Video Games Being Banned
MonsieurEvil
Join Date: 2002-01-22 Member: 4Members, Retired Developer, NS1 Playtester, Contributor
Join Date: 2002-01-22 Member: 4Members, Retired Developer, NS1 Playtester, Contributor
in Discussions
<div class="IPBDescription">Washington state and DC</div> I will let you read and consider for yourselves. I am of course entirely against this, but I will weigh in a bit later (1.1 PT can't wait <!--emo&:)--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/smile.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='smile.gif'><!--endemo--> )
<a href='http://money.cnn.com/2003/04/18/commentary/game_over/column_gaming/index.htm' target='_blank'>Violent Video games banned or about to be banned</a>
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->NEW YORK (CNN/Money) - The legal tango between the gaming industry and the government has taken a step in the government's direction. Washington State's senate passed a bill Thursday that would institute a fine of up to $500 to retail employees who sell violent video games to anyone under the age of 17.
The bill passed the Senate 47-7 and is expected to be signed into law by Gov. Gary Locke. Rather than targeting games based on their ratings, the bill specifically mentions those that depict violence against law enforcement officials.
This would put the industry's top selling title, "Grand Theft Auto: Vice City," square in the bill's crosshairs. As of late February, the PlayStation 2 version of the game had sold more than 8.5 million copies worldwide ? pocketing somewhere in the neighborhood of $425 million for publisher Take Two Interactive Software (TTWO: Research, Estimates). A PC version of the game will be released May 14.
Gaming industry opponents cheered the ruling.
"Today the good guys won one," said Florida attorney Jack Thompson in an e-mail to his supporters.
Doug Lowenstein, president of the Interactive Digital Software Association (the gaming industry trade group), denounced the bill, saying, "We feel that government-mandated regulations to limit access to entertainment products are both misguided and unconstitutional. No laws restrict the sale of movies, music or books, even though some of these products may not be suitable for children. There is no basis for treating video games any differently than other forms of popular entertainment."
"GTA: Vice City" would be directly impacted by the Washington law.
While the IDSA won't comment on its plans, a lawsuit attempting to overturn the bill is likely. And one legal analyst said it might have a good chance of success.
Because it specifically focuses on "games depicting violence against public law enforcement officials" rather than using the established rating system, the bill opens up questions of interpretation.
"At first blush, this statute looks vague," said Damon Watson, an attorney who focuses on the video game and interactive entertainment industry for Bryan Cave in Los Angeles.
"I think it could be subject to challenge. Section four [which defines violence as a game that contains realistic or photographic-like depictions of aggressive content] might save it, but it doesn't use any of the traditional standards that the Supreme Court has handed down. ...It seems they picked an arbitrary word and standard, and they're trying to run with it."
While the Washington state bill is certainly the furthest any legal restriction has progressed, it's not the only one in the works.
In Washington, D.C., Sen. Joe Baca, D.-Calif., has resurrected his "Protect Children from Video Game Sex and Violence Act" for the second year. The bill would make it a federal crime to sell or rent "adult video games" to minors ? with proposed fines of $5,000 or more. Re-introduced to the House on Feb. 11, the bill is currently in the Subcommittee on Crime, Terrorism, and Homeland Security. The 2002 bill of the same name died in that committee.
At the same time, Sen. Joseph Lieberman, D.-Conn., who has been a long-time critic of the video game industry, plans to introduce legislation to fund a study on how exposure to different types of media affects players. When proposing the legislation at a research symposium, the presidential candidate made sure to single out video games.
"We are particularly interested in the impact of interactive media on our kids, now that the Internet has become such a staple and video games sales have surpassed movie box office receipts," Lieberman said. "For one thing, we should know whether games like Grand Theft Auto that celebrate violence against women, beyond being sick and offensive, are actually leading to more violence against women."
GAME (NOT) OVER
As of Friday morning, though, no bill has been introduced to the Senate.
Meanwhile, the gaming industry is currently awaiting a ruling from the U.S. 8th Circuit Court of Appeals on its attempt to overturn a St. Louis law, which bans the sale of violent video games to minors. A lower court upheld those restrictions a year ago.
Government regulation of the gaming industry is a topic I've explored several times in this column ? and one which usually generates a flood of reader mail. Most CNN/Money readers seem to feel it's the parents' responsibility, not the government's, to decide what games children are playing. In its statement, the IDSA echoed these thoughts.
"The bill simply ignores the role and responsibility of parents to monitor the games their children play, and the federal government's own data showing that parents are involved in the purchase and rental of games more than eight out of 10 times," the Digital Software Association's Lowenstein said.
"Substituting the government's judgment for parental supervision in deciding which games are appropriate for children, as this bill mandates, is both ineffective and has been proven patently unconstitutional in courts across the country."
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Morris is Director of Content Development for CNN/Money. Click here to send him an email.
<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
<a href='http://money.cnn.com/2003/04/18/commentary/game_over/column_gaming/index.htm' target='_blank'>Violent Video games banned or about to be banned</a>
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->NEW YORK (CNN/Money) - The legal tango between the gaming industry and the government has taken a step in the government's direction. Washington State's senate passed a bill Thursday that would institute a fine of up to $500 to retail employees who sell violent video games to anyone under the age of 17.
The bill passed the Senate 47-7 and is expected to be signed into law by Gov. Gary Locke. Rather than targeting games based on their ratings, the bill specifically mentions those that depict violence against law enforcement officials.
This would put the industry's top selling title, "Grand Theft Auto: Vice City," square in the bill's crosshairs. As of late February, the PlayStation 2 version of the game had sold more than 8.5 million copies worldwide ? pocketing somewhere in the neighborhood of $425 million for publisher Take Two Interactive Software (TTWO: Research, Estimates). A PC version of the game will be released May 14.
Gaming industry opponents cheered the ruling.
"Today the good guys won one," said Florida attorney Jack Thompson in an e-mail to his supporters.
Doug Lowenstein, president of the Interactive Digital Software Association (the gaming industry trade group), denounced the bill, saying, "We feel that government-mandated regulations to limit access to entertainment products are both misguided and unconstitutional. No laws restrict the sale of movies, music or books, even though some of these products may not be suitable for children. There is no basis for treating video games any differently than other forms of popular entertainment."
"GTA: Vice City" would be directly impacted by the Washington law.
While the IDSA won't comment on its plans, a lawsuit attempting to overturn the bill is likely. And one legal analyst said it might have a good chance of success.
Because it specifically focuses on "games depicting violence against public law enforcement officials" rather than using the established rating system, the bill opens up questions of interpretation.
"At first blush, this statute looks vague," said Damon Watson, an attorney who focuses on the video game and interactive entertainment industry for Bryan Cave in Los Angeles.
"I think it could be subject to challenge. Section four [which defines violence as a game that contains realistic or photographic-like depictions of aggressive content] might save it, but it doesn't use any of the traditional standards that the Supreme Court has handed down. ...It seems they picked an arbitrary word and standard, and they're trying to run with it."
While the Washington state bill is certainly the furthest any legal restriction has progressed, it's not the only one in the works.
In Washington, D.C., Sen. Joe Baca, D.-Calif., has resurrected his "Protect Children from Video Game Sex and Violence Act" for the second year. The bill would make it a federal crime to sell or rent "adult video games" to minors ? with proposed fines of $5,000 or more. Re-introduced to the House on Feb. 11, the bill is currently in the Subcommittee on Crime, Terrorism, and Homeland Security. The 2002 bill of the same name died in that committee.
At the same time, Sen. Joseph Lieberman, D.-Conn., who has been a long-time critic of the video game industry, plans to introduce legislation to fund a study on how exposure to different types of media affects players. When proposing the legislation at a research symposium, the presidential candidate made sure to single out video games.
"We are particularly interested in the impact of interactive media on our kids, now that the Internet has become such a staple and video games sales have surpassed movie box office receipts," Lieberman said. "For one thing, we should know whether games like Grand Theft Auto that celebrate violence against women, beyond being sick and offensive, are actually leading to more violence against women."
GAME (NOT) OVER
As of Friday morning, though, no bill has been introduced to the Senate.
Meanwhile, the gaming industry is currently awaiting a ruling from the U.S. 8th Circuit Court of Appeals on its attempt to overturn a St. Louis law, which bans the sale of violent video games to minors. A lower court upheld those restrictions a year ago.
Government regulation of the gaming industry is a topic I've explored several times in this column ? and one which usually generates a flood of reader mail. Most CNN/Money readers seem to feel it's the parents' responsibility, not the government's, to decide what games children are playing. In its statement, the IDSA echoed these thoughts.
"The bill simply ignores the role and responsibility of parents to monitor the games their children play, and the federal government's own data showing that parents are involved in the purchase and rental of games more than eight out of 10 times," the Digital Software Association's Lowenstein said.
"Substituting the government's judgment for parental supervision in deciding which games are appropriate for children, as this bill mandates, is both ineffective and has been proven patently unconstitutional in courts across the country."
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Morris is Director of Content Development for CNN/Money. Click here to send him an email.
<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Comments
Were there no age restrictions on games in the US or have I totally got the wrong end of the stick here?
Repression hardly ever solved social issues. The kids will just borrow ultraviolent games to their brothers , like some do with pr0n tapes...
Repression hardly ever solved social issues. The kids will just borrow ultraviolent games to their brothers , like some do with pr0n tapes... <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
And alcohol, which is a much more serious problem imo. Using fake ID's to purchase alcohol or a non-minor giving alcohol to a minor is pretty prevalent, and a much bigger problem than a dude that sits for 4 hours a day at his computer saying "OMG I PWNED J00, NUB!!!!111" to some CS script kiddie.
Next they should ban families with children under 17 from renting rated "R" movies. Oh please, FFS.
Two brothers, had been playing a realistic shooter game on the computer (i'm not mentioning its name here). (they were about 8 and 10 years of age). Anyway they got bored of the game and went outside, they acted out scenes from the game outside on the garden. The brothers then decided they wanted their game to be more authentic, they found their dads gun, unfortuately it was left in an unlocked draw, loaded. The unfortuate accident that followed resulted in the death of one of the brothers.
This a story that has been repeated many times. It was used as an arguement against violent computer games, but would the accident have occured if the gun had not be loaded?, had been in a locked cupboard? out of the childrens reach?, or the children had been supervised?
*edit* marines fireing guns adds dramatic effect...
I think that the people supporting this kind of idea aren't looking at the big picture.
Maybe I'm just on crack, but I think that if you prevent kids from actually buying the games they want, what's to stop them from spending 3 seconds on IRC to find a download site ?
You stop billy the 12 year old from buying his favorite games for 5 years and you're going to soon find out that billy NEVER *pays* for games.
<!--emo&::asrifle::--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/asrifle.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='asrifle.gif'><!--endemo--> <!--emo&::asrifle::--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/asrifle.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='asrifle.gif'><!--endemo--> <!--emo&::asrifle::--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/asrifle.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='asrifle.gif'><!--endemo--> <!--emo&::asrifle::--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/asrifle.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='asrifle.gif'><!--endemo--> <!--emo&::asrifle::--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/asrifle.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='asrifle.gif'><!--endemo--> <!--emo&::asrifle::--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/asrifle.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='asrifle.gif'><!--endemo--> <!--emo&::asrifle::--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/asrifle.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='asrifle.gif'><!--endemo--> <!--emo&::asrifle::--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/asrifle.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='asrifle.gif'><!--endemo--> <!--emo&::asrifle::--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/asrifle.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='asrifle.gif'><!--endemo--> <!--emo&::asrifle::--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/asrifle.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='asrifle.gif'><!--endemo-->
stop blaming others for your inadequacies as a parent.
banning drugs didnt stop people using them, nor did it stop the problems that drugs produce.
We weren't supposed to rent mature rated games to young children. So, a few times i had to say to a kid that they couldn't rent a game because of the rating. Well, they go get their parent out of the care, the parents chews me out and rents the game for the kid. Every other time the parent is the one who brings the game up to the counter and i don't have to bother with pointing out that the game is violent and such.
Basically, parents are idiots. Most kids who will be affected by violent video games are all ready messed up.
Based on the theories of those against violent videogames i should have snapped and killed a few hundred thousand people by now. Yet, i don't do that because my parents did their job and taught me the things i should know.
A few months ago, I went to our local Super Target (it's Target with a foods section <!--emo&:p--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/tounge.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='tounge.gif'><!--endemo-->) and picked up a Half-Life game for my friend, for his birthday. I also went and picked up a copy of The Matrix, since he enjoyed the movie, and was getting a new comp (hence the HL and Matrix on DVD <!--emo&;)--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/wink.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='wink.gif'><!--endemo-->). Anywho, when I got up to the cashier, I only placed the Half-Life copy on the "covayer belt thingie" (lol), and she rung it up, didn't even ask for an I.D. or anything. I said thanks, paid, and then circled around the store, and went and got some food at the little side restaurant they had, and then went back to the same lady.
I laid down the copy of the Matrix, and all of a sudden, she looks up at me, eyeballs me for a second or two, then asks to see my ID. When she say I was only 16, she's responds with "Sorry, you can't purchase this DVD, your not of legal age". I replied with "Well, you let me purchase an item that has an equal rating," and I held up the HL copy. She jsut looked at me, then at the box. She didn't know how to respond, so I just left.
It's things like that. People don't know what their talking about, so they blame ALL games out there. I can understand if you have an 11 year old playing Soldier of Fortune for 8 hours a day, but really, I think a 15 year old and up has the maturity to understand what's right and what's wrong, but hey, what do I know, right? I'm just a kid.
....
OR you could pass a law that mandates sterilization of people too stupid to raise kids properly. I think that'd be a much more levelheaded approach.
We have to get a movement going among computer game players somehow. It's of primary importance to the continuation of our hobby!
On the subject of age I did think it was humerous when I saw an interview with an 18 year old US marine who wasn't old enough to by a beer in her home state. Old enough to die for her country, but old enough to get ****? No waaaaaay <!--emo&:D--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/biggrin.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='biggrin.gif'><!--endemo-->
I just subscribed to the new formated Computer Games magazine. Their editor wrote that the main reason they were making their magazine more adult-oriented was because their research had shown that 98% of all game purchasers were between the ages of 18-34.
Hopefully 20 million US playstation owners, for example, have their voices heard...
you know Plato advocated censorship for children.
by the very nature of humans, we adapt, after birth to what we perceive as normal.
children veiwing such games from an early age may well grow up desensatised to (in some cases) extreme violence.
now im not saying that there arent worse examples of violence to warp fragile little minds, and im all for freedom of expresion, but senseless violence which does nothing (has no atristic merit, place in the story development? etc) should be veiwed as potentially damaging to people to young to comprehend it as 'wrong'.
now im not sure of the age limit, perhaps 17 is a little to old?
but anyway, just thought I should voice the other side as this disscussion seems to be a little one sided so far <!--emo&:D--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/biggrin.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='biggrin.gif'><!--endemo-->
you know Plato advocated censorship for children.
by the very nature of humans, we adapt, after birth to what we perceive as normal.
children veiwing such games from an early age may well grow up desensatised to (in some cases) extreme violence.
now im not saying that there arent worse examples of violence to warp fragile little minds, and im all for freedom of expresion, but senseless violence which does nothing (has no atristic merit, place in the story development? etc) should be veiwed as potentially damaging to people to young to comprehend it as 'wrong'.
now im not sure of the age limit, perhaps 17 is a little to old?
but anyway, just thought I should voice the other side as this disscussion seems to be a little one sided so far <!--emo&:D--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/biggrin.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='biggrin.gif'><!--endemo--> <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
I think you should worry a LOT more about the lack of social interaction and excercise that follows from kids obsessing with computer games. The topics of these games are thought to have a lot less influence on the kids than the actual game play. And by that I mean, how stressing is the game. Not how much blood it has.
A recent research that I cannot dig up the source for right now, indicated that kids are becoming extremely well at systematic and analytical thinking from computer games. But they really SUCK in the fantasy department, you know, spending half a day at the kitchen table with pads of blank paper and your crayons. All because of computer games.
Idiot knee jerking senators ....
I know... exactly!!
It doesn't prove a thing. Unless you do it with several thousand children from all around the world, I wouldn't subscribe to any theory coming from that.
My take on this is that it is because people who consider themselves "civilized" are repulsed by the notion that a person a can derive pleasure from engaging their mind about violence, what seems to be a basic function of our fight or flight pysche. They seem to think we can rise above are basic instincts and so try to repress human expression about violence, which seems to oppress part of the human thought process that they see as distasteful.
Another dynamic seems to be that those people making various legislation (spelling?) and news reports do not seem to go to those who have experienced this new medium for the past 20-30 years, so who could be considered experts in the field, without first coming to a pre-drawn conclusion from their own cautious and mistruSUYFl experiences. Its really no surprise this kind of stuff happens when generally older people view their childhood as more innocent - or would that be nieve - than generations after them, as they are trying to shelter themselves from emerging culture because it is shell shock to them to see children play more intellectually stimulating games than physically stimulating games and come away from that experience still "normal".
Much will be made of violent acts perpetuated by children and that they play games, just as criminals who are dark skinned and so more visible, because these images are more easily conveyed across media, thus giving some a hyper-inflated sense that these images make up the majority of the mosiac of North American societies. How much easier is it to focus on one subject many times when a problem arises, rather than taking a relatively random sample of an event so that one might see a story in its full context. Also perpuating this image is the media/viewer feedback loop, where the media displays a theory or idea and the public takes a hold of this, so when various media input sources poll the person on a particular street, the public person in turn tells that reporter the theory or idea that they derived from their media, so in a sense it seems that it is supported and thus proven by these turn of events that the exchange of ideas set in motion.
And finally, the most disturbing part of this situation, it seems that this is just yet another sign that people look less to the family unit as a guide for ethics and morality, but rather to the government to babysit with regulations. If any of those so against computer games took the time, say a few minutes here and there between political functions, to play games with people from various age demographics, I think they would find out just how much that enjoyment of the experience is connected to the way people act afterwards, kind of like how an actor can play an evil man and still be good afterwards. Nothing beats the solid experience of engaging in a shared social experience.
I think this can all be best summed up as that various people who are involved in these events don't know what the hell they are talking about.
Computer gaming is the <i>commercially most successful entertainment industry on Earth</i>. A whole generation - which has electoral rights - plays them. Hell, would you fear a ban on Hollywood productions if a senile senator had managed to get a law through the legislation of a single state? Laws change. Fast.
The fact is that we - the gamers - own the future. 98% of all games are purchased by people aged from 18 to 24 years. In twenty years, when the people who passed this law are long gone, who will make the new laws? That's right, someone who grew up with Super Mario, Cakodemons, cheesy 'Achtung!'-cries, and skulks.
Every new medium has experienced resistance - when Shakespeare wrote his first works, theatre was still considered 'barbaric' by many - who do we remember? Them or MacBeth?
The accusations brought forth against violent video games are ridiculous. Every medium in history - beginning with Sokrates' plays over Shakespeare to Bertolt Brecht and now John Carmac - has dealt with violence. It's a part of human nature, neglecting this is ridiculous.
In Germany as in Americam I see overaged politicians who couldn't hold a mouse the right way cry for a "ban on killer games". Their parents cried for a ban on Rock & Roll, and their parents cried for a ban on radio plays.
I for mine sit back, load my PC up, and listen to the Rolling Stones - Time is on my side.