own fault and nobody else's.

The title of Grand Theft Auto, does not say anything about shooting police officers or beating hookers.
I thought it would be similar to NASCAR Racers and Spyhunter, only with a steal or be stolen theme.
Even a Disney's Cars theme would be better.

By the way, the game industry puts on a SUGGESTED rating.
The ESRB suggests changes or edits if necessary.
The final product with rating goes to (forgot the name) who can scrap the entire game if necessary (BMX XXX fell through the cracks before the ESRB got better policies).

The industry doesn't do a damn thing about ratings as you suggest.

Wait, hold on, check the back of Grand Theft Auto IV. You'll see the M on the front, the M on the back, and next to that M on the back, it'll list the reason for such rating. it takes 10 seconds. Also, the point on the back of the box where it talks about "execution mode" on the back of the box, or it show him busting in a window, or outrunning the cops might have been an indication to you that there was more to the game. You not looking at what your buying, or learning anything about it before purchase is not the fault of the ESRB or the game industry. Other than that, how do you not realize that a game bearing the name of a major felony might have some objectionable content?

Now, I don't really play GTA, it just get boring too quickly (do something, get chased by cops, evade them or eventually die, rinse and repeat), but games such as Fable II, which has a moral choice system, or Mass Effect, and I like both of the games precisely because of the moral choice aspects of the game (Yes, I play good guy, cause bad guy just gets boring).

If you come right down to it, "violent" video games can be extended all the way down to Super Mario games, where you are always battling level upon level of baddies.

If you want a good straight racing game, the Gran Tourismo series is great, as is Need for Speed.

[SassyLady]

If a child looks for an M rating, wants the mature game, can pay for the item, it doesn't damage the child, and doesn't harm others, then yes, I feel the child should be able to buy it.


If there was no law against buying handguns ..... and a 12 year old walks into a gun store and wants a gun (which by itself does not put the child in danger), and they can pay for it, would you sell it to them?

[Sweetchuck]

If there was no law against buying handguns ..... and a 12 year old walks into a gun store and wants a gun (which by itself does not put the child in danger), and they can pay for it, would you sell it to them?

Maybe not but he might ask if he could take nude pics of them.

[SassyLady]

Maybe not but he might ask if he could take nude pics of them.

I guess we'll never know now ....... :coffee:

[NightTrain]

Maybe not but he might ask if he could take nude pics of them.

:laugh2:

[NightTrain]

This is a great law.

IF the parents want to have their kid playing a mature-rated game, then they will have to buy it for them. That's their choice and their rights as parents.

IF the parents don't want their kids to have the game and the kid attempts to purchase it solo, they can't.

I don't see what the problem is. Personally, I don't let my kids play GTA or such games, if it says 'M' on it, they don't play it. This world is already corrupting enough for a kid.

And I'd have to agree with a previous poster - after skimming over your pedophile thread the other day, I'd say you're a pretty creepy guy with some fucked up ideas regarding children.

As adults, we are supposed to PROTECT children, not expose them to the adult / immoral / violent / criminal / sexual side of the world - that will happen soon enough.

[SassyLady]

This is a great law.

IF the parents want to have their kid playing a mature-rated game, then they will have to buy it for them. That's their choice and their rights as parents.

IF the parents don't want their kids to have the game and the kid attempts to purchase it solo, they can't.

I don't see what the problem is. Personally, I don't let my kids play GTA or such games, if it says 'M' on it, they don't play it. This world is already corrupting enough for a kid.

And I'd have to agree with a previous poster - after skimming over your pedophile thread the other day, I'd say you're a pretty creepy guy with some fucked up ideas regarding children.

As adults, we are supposed to PROTECT children, not expose them to the adult / immoral / violent / criminal / sexual side of the world - that will happen soon enough.

Must spread rep!!! :clap::clap: