×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

72% of US Adults Support Violent-Game Ban For Minors

timothy posted more than 3 years ago | from the think-of-the-adolescents dept.

Censorship 478

SpuriousLogic writes with an excerpt from GameSpot: "The US Supreme Court won't start hearing arguments over California's law banning game sales to minors until November 2. However, the ruling in the court of popular opinion is already in, according to a new poll. This week, parent watchdog group Common Sense Media released the results of a survey it commissioned on children's access to violent games. Conducted by polling firm Zogby International, the survey asked 2,100 adults whether they would support a law that 'prohibits minors from purchasing ultra-violent or sexually violent video games without parental consent.' Of those surveyed, some 72 percent said they would approve such a law. Common Sense Media CEO and founder James Steyer, whose nonprofit organization is lobbying for game-restriction legislation in many states, hailed the poll's findings. 'We hope the [state] attorneys general will take a look at these poll results and that they'll side with families over protecting the profits of the video game industry.'"

cancel ×
This is a preview of your comment

No Comment Title Entered

Anonymous Coward 1 minute ago

No Comment Entered

478 comments

Do they not already have restrictions? (3, Interesting)

bertoelcon (1557907) | more than 3 years ago | (#33585116)

I have had to show an ID to get M rated games from stores here in Texas, does California not already do that?

Re:Do they not already have restrictions? (2, Informative)

Lord Byron II (671689) | more than 3 years ago | (#33585198)

There's a difference between store policy and the law. Despite what I've been told by numerous cashiers, there are (AFAIK) no laws against selling to minors:

-M-rated video games
-CDs with the Parental Advisory sticker
-tickets to R-rated movies

Re:Do they not already have restrictions? (2, Informative)

AltairDusk (1757788) | more than 3 years ago | (#33585296)

In my experience all of the chain stores will refuse to sell an M rated game to a minor as store policy. I was even asked for ID at one of the local GameStops (and I normally don't get carded at the bar so it's not that I look like a kid).

Re:Do they not already have restrictions? (3, Funny)

MichaelSmith (789609) | more than 3 years ago | (#33585386)

Probably the bartender knows how to read a persons age while the borderline aspergers kid at the game shop has to check ID.

Re:Do they not already have restrictions? (1)

varmittang (849469) | more than 3 years ago | (#33585554)

Its probably a policy of "Card no matter what" now than someone not able to tell someone's age. My father, 60 year old balding with gray hair got carded recently. He couldn't even remember the last time he had to reach into his pocket to get his ID out to buy a beer.

Re:Do they not already have restrictions? (0, Offtopic)

dkleinsc (563838) | more than 3 years ago | (#33585454)

If I'm reading that correctly, that means that there are more de facto restrictions on minors purchasing virtual guns than there are on minors purchasing real guns.

Something is out of whack here.

Re:Do they not already have restrictions? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#33585510)

Yes, you did indeed read that wrong. Absolutely wrong.

Re:Do they not already have restrictions? (1)

PolygamousRanchKid (1290638) | more than 3 years ago | (#33585504)

I have had to show an ID to get M rated games from stores here in Texas

Texans seem to take age limits very seriously. I was often in Austin on business trips. On one, I bought a pack of cigarettes at a gas station for my GF, who tagged along on the trip. I was over 30 at the time, and the attendant asked me for ID. While I was a bit confused, I asked him if I didn't look old enough. He said that he was required to ask anyone, who looks younger that 26 for an ID, and that failure to do so would lose him his job. I laughed and told him that I lived in central Europe, and was only visiting Texas, so I didn't know. He quipped back, "You're living is Russia now!"

I was also carded buying cigars, for myself, and at a bar with work colleagues. I was the last to walk in, and when the bouncer carded me, those Texan colleagues let out shrieks and yowls of laughter, that would have waked the dead. The bouncer just looked at my ID, shrugged, and chuckled.

Re:Do they not already have restrictions? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#33585508)

This isn't even a restriction in Texas. You had to show ID, because the store chose to make you show ID, not because the law required them to.

Re:Do they not already have restrictions? (1)

Thanshin (1188877) | more than 3 years ago | (#33585514)

I have had to show an ID to get M rated games from stores here in Texas

Out of pure curiosity, do you need to show an ID to rent or buy a movie like... hmm... Something equivalent to left4dead or somesuch. Zombieland, for example.

Why people distrust pollsters (5, Insightful)

Sonny Yatsen (603655) | more than 3 years ago | (#33585126)

This is why a lot of people distrusts pollsters. How people answer is dependent on how the question is written. The question that Zogby sent out here was whether people supported laws that "prohibits minors from purchasing ultraviolent or sexually violent video games without parental consent." Of course they're going to say they support the law - Zogby purposefully loaded the question against the opposing option! Do you think a lot of people are going to say that they support something that was just described to them as "ultraviolent" and "sexually violent"?

Imagine if Zogby asked a different question bent towards the other direction to the same 2000 people it polled for the first question - for example: "Do you think parents should be responsible for preventing their children from accessing video games containing violent content?" I would bet you that those same 72% are going to say "yes" to that as well.

Re:Why people distrust pollsters (4, Insightful)

Jaysyn (203771) | more than 3 years ago | (#33585196)

I'm just shocked that a whole 28% of those polled saw thru the loaded question.

Re:Why people distrust pollsters (2, Interesting)

jgtg32a (1173373) | more than 3 years ago | (#33585222)

I saw the loaded question and still agree

Re:Why people distrust pollsters (2, Insightful)

Jaysyn (203771) | more than 3 years ago | (#33585322)

How about we make it illegal to show kids rated R movies first. Or even better, how about the government quits trying to tell parents what media is or is not appropriate for their children. This is just comic books all over again.

Re:Why people distrust pollsters (4, Insightful)

Pojut (1027544) | more than 3 years ago | (#33585344)

Agreed. The only people who should be able to ban violent video games for minors are parents.

Re:Why people distrust pollsters (1)

maxume (22995) | more than 3 years ago | (#33585382)

Yeah, right, the question did not contain the words 'parental consent', so clearly, the law is intended to tell parents what to do, not to place limits on who stores sell the games to.

Re:Why people distrust pollsters (5, Informative)

ArcherB (796902) | more than 3 years ago | (#33585426)

How about we make it illegal to show kids rated R movies first. Or even better, how about the government quits trying to tell parents what media is or is not appropriate for their children. This is just comic books all over again

Actually, this would be government forcing parents to be responsible for what their kids see. This is making it so that the kids can't buy this stuff without an adult (hopefully a parent). No one is saying kids can't own these games. They just want to make sure the parents are aware of it.

Re:Why people distrust pollsters (1)

Jaysyn (203771) | more than 3 years ago | (#33585542)

Ok, the law gets passed because it's somewhat reasonable on it's face & basically the exact same system we have now, but with force of law behind it. How long would the loophole that you pointed out last before it got amended by one of the Christo-fascists currently in or soon to be in power.

same 72% (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#33585208)

yeah but THIS 72% are the same ones who would go out and buy the 'newly rated' games for their kids- just so they stop pestering them....then they would NEVER watch for fear of nightmares.

Re:Why people distrust pollsters (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#33585226)

They also don't define what a "Minor" is ... most people think some 6 year old without realizing that this could also mean a 16 year old ... nor do they define what "ultraviolent or sexually violent" content is. For all we know, these clowns could consider "ultraviolent" as any act that ends the life of another ... meaning I was breaking the law playing Wolfenstein when I was 10! Geesh.

Re:Why people distrust pollsters (1)

Ironhandx (1762146) | more than 3 years ago | (#33585240)

Yes, thats insane. Considering they asked the poll in the worst possible way and they would use any resulting legislation to ban absolutely everything right down to Final Fantasy style violence. I have to say, while I'm not a FF nut and don't play the MMO or anything, my late childhood experience would have been fairly different, and in my opinion worse, if it were not for FF and other games of its kind.

Re:Why people distrust pollsters (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#33585472)

my late childhood experience would have been fairly different, and in my opinion worse, if it were not for FF and other games of its kind.

yuo mean like, getting laid? thanks for the quote, posting on something awful to make fun of you.

Re:Why people distrust pollsters (4, Insightful)

ArcherB (796902) | more than 3 years ago | (#33585250)

"Do you think parents should be responsible for preventing their children from accessing video games containing violent content?" I would bet you that those same 72% are going to say "yes" to that as well.

I agree! What better way to make the parents responsible than to make the parents buy the game.

Re:Why people distrust pollsters (3, Interesting)

AltairDusk (1757788) | more than 3 years ago | (#33585340)

I have little hope that will help anything considering I've seen a woman in EB with her 8 year old (my estimation) in tow complaining to the clerk how violent and horrible some of the games they sell are. 15 minutes later (after 10 minutes of pestering from her son) she was buying the kid Grand Theft Auto.

Re:Why people distrust pollsters (2, Insightful)

ArcherB (796902) | more than 3 years ago | (#33585494)

I have little hope that will help anything considering I've seen a woman in EB with her 8 year old (my estimation) in tow complaining to the clerk how violent and horrible some of the games they sell are. 15 minutes later (after 10 minutes of pestering from her son) she was buying the kid Grand Theft Auto.

It's not up to you to agree or disagree with it. That's the parent's right to make the decision and since she bought it for her kid knowing what was in it, it's now her responsibility. When her kid pulls his car over to kick prostitutes, she is going to have a hard time taking the game maker to court since she knowingly bought the game. It might even help further if a big label was on the cover of the game that says something to the affect of "Hey, mom! This game has whore kicking!"

Re:Why people distrust pollsters (1)

wiredog (43288) | more than 3 years ago | (#33585278)

And how do you expect parents to exercise that responsibility if their kids have their own money from, say, paper routes or lawn mowing? Not let little Johnny out unattended until he's 18? Not let him do anything on the computer without being watched like a hawk until he's 18?

Re:Why people distrust pollsters (1)

Winckle (870180) | more than 3 years ago | (#33585346)

If little Johnny has video game consoles, use the age filters built into those systems. If he games on a Windows Vista/7 PC, use the same system.

Re:Why people distrust pollsters (1)

ElectricTurtle (1171201) | more than 3 years ago | (#33585364)

Just give your kids limited access accounts on whatever computers they use such that they cannot install programs without a parent's credentials. All the big name games are so in love with the Windows registry that there is no way to run them without the permissions to install them. (Giving kids limited accounts is a good idea in any case, especially if they're dumb enough to execute random files from the intarwebs.)

Re:Why people distrust pollsters (1)

Jaysyn (203771) | more than 3 years ago | (#33585424)

Little Johnny can warez the portable version of Postal 2 in about 2 hours if he was so inclined & had a broadband Internet connection. It ignores everything you just mentioned above.

Re:Why people distrust pollsters (1)

ElectricTurtle (1171201) | more than 3 years ago | (#33585552)

Yeah, everybody is just clamoring to play seven year old games. What's next, Quake? Doom? Wolfenstein 3D?! Kids today want to play current games, they're not going to be looking for half dozen+ years old abandonware.

Re:Why people distrust pollsters (1)

somersault (912633) | more than 3 years ago | (#33585446)

But what about all those horrifically violent flash/soon-to-be-WebGL games around? OMGZ WON'T SOMEBODY PLEASE THINK OF THE CHILDREN?!!!

Re:Why people distrust pollsters (1)

Dog-Cow (21281) | more than 3 years ago | (#33585468)

I haven't played an MMO in the past decade that I couldn't run by copying from another computer. DAoC, EQII, Aion, WoW.

Re:Why people distrust pollsters (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#33585558)

How about letting them do what they want with their hard-earned cash?

Re:Why people distrust pollsters (1)

jcombel (1557059) | more than 3 years ago | (#33585286)

for example: "Do you think parents should be responsible for preventing their children from accessing video games containing violent content?" I would bet you that those same 72% are going to say "yes" to that as well.

 
hello! ever raised a child? it would be impossible for parents alone to control that. with children, it takes a village, etc etc. in today's world, the village includes activists and law makers.

Re:Why people distrust pollsters (1)

Sonny Yatsen (603655) | more than 3 years ago | (#33585350)

hello! ever raised a child? it would be impossible for parents alone to control that. with children, it takes a village, etc etc. in today's world, the village includes activists and law makers.

My point was that if you change the loaded question to say the opposite, the same people would probably agree to that as well. Nothing you said invalidates my point.

Re:Why people distrust pollsters (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#33585406)

Or maybe, just maybe, little Johnny isn't going to turn into a car-jacking whore-slapping thug just because he plays GTA.

Re:Why people distrust pollsters (4, Insightful)

ElectricTurtle (1171201) | more than 3 years ago | (#33585416)

I am raising a child, and no, it doesn't take a village. I know that damn well as I'm thousands of miles from all of my family and it's a pain in the ass to not have anybody who would watch them for free. Making it illegal to purchase certain games without parental consent solves nothing. Kids will just play those games over at their friends' houses whose parents do buy them for their kids. If you don't do actual parenting and investigate the environments and people that your kids are hanging around, things you might rather not happen can do so easily.

I for one don't believe that kids need to be insulated from much of anything. Maturity happens from experience, and understanding cannot occur without knowledge.

Re:Why people distrust pollsters (1)

Pojut (1027544) | more than 3 years ago | (#33585444)

It also includes things like content restriction settings and parental controls built into every gaming console.

You know...the restrictions and controls that parent groups bitched about wanting to include in gaming consoles.

Re:Why people distrust pollsters (2, Interesting)

Defenestrar (1773808) | more than 3 years ago | (#33585314)

War (legal ultraviolence) is a lot different from rape (illegal sexual violence). It's bad enough to combine separate questions (loaded enough), but the article doesn't even summarize the fundamental aspects of a statistical study!

There's also the fact that 2,100 people is a very small number to base any sort of national (or even state) law and policy on. What are the survey demographics? What are the statistically significant differences of opinion based on group? What is the study's power to detect (a significant difference 80% of the time)? Was the survey terminology defined to the participants, or if not - were there survey questions to obtain the participants' definitions of the terms?

X% of adults agree to outlaw pictures of "kittens, hamsters, and child porn" 100-X% of adults have been put on the child molestation watch list.

Now I'm going to have to look up the original survey because of bad survey reporting. It's possible that the survey was done well and the reporter dumbed it down, but it's also entirely possible that the survey ignored experimental design and statistical considerations - but in that case the reporter should have publicly ripped the survey to shreds. If a reporter can't understand statistical analysis they have no business reporting survey results!

Re:Why people distrust pollsters (1)

nschubach (922175) | more than 3 years ago | (#33585348)

Seriously, "popular" opinion cannot be obtained by polling 2100 of 300 million people. I'm sorry, but that's about 0.0007% of the populous. I can gather up 2100 people who would give different numbers.

Re:Why people distrust pollsters (1)

kurokame (1764228) | more than 3 years ago | (#33585402)

It's also trivial to bake the sample. Sure, you surveyed 2100 people. But were they an accurate model of the population as a whole, or did you select for a group which gives you a very narrow sample with well-known psychographics then use loaded questions to give you exactly the data you want to get the statistics you've been paid to deliver? Statistics are only as honest as the methodology is transparent.

Re:Why people distrust pollsters (1)

Thanshin (1188877) | more than 3 years ago | (#33585570)

"Do you think parents should be responsible for preventing their children from accessing video games containing violent content?" I would bet you that those same 72% are going to say "yes" to that as well.

Are you crazy? The mere mention of "parent's should be responsible for preventing... " will unleash immense rage and screams of "It's impossible!" "I can't know eerything my kid does!" "Anarchy! Anarchy! The end is nigh! Repent!!!"

Ok, maybe a bit less extreme, but many will get defensive at the slightest mention of parent responsability.

I RTFA and no poll data (5, Insightful)

HBI (604924) | more than 3 years ago | (#33585150)

Is this an "all" or "registered voter" poll? What areas? But I won't find that out from this article.

Besides which, Zogby has been sucking hind tit in polling for at least the last decade. Blown calls of '04 and '08, badly blown ones on Election Day, come to mind.

I wouldn't trust him if he told me the sky was blue, without checking.

The other day... (1)

O('_')O_Bush (1162487) | more than 3 years ago | (#33585154)

I got carded when buying Modern Warfare 2 for PS3 at Target. I'm 22, and look the part, but the system still wouldn't let me purchase the game without scanning the barcode on my license.

Seems like there already are measures in place to keep minors from getting M rated games, so what is the issue here?

Re:The other day... (2, Informative)

tophermeyer (1573841) | more than 3 years ago | (#33585256)

Those measures are put in place mainly by retailers.

Like the MPAA, the ESRB encourages retailers to set aged based restrictions to games with more mature ratings. Their goal is to make sure that laws don't need to be passed, and retailers are being responsible in who they sell violent/sexual games to.

Unfortunately it is really hard for the ESRB to get retailers to play along. They have very little power over the industry other than to withhold a content rating, they have no ability to stop distribution to any retailer that doesn't play nice. That is why some people are claiming we need laws.

Re:The other day... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#33585352)

These things are randomly assigned by the system for certain products. I don't see the point myself, but that's what's being implements all over the place. I had the same experience with games (also at Target) and beer, despite graying hair and a lot of stubble. You and I think it's daft, women love it though, they they're being asked because they look so young.

As long as the parents can be parents (1)

bluefoxlucid (723572) | more than 3 years ago | (#33585158)

The law doesn't ban the sale of such games, just bans kids from buying XXX-rated stuff? Okay, that's cool. As long as you can make and sell XXX-rated shit I'm good. If mommy buys you GTA4, your mommy's an idiot and deserves to be shot in the head when she takes away your copy of Halo 3.

Even the /. Headline gets it wrong (2, Informative)

Lord Byron II (671689) | more than 3 years ago | (#33585166)

The trouble with these types of surveys is that the always ask a very specific question and then the media generalizes it. In this case, they asked about "ultraviolent or sexually violent" games and if those games should require parental consent to buy them.

The Slashdot headline broadens the games to simply "violent" and broadens the purchasing restriction to an outright "ban".

I suggest we give the same people a new survey, but ask about "a government ban on mature-themed video games" and see how many people are still for it.

Re:Even the /. Headline gets it wrong (1)

Sonny Yatsen (603655) | more than 3 years ago | (#33585228)

I think the Slashdot headline is misleading because it's hard to fit the nuances into the number of characters allowed.

Re:Even the /. Headline gets it wrong (1)

Lord Byron II (671689) | more than 3 years ago | (#33585378)

Sure, but we shouldn't put headlines that say something that the poll doesn't just to fit in a space. Make the space larger, or leave a detail out, but don't change the story to fit the space.

I would have preferred:

"Majority support ultraviolent game restrictions"

That would have fit and is factually accurate.

Re:Even the /. Headline gets it wrong (1)

ArcherB (796902) | more than 3 years ago | (#33585548)

I suggest we give the same people a new survey, but ask about "a government ban on mature-themed video games" and see how many people are still for it.

The only good reason to "ban" violent video games is because kids might play it. If kids can't buy the game without a parent, you take away that excuse to ban the game from the do-gooders.

Their question wording is leading. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#33585174)

I do survey research a lot in my work (I'm an academic in the social sciences) and the wording here is really suspect. When you phrase the question as "ultraviolent or sexually violent" or sexually violent" virtually all respondents are going to support a ban. I'm actually kind of surprised Zogby let that question out without considerable revision. Had it been worded as "violent or sexually explicit" I would imagine the percentages would be much lower.

Disingenuous. (1)

bigtomrodney (993427) | more than 3 years ago | (#33585176)

And what's "ultraviolent" exactly? It's these kind of weasel-words that make these surveys dishonest. A reasonable person would probably support an age limit on games at the extreme end of the violence scale but with this vague description you can be guaranteed that if any action will be taken it'll just be on "anything with violence". What looks like a semi-reasonable idea will become an over-reaching all-encompassing bad on anything violent for anyone under 18.

What we really need is for this to be firmly the responsibility of the parent as it should have been all along. I remember a few years ago queuing for GTA:San Andreas after driving all over the city to try and get a copy on the release date. There was a fairly slovenly looking woman in the queue in front of me who asked my friend and I "Is this violent?". I replied "This is an outstanding game a revolution in gaming. It is quite violent; it involves drug-dealing, prostitution, murder and any violent rampage you can imagine any time you want. Are you buying this for someone young?". She answered "Yeah, it's my son. He's nine years old. I have to get it for him because he'll drive me mad if I don't". Now this is precisely the half-assed parent who doesn't care until their child gets into trouble and then gets to blame the game for all of the troubles. Instead of banning games we should be trying to figure out a way to have parents actually do some parenting. My own mother didn't mind me watching violent films when I was about ten or eleven years old because I had good grades, stayed out of trouble and didn't try to re-enact everything I saw on the big screen. The result of good parenting if I may be so bold. How about effective or not we put the onus back to the parents to decide what's appropriate.

Re:Disingenuous. (1)

Defenestrar (1773808) | more than 3 years ago | (#33585380)

Zogby's website has a little more information, but not as much as we'd like: [zogby.com]

UPDATE: Common Sense Media provided us with a breakdown of the poll's methodology and narrative summary, and thus we pass it on to you. Commissioned by CSM and conducted by Zogby International, the online survey collected the opinions of 2100 adults, with "slight weights" added to region, party, age, race, gender and education "to more accurately reflect the population." The margin of error is +/- 2.2 percentage points and the questions are as follows:

1. Would you support or oppose a law that prohibits minors from purchasing videogames that depict killing, maiming or sexually assaulting an image of a human being? (Support: Adults 72 percent, parents 72 percent; Oppose: Adults 22 percent, parents 24 percent)

2. How concerned are you about the impact of ultra-violent videogames on your child? (Very/Somewhat Concerned: Adults 61 percent, parents 65 percent; Somewhat Unconcerned/Not at all concerned: Adults 28 percent, parents 31 percent)

3. How would you rate the videogame industry when it comes to protecting kids from accessing violent videogames? (Excellent/Good: Adults 12 percent, parents 13 percent; Fair/poor: Adults 76 percent, parents 75 percent)

Tricky. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#33585184)

This poll is bollocks. I certainly don't wish children to buy sexually violent games but could care less about ultraviolent games.

Even that said "ultra" is certainly subjective.

Re:Tricky. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#33585282)

I'm pretty sure ultraman knew exactly what his title required of him.

Headline fail (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#33585192)

Requiring parental consent is not a "ban." Typical slashdot headline hype.

Hooray for wastes of the taxpayers money! (4, Insightful)

antifoidulus (807088) | more than 3 years ago | (#33585206)

Enforcing rules such as this are always a joke. What ends up happening is that the state ends up hiring a whole bunch of cops who do nothing all day but roam around the area going to various stores and trying to get the overworked clerk to sell them one of these games. And if the clerk gets caught the corporations usually end up not having to pay a dime(thats why they hire lobbyists), it's the poor overworked kid who made an honest mistake while performing a job that is a lot more stressful than most people realize. So now instead of paying for school he winds up having to pay a huge fine, may have his name printed in the paper etc. And yet pretty much any kid that wants these games will still be able to get their hands on them.

Ugh, Americans really need to give up this law and order fantasy where they think they can modify people's behavior just by creating laws(attn pro-lifers and anti-drug crusaders, this means you)

Re:Hooray for wastes of the taxpayers money! (5, Insightful)

bberens (965711) | more than 3 years ago | (#33585488)

So last weekend I went to see the new Resident Evil flick and I was amazed/appalled at how many parents brought their 5-10 year old children to see that movie. That is a wicked violent movie with lots of gross imagery. While I did spend a few minutes during the previews questioning the parenting ability of those people at no time did I think to myself "Boy, we really need to create a new regulatory power which would stop this." That would be stupid. Freedom means people are going to do things you think are retarded. *shrug*

Re:Hooray for wastes of the taxpayers money! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#33585594)

It will never happen. We have a loooonnnng history of molding people, foreign nations, etc. in our image, for some definition of "our", typically at gunpoint. It's hopeless.

Wait, Zogby, the "worst pollster in the world"? (0, Offtopic)

Rogerborg (306625) | more than 3 years ago | (#33585212)

WARNING: actual numbers ahead [fivethirtyeight.com], Zogby International employees must put on their Joo Janta 200 Super-Chromatic Fact Sensitive Sunglasses.

Why people even pretend these mouthwhores are any more than a you-pays-your-money-we-confirm-your-meme outfit is beyond me. I guess it makes for good press.

Isn't 72 % a bit low? (1)

migla (1099771) | more than 3 years ago | (#33585218)

How about "One in three wants children to have unsupervised access to ultra violence and sex!"

Re:Isn't 72 % a bit low? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#33585470)

There we go. That's someone who knows how to write a headline!

Wait, wait, (5, Insightful)

Iburnaga (1089755) | more than 3 years ago | (#33585238)

You already can't sell violent games to minors in most places. Minors aren't buying the games, their parents are.

all about wording the question (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#33585254)

I mean, "ultraviolent" sounds really bad doesn't it? Even worse (for Americans at least), "sexual" and "minor" in the same sentence. If the ultraviolent part didn't already cause an instinctive outrage then that would have.

The problem is bigger (1)

Voyager529 (1363959) | more than 3 years ago | (#33585272)

I'm not entirely certain that requiring parental consent will do much more than it is now. At present, most video game retailers require ID to purchase M-Rated games, but requiring parental consent does not equate to requiring INFORMED parental consent. Plenty of minors I know who have copies of violent video games got them from their parents as gifts. I'd wager that the overwhelming majority of the parents who bought the games would reconsider if they sat down and actually played the game for 20 minutes. No chance of that happening though.

Re:The problem is bigger (1)

AltairDusk (1757788) | more than 3 years ago | (#33585368)

There's also that handy little rating they always seem to ignore. They don't even need to play the game, just take a minute to realize what that rating is telling them.

What is the big deal? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#33585288)

Isn't this how other media works? I know at least where I live that a minor can't buy "explicit" music or R-rated movies without parental consent; why should video games be any different? It's not like they want to outright ban violent video games for minors; they just want to require parental consent. I don't see what the big deal is.

Yes Congresman (5, Insightful)

SmallFurryCreature (593017) | more than 3 years ago | (#33585292)

Sir Humphrey: "You know what happens: nice young lady comes up to you. Obviously you want to create a good impression, you don't want to look a fool, do you? So she starts asking you some questions: Mr. Woolley, are you worried about the number of young people without jobs?"
Bernard Woolley: "Yes"
Sir Humphrey: "Are you worried about the rise in crime among teenagers?"
Bernard Woolley: "Yes"
Sir Humphrey: "Do you think there is a lack of discipline in our Comprehensive schools?"
Bernard Woolley: "Yes"
Sir Humphrey: "Do you think young people welcome some authority and leadership in their lives?"
Bernard Woolley: "Yes"
Sir Humphrey: "Do you think they respond to a challenge?"
Bernard Woolley: "Yes"
Sir Humphrey: "Would you be in favour of reintroducing National Service?"
Bernard Woolley: "Oh...well, I suppose I might be."
Sir Humphrey: "Yes or no?"
Bernard Woolley: "Yes"
Sir Humphrey: "Of course you would, Bernard. After all you told you can't say no to that. So they don't mention the first five questions and they publish the last one."
Bernard Woolley: "Is that really what they do?"
Sir Humphrey: "Well, not the reputable ones no, but there aren't many of those. So alternatively the young lady can get the opposite result."
Bernard Woolley: "How?"
Sir Humphrey: "Mr. Woolley, are you worried about the danger of war?"
Bernard Woolley: "Yes"
Sir Humphrey: "Are you worried about the growth of armaments?"
Bernard Woolley: "Yes"
Sir Humphrey: "Do you think there is a danger in giving young people guns and teaching them how to kill?"
Bernard Woolley: "Yes"
Sir Humphrey: "Do you think it is wrong to force people to take up arms against their will?"
Bernard Woolley: "Yes"
Sir Humphrey: "Would you oppose the reintroduction of National Service?"
Bernard Woolley: "Yes"
Sir Humphrey: "There you are, you see Bernard. The perfect balanced sample."

http://www.yes-minister.com/ypmseas1a.htm [yes-minister.com]

Yes (Prime) Minister

Watch it. Understand it. Remember it.

Re:Yes Congresman (1)

MichaelSmith (789609) | more than 3 years ago | (#33585458)

Oh this takes me back:

Bernard Woolley: "Shall I file it?"
Jim Hacker: "File it? Shred it!"
Bernard Woolley: "Shred it??"
Jim Hacker: "Nobody must ever be able to find it again."
Bernard Woolley: "In that case, Minister, I think it is best I file it."

we make more criminals (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#33585298)

When we make laws that are already enforced as part of corporate policy. Hooray for over-legislation

Poor Guys... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#33585300)

What'll those guys stuck in that Chilean mine do for the next 4 months?

Surveys are worse than statistics (1)

RichMan (8097) | more than 3 years ago | (#33585304)

Did they just ask

Do you think violent and suggestive games should not be sold to vulnerable young children ?

Or did they also ask

Do you think parents should supervise children in the playground ?
Do you think parents should prevent children from watching some TV shows ?
Do you think parents should prevent children from playing some violent games ?
Do you think parents should supervise children who play online games ?

I would like to see how the second set of questions line up with the first.

almost 100% of humans opposed to killing/dying (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#33585358)

there's a handful however, that seem to think it's their vocation to destroy almost everything (in the name of ?'god'? if asked). they are some of the most dangerous/powerful folks on/to the planet. take heed.

google.com/search?hl=en&q=bush%2Bcheney%2Bwmd%2Bwolfowitz%2Bblair%2Brumsfeld%2Bobama

another interesting (in that there's no (0) discussion) ?weapon?

http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=weather+manipulation&aq=f&aqi=g10&aql=&oq=&gs_rfai=

meanwhile; (you'll be told how long & what to do?); the corepirate nazi illuminati is always hunting that patch of red on almost everyones' neck. if they cannot find yours (greed, fear ego etc...) then you can go starve. that's their (slippery/slimy) 'platform' now. see also: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antisocial_personality_disorder

never a better time to consult with/trust in our creators. the lights are coming up rapidly all over now. see you there?

greed, fear & ego (in any order) are unprecedented evile's primary weapons. those, along with deception & coercion, helps most of us remain (unwittingly?) dependent on its' life0cidal hired goons' agenda. most of our dwindling resources are being squandered on the 'wars', & continuation of the billionerrors stock markup FraUD/pyramid schemes. nobody ever mentions the real long term costs of those debacles in both life & any notion of prosperity for us, or our children. not to mention the abuse of the consciences of those of us who still have one, & the terminal damage to our atmosphere (see also: manufactured 'weather', hot etc...). see you on the other side of it? the lights are coming up all over now. the fairytail is winding down now. let your conscience be your guide. you can be more helpful than you might have imagined. we now have some choices. meanwhile; don't forget to get a little more oxygen on your brain, & look up in the sky from time to time, starting early in the day. there's lots going on up there.

"The current rate of extinction is around 10 to 100 times the usual background level, and has been elevated above the background level since the Pleistocene. The current extinction rate is more rapid than in any other extinction event in earth history, and 50% of species could be extinct by the end of this century. While the role of humans is unclear in the longer-term extinction pattern, it is clear that factors such as deforestation, habitat destruction, hunting, the introduction of non-native species, pollution and climate change have reduced biodiversity profoundly.' (wiki)

"I think the bottom line is, what kind of a world do you want to leave for your children," Andrew Smith, a professor in the Arizona State University School of Life Sciences, said in a telephone interview. "How impoverished we would be if we lost 25 percent of the world's mammals," said Smith, one of more than 100 co-authors of the report. "Within our lifetime hundreds of species could be lost as a result of our own actions, a frightening sign of what is happening to the ecosystems where they live," added Julia Marton-Lefevre, IUCN director general. "We must now set clear targets for the future to reverse this trend to ensure that our enduring legacy is not to wipe out many of our closest relatives."--

"The wealth of the universe is for me. Every thing is explicable and practical for me .... I am defeated all the time; yet to victory I am born." --emerson

no need to confuse 'religion' with being a spiritual being. our soul purpose here is to care for one another. failing that, we're simply passing through (excess baggage) being distracted/consumed by the guaranteed to fail illusionary trappings of man'kind'. & recently (about 10,000 years ago) it was determined that hoarding & excess by a few, resulted in negative consequences for all.

consult with/trust in your creators. providing more than enough of everything for everyone (without any distracting/spiritdead personal gain motives), whilst badtolling unprecedented evile, using an unlimited supply of newclear power, since/until forever. see you there?

"If my people, which are called by my name, shall humble themselves, and pray, and seek my face, and turn from their wicked ways; then will I hear from heaven, and will forgive their sin, and will heal their land." )one does not need to agree whois in charge to grasp the notion that there may be some assistance available to us(

boeing, boeing, gone.

The polling questions that (I imagine) were asked (1)

milkasing (857326) | more than 3 years ago | (#33585360)

I guessing this is how the poll went-- Q: Do you play Halo on the xbox? Yes. Q: Have you been fragged repeatedly, pwned and called a ^^&(&T *, ()(*!@#$ , etc noob by a whiny preteen son of a &^TH? (Growl) Yes. Q:Would you support ritualistic disembowelment of minors who buy and play video games? (Nods enthusiastically) YES! YES! YES! Q: Whoops sorry, that might be illegal, would you instead support a ban on sale of violent games to minors? (Aww, shrug) I guess... are you sure ritualistic disembowelment is not an option?

Sexually violent? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#33585374)

Where are people buying those supposedly sexually violent video games with rape they always seem to brandish when demanding those bans? Last I checked, games like that seemed to be the near exclusive province of japanese gamers with known offenders like the Biko series.

100% (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#33585392)

...of those 72%, 100% have never played violent video games.

Are f***ing kidding me? (1)

DoofusOfDeath (636671) | more than 3 years ago | (#33585404)

I will rip those goddam adults' arms off! It will be a real-life Fatality! Where can I get a frickin' chainsaw and my BFG9000???

I'll leave them in worse shape than Romero left Daikatana!

If 72% of people really think that (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#33585422)

then it should be pretty simple for them to amend the constitution and invalidate the entire problem with said law. Just strike the first amendment and be done with it.

If they can't then tough, your 72% support from idiots who don't think about consequences is meaningless.

Since the law was passed then you would hope (though I'm not naive enough to actually think that's how it always works in practice) a majority of people supported it and so you would expect such a result.

The issue at hand is the constitutionality of said law, and a big part of the constitution only granting some powers to the government (and explicitely restricting some things) is to prevent it from doing some things that have popular support.

Of course the law may be rules just fine according to the consituttion by the Supreme Court, in which case again popular opintion is irrelevant since the law has already been passed.

Censorship tag? Really? (1)

Commander South (1139931) | more than 3 years ago | (#33585430)

This has nothing to do with censorship, that would be if they didn't let the games be made at all, that would be censorship. Enforcement of ratings, while perhaps annoying to minors, is an entirely different topic. To quote a certain Spaniard. "You keep using that word, I do not think it means what you think it means.."

Nothing wrong with this... (0)

bjwest (14070) | more than 3 years ago | (#33585466)

I agree with banning the sale of violent games to minors - parents should have control over what their children see/play, but how long before it becomes illegal for parents to purchase them for their children?

/facepalm (1)

SendBot (29932) | more than 3 years ago | (#33585480)

How about a ban on violent behavior from adults in front of children? Or how about letting children opt out of religious organizations if they don't like being forced into one!!??

Why not? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#33585512)

Getting rid of chirpies in COD matchmaking would be priceless.

It's all in the questioning.... (1)

AmonTheMetalhead (1277044) | more than 3 years ago | (#33585526)

'prohibits minors from purchasing ultraviolent or sexually violent video games without parental consent.'

I have to wonder, remembering the hysteria that Janet Jackson's nipple caused at the super bowl, how much that one word there influenced the vote...

Please Define (1)

Kushy (225928) | more than 3 years ago | (#33585528)

Conducted by polling firm Zogby International, the survey asked 2,100 adults whether they would support a law that 'prohibits minors from purchasing ultraviolent or sexually violent video games without parental consent.'

Please define the following:

Violent video games
Ultraviolent video games
Sexual video games
Sexually violent video games

I mean come on people when you lump a first person shooter in with games that allow you to rape people of course you are going to get the results you are seeking. That is the issue with polls like this.

Do you support equal rights for women and street gangs looting and pillaging your neighborhood?

A poll will have any question you want answered your way if you phrase it correctly.

 

Kids should get it the old fashioned way, TV (1)

Shivetya (243324) | more than 3 years ago | (#33585532)

just like their parents.

Too much of the crap on TV is far worse than games, I doubt games can have a rape/child abuse/etc of the week type scenario and have it fly by.

"Common sense" Media (1)

airfoobar (1853132) | more than 3 years ago | (#33585566)

Give me a BREAK! How is it "common sense" to treat minors like idiots? Do the "adults" running that freakshow just want to feel superior to their kids? Do they seriously think that fake violence will corrupt their youth? Do they think those kids will not grow up if they keep them away from some kinds of stimuli?

There has never been a time when children were as shielded from violence as they are now, and violent video games are hardly the same as kids helping slaughter animals at dad's farm, or kids shooting enemy soldiers in the head.

This country has absolutely no balls anymore (1)

rclandrum (870572) | more than 3 years ago | (#33585596)

I am absolutely sick of new laws and regulations that do nothing but attempt to protect us from the stupid crap we to which we want to subject ourselves. Endless traffic regulations. Anti-smoking laws. Laws about exactly what we can and cannot snort, drink, smoke, or otherwise consume. Laws about whether the things we wear are flammable. Laws about how many rat turds and insect parts can be in our canned veggies. Laws that try and protect kids from seeing naked people or understanding what any farm kid knows about procreation. Laws about how fast we can go on the road. Laws about how *slow* we can go on the road. Laws about which direction and in what kind of vehicles we can go on the road. Laws about how old and experienced you must be to even think about using the roads. Laws that attempt to control what a woman can and cannot do with her raped and violated body after an attacker has fertilized her. Laws that attempt to prevent our children from learning actual facts about history and evolution and instead want them to learn religious fantasies. Laws that regulate how much crap our industry can pump into the air while our competition manufactures us into oblivion. Laws making it incredibly easy for a single asshole senator to hold up passing laws that might actually be useful, simply because they don't like the color or political party of our elected president. Laws that allow any special interest to pump money into lobbying to buy whatever stupid laws they want.

We have emasculated ourselves. We are dying a slow death of our own making while China eats our lunch and laughs. You look at pictures of happy people working and smiling in factories in this country around 1899 and you think, why in the hell did we do this to ourselves?

Load More Comments
Slashdot Account

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Don't worry, we never post anything without your permission.

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>
Sign up for Slashdot Newsletters
Create a Slashdot Account

Loading...