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!

Congress To Consider Age Limits On Violent Games

timothy posted more than 11 years ago | from the on-this-date-in-1984 dept.

Censorship 591

labrat1123 writes "It looks like Congress is getting ready to revisit the 'Protect Children from Video Game Sex and Violence Act.' Cliff Notes version: It would become a federal crime to sell or rent a violent video game to anyone under 18. Entire article available on CNN." Note that this is not a law; it's a bill being readied for reintroduction after its original version was killed last session.

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

Toddler Vomit! (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#5137422)

[b]Toddler Vomit[/b]

[b]Toddler Vomit[/b]

[b]Toddler Vomit[/b]

[I]Toddler Vomit[/I]

[TT]Toddler Vomit[/TT]

It's so encouraging to know ... (3, Funny)

burgburgburg (574866) | more than 11 years ago | (#5137430)

that in this time of imminent war, collapsed economy and everpresent terror that our legislators have their priorities set straight. I can sleep easier now.

Re:It's so encouraging to know ... (5, Insightful)

qoncept (599709) | more than 11 years ago | (#5137503)

My grandpa is annoying because all he talks about is politics, but then again, all he watches is CSPAN, so he has that right.

Before complaining about what our representatives are concentrating on, its good to find out what their priorities are.

Or perhaps a letter to your local congressman telling him to concentrate on the problems you see (which I can guarentee are getting their fair share of attention) and ONLY those problems.

Also, our unemployment rates now would make people from the 80s' mouths drop. The economy isn't bad at all.

Re:It's so encouraging to know ... (5, Insightful)

skaffen42 (579313) | more than 11 years ago | (#5137567)

Too true. Fortunately they haven't tried to stop kids from joining the army [] when they are seventeen. Much better to give them the real thing rather than virtual immitations.

And they get paid for it too!

Re:It's so encouraging to know ... (2, Funny) (637314) | more than 11 years ago | (#5137667)

You might wonder why the army doesn't push the virtual immitations more to train the youngsters for the real thing? Hah!

Re:It's so encouraging to know ... (0, Troll) (637314) | more than 11 years ago | (#5137594)

The six sacred words: nothing that is so, is so. Bush isn't a holy christian man, though he spouts 'God bless America' everytime I see him on the idiot-box [tv]. Where are all the devout christians telling him to turn the other cheek?

So on the one hand we have a leader ready to melt brown people for the preservation of oil (i know, more complicated then that). I guess the "real" christians don't want their kids to go get video games to make them do the same so we see this sort of thing.

Don't forget to censor the news.

And who's in charge of the definition of terms on these "violent" video games? Bush? The kids parents? A group of fanatics?

What I want is... (4, Funny)

CharlieO (572028) | more than 11 years ago | (#5137437)


What I want to see is the 'Protect Lawful Consumers from Iditotic Protectionist Legistlation Act'

Re:What I want is... (5, Insightful)

RealErmine (621439) | more than 11 years ago | (#5137612)

How about a "Parents Should Pay More Attention to What Their Kids Are Doing" bill. I think that one would probably hit the cause of the problem head on. But then, I guess that's not what legislation is for .

Topic? (5, Insightful)

Socratis (449796) | more than 11 years ago | (#5137442)

Why censorship? So by extension it's censorship to not sell porn to kids in middle school? Also, it doesn't mean that kids can't play these games, it just means they have to con their parents into letting them.

Re:Topic? (5, Interesting)

Fester213 (125261) | more than 11 years ago | (#5137490)

Which is how it really is already. Any parent that's dumb enough to allow their child to play something that is truly harmful to them either with or without their knowledge is dumb enough to be conned into buying it in the first place.

So this really accomplishes nothing. THANKS CONGRESS.

Also, the movie ratings aren't federally enforced, and they work as well as they're ever going to. Why do lawmakers think that video games need more attention than films?

Re:Topic? (2, Insightful)

chrisseaton (573490) | more than 11 years ago | (#5137600)

Socratis is right. If games are not censored, then people who want their children not to be able to get their hands on them can't do anything. If the games are censored, then those people are happy, and everyone else can still get the games, they just have to get an adult to do it. This is a situation that means both groups get to do what they want, although with a inconvieance to one group. If there was no censorship on the games, one group would loose out entirely. I support this.

Re:Topic? (1) (637314) | more than 11 years ago | (#5137631)

Of all the things that they could censor, you would think the alcohol/drug use in movies/television would be more censored. As a parent do you want a 15 year ole alcholic, or someone who plays quake3 all day?

Re:Topic? (1)

Tassach (137772) | more than 11 years ago | (#5137651)

The pertenent question here is whether or not Congress has the Constitutional authority to pass the law in question, and the answer to that question is no. The First Amendment trumps the commerce clause.

Is this... (1, Insightful)

Dave2 Wickham (600202) | more than 11 years ago | (#5137446)

...another law to "get in line with Europe"? (Specifically the UK, where there are age limits on games/films already - 12, 15 and 18, although not many games are rated 18)

Not surprising (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#5137541)

Europeans have had violence selectively bred out of them for centuries, through emigration, genocide and mass starvation. Violence, self defense and gun ownership are all negative traits according to the Hague based New World Order, and Europe is the beta test in reducing humans to sheeple.

The initial secular humanist cabal was satisfied using the colonies as a safety valve to eliminate violence prone individuals, figuring that the natives in the colonies (Zulus, Iroquios, Bantu, Thugges, Pollywogs and Slantees) would kill most of them, and leave the more harmless ones in Europe. Not believing in God, they didn't take God into account, who so generously provided a fecund new Jerusalem in America, where right thinking God Fearing men could subdue and populate a whole continent, Kentucky long rifle in one hand, Bible in the other.

Once the colonies were full or free, the ruling cabal had to find another way to get rid of the free thinking men who worshipped God and not man. It's not a coincidence that the most fervent Christians in the British Empire suffered a British genrerated Potato Famine in the 1870's.

Finally, the humanists attempted genocide to purge Europe of men who would defend their rights with their lives. The Jews were the first to be targetted, one only needs a cursory glance at the history of Israel to realize what a fierce opponent to soul degrading secular humanism the Jewish race would be.

Which pretty much brings us to today. The New World Order, based in the HAgue, is slowly grinding down Europenis into sub-humans, preventing them from fully achieving their full human potential, including the ability to fight for what you believe in. Teletubbies and happy, passive, non-violent vide games are part of the insidious conspiracy. Fortunately, there are enough God Fearing, right thinking men who will fight for the right for men to worship God instead of nebulous concepts like Gaia, ecology, feminism, astronomy and humanism in America, Israel and Saudi Arabia. For those of us blessed enough to live in one of God's chosen places, all we can do is pray for the poor souls being tortured in the soul crashing socialist hellhole that is Europe, and perhaps ship them a few handguns enclosed in the cases of Budweiser that we ship overseas to sate the European hunger for fine, beechwood aged corn beer.

Figures (5, Insightful)

Gentoo Fan (643403) | more than 11 years ago | (#5137450)

With 99% of the attention being focused on the Iraq soon-to-be war, I fear that lots of crap legislation will get pushed thru with almost no public scrutiny (oh wait, it's like that already).

Even so.. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#5137645)

Its about those evil no good unamerican violent video games that are corrupting our youth!

Seriously, I bet it will pass even with public scrutiny it will get passed much like the other crap that gets passed.

I bet it will get a lot of support from "sit on our asses and let the gov do our job" "parents" and "games these day are too violent, I am a fossle that has no clue as to what I am doing or talking about, and it is the new in thing to go against to get votes" government whores to support it.

And to get around first ammendment challenges (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#5137451)

I'm sure it'll just be a "recommendation", *wink*wink*, *nudge*nudge*.

What's the current punishment for... (5, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#5137452)

Say, selling a R-rated movie, or music CD with 'Explicit Lyrics' to a kid under the age of 17/18?

What about selling pornography to a person under the age of 17/18?

Re:What's the current punishment for... (1)

The Only Druid (587299) | more than 11 years ago | (#5137573)

They range, as the laws regarding those sales are by-and-large state. In some states its a fine, while others can shut down the store.

Laws already in place on this issue: (5, Informative)

EEgopher (527984) | more than 11 years ago | (#5137584)

There is a generic national law that you can't have a binding sale for ANYTHING between a merchant and a minor. If they're under 18, and the purchase is NOT a necessity (clothing, food, shelter, medical care), the child can return the product in any condition and get FULLY refunded. (of course there are dozens of court-cited examples to the special-case contrary, but this is the general rule).
Stores are already at a risk selling ANY video game to a 17-year-old, because having not reached the age of majority, the sale can be easily rescinded, in efforts to protect minors from clever merchants who make their living taking advantage of the ignorant.
So everyone relax. Restrictions for those under 18 aren't THAT terrible, and even more importantly, THEY'RE ALREADY IN PLACE!

Me, violent? (4, Funny)

escher (3402) | more than 11 years ago | (#5137455)

Lessee... Combat, Duke Nukem, Wolfenstein 3D, Duke Nukem 3D, Doom, Quake, Unreal, Unreal Tournament, Warcraft II, Starcraft, Warcraft III...

*looks around*

Nope, haven't killed any people yet.

Re:Me, violent? (1, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#5137508)

The operative word in your last sentence being yet...

Re:Me, violent? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#5137564)

Of course that operative word could be applied to nearly anything...

Re:Me, violent? (0)

azadism (578262) | more than 11 years ago | (#5137657)

Let's not forget about America's Army [] , the game that our government paid to produce and is free to download.

Free violence for kiddies! (5, Interesting)

docbrown42 (535974) | more than 11 years ago | (#5137460)

"It would become a federal crime to sell or rent a violent video game to anyone under 18."

What about giving the games away for free? What about violent freeware games?

Re:Free violence for kiddies! (1)

FatalTourist (633757) | more than 11 years ago | (#5137582)

While you're at it, how about bartering?
"I'll trade my Roger Clemens rookie for your GTA: Vice City!"

Re:Free violence for kiddies! (5, Insightful)

Kaz Riprock (590115) | more than 11 years ago | (#5137664)

What about giving the games away for free? What about violent freeware games?

No, those [] have to stay available for obvious reason.

Well that's just wonderful... (2, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#5137463)

Today Congress decided to follow the model of a popular website and begin re-examining old bills.
Next up for review is the issue of women's sufferage. This is expected to be a highly contested ...

Well, you get the idea. Nothing will be said that hasn't been previously said before on this subject.

This is actually good! (2, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#5137465)

Soon, it will be illegal to sell or loan books containing violence to persons under age 18. That would include the Bible, and keeping that mind-warping drivel from our youth will help break the cycle of these right wing conservative fucks who keep making these retarded bills!!!!!

Re:This is actually good! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#5137514)

Can't wait to see how the moderation ends up with this post!

+5 Funny in my opinion.

Re:This is actually good! (1)

insanecarbonbasedlif (623558) | more than 11 years ago | (#5137538)

Soon, it will be illegal to sell or loan books containing violence to persons under age 18. That would include the Bible, and keeping that mind-warping drivel from our youth will help break the cycle of these right wing conservative fucks who keep making these retarded bills!!!!!
Wow... you're intelligent... I think your right... the Bible is the cause of all censorship. It has nothing whatsoever to do with people in power being overly nosy and having deranged senses of responsibility for what other people do.
Seriously, this law has nothing to do with "morals" and everything to do with "mind control".

Re:This is actually good! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#5137590)

Sorry. This was *sorta* tried in Florida with no success, not that he was trying that hard. tm l

The gentleman in question had suggessted removing the bible due to the sexual content (consentual and non-consentual) and violence depicted within the book.

Re:This is actually good! (5, Insightful)

AlgUSF (238240) | more than 11 years ago | (#5137606)

Soon, it will be illegal to sell or loan books containing violence to persons under age 18. That would include the Bible, and keeping that mind-warping drivel from our youth will help break the cycle of these right wing conservative fucks who keep making these retarded bills!!!!!


"Rep. Joe Baca (D. Calif.)" has been working on re-introducing this bill, I somehow doubt that a Democrat from California is a right wing conservative fuck.

A Simple Request (4, Funny)

HorrorIsland (620928) | more than 11 years ago | (#5137470)

Please add a rider prohibiting marketing, sales, and playing to and by persons over 30 years of age. I've been putting off an awful lot of chores. Besides, my thumbs are starting to hurt. Thanks.

about time (2, Funny)

tps12 (105590) | more than 11 years ago | (#5137475)

It's good to finally see some legislation on this. If we had had age limits on violent video games, I would have never made the mistake of playing Duke Nukem 3D last week. I don't know if I'll ever recover.

Re:about time (2, Funny)

exp(pi*sqrt(163)) (613870) | more than 11 years ago | (#5137603)

About time people raised this subject. After all these years I finally had the courage to install Doom on my PC a few days ago. Oh my God! I was pretty disturbed. The sounds were really creepy. And I stayed up late to play. I really felt like I was there and that there were really horrible things lurking in the shadows. And the art in the game is just horrible. I think at one point you see the mangled innards of a corpse. How can this be legal? I haven't slept since. I really can't imagine that there'll ever be a time when I recover. How can I forget what I saw and heard? You can't just choose to forget.

I'm glad that you had the courage to speak up!

Re:about time (1)

MojoMonkey (444942) | more than 11 years ago | (#5137614)

Last week? I don't think I have had Duke3D installed on a system since '97.

Well (4, Interesting)

Auckerman (223266) | more than 11 years ago | (#5137477)

I'm sorry, but children are NOT full blown citizens with all the rights thereof. Even if there is absolutely no research supporting it, parents have a right to raise their children as they see fit by not letting them play video games (or watch a movie, or anything else for that matter).

I've been saying for years that children shouldn't be allowed to buy videogames (or movies or books of anysort) without parental consent. If you want your kid to have access to such things, get them a library card, get them a membership at Blockbuster, or perhaps even have an active role in your childs life by buying it for them.

Granted, in the US it's absolutely 100% impossible to control ALL aspects of your kids life and I would never suggest trying that, but perhaps anything that encourages involvement is a good thing.

Re:Well (1)

RatBastard (949) | more than 11 years ago | (#5137555)

One of my local retailers, Fred Meyer, already cards kids when they try to buy R rated movies, explicit content CDs, and M rated games and will not seel said items to anyone under 17 (I think, maybe 18). When I was 16 I would have been very annoyed, but as an adult I support this.

Re:Well (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#5137574)

parents have a right to raise their children as they see fit

Good point, the problem is that the proposed law will take away exactly that. How do you think this law will be enforced ?
Through parents !

Re:Well (5, Insightful)

ChaosDiscord (4913) | more than 11 years ago | (#5137609)

parents have a right to raise their children as they see fit by not letting them play video games (or watch a movie, or anything else for that matter).

Absolutely! Of course, my parents saw fit to not let me play certain video games, watch certain movies or television shows, read certain magazines, and in a few cases read certain books. They managed to do all of this without any laws enforcing it. Instead they relied on the tried and true method of actually being parents, involving themselves in my life, paying attention to me, striving to instill ethics in me, setting limits, and punishing me when I violated those limits. I seem to have turned out okay.

Laws like this are unnecessary and won't significantly change things. Good parents will continue to be good parents and bad parents will continue to be bad parents. Attempting to replace bad parents with laws is a terrible idea.

Re:Well (0, Troll)

Apreche (239272) | more than 11 years ago | (#5137611)

True, in the united states children are not full blown citizesn with civil rights. But they SHOULD BE. Just because someone has been on this earth for a shorter period of time does not mean they should be denied the rights of every other human being. First there was discrimination based on skin color and gender. Then there was discrimination based on sexual preference. The last thing is discrimination based on age.

Children are PEOPLE. They do not BELONG to their parents, they aren't posessions like a car or a television. Parents have a right to bring up a child as they see fit, I agree. In fact I would go so far as to say parents have a duty to bring up their children as best as they can. However, when the child's human rights are infringed upon that is crossing the line.

Given, that playing video games, violent or not, is not a right in any form, it is still stupid. I mean its one thing if a five year old tries to go to the store to buy GTA 3. It's another thing if a 16 year old guy has an after school job and he wants to buy the newest FPS with his own money. They have every right to buy anything they want.

Super Troll! (1)

Steveftoth (78419) | more than 11 years ago | (#5137613)

Dude, make up your mind and stop being such a troll.

If you support denying children privilidges, then fine, do so. But don't come back and say that you don't suppoty controling all aspects of a childs life because that's basically what you are saying.

I do think that children should have access to books, videogames, movies, etc. If your children couldn't get access to these materials without the parent's consent then we would have a nation of people less educated then we already have. I'm thinking more of teenagers here, when you are actually capable of digesting great works of art and literature.

We are too focused on one thing to realize that kids don't have to be told what they can and can not do as long as you provide a constructive pattern to live their lives by.

Re:Well (2, Insightful)

The Only Druid (587299) | more than 11 years ago | (#5137620)

First of all: it _is_ possible to control all aspects of your childrens' lives. How? Keep them at home, 24-7, and raise them in isolation.

Don't want to do that? Then you're going to have to equip them to deal with the real world: they'll need the social skills to understand the violence, sex, drugs and other issues in the real world as a whole. How do you do that? Expose them to those problems, explain them, and help them to understand why they exist.

No well-balanced child ever killed people, stole things or any other crime. If you're well-raised, you're a good person, end of story. My parents raised me well, and that quite simply is why I dont have the impulse to be a criminal.

Unless your child is mentally ill, you have no excuse if you raise them wrong.

I'm not looking troll: I'm not trying to tell you how to raise your kids, or accuse anyone of having bad parents. I'm here to make the point that we need to take responsibility for our actions, including raising our children.

Re:Well (1)

KevinIsOwn (618900) | more than 11 years ago | (#5137621)

I agree with you. There's no reason parent's can't be involved in the videogame buying process.

To be honest, this is a good thing. MAVAV will have less to argue about if parents are allowing their children to buy M rated games.

Re:Well (1)

cornjchob (514035) | more than 11 years ago | (#5137629)

By your logic, how many free-thinking individuals would be left? Video games are one thing (though I still don't think it's entirely right), but books?! How can one say something like that? I know kids that aren't even allowed to read books on different religions because of how their parents are. Is that fair to the children? Because a parent is closed minded, that child shouldn't have the right to expand their mind? What bullshit. How can you justify that? And a response would be nice.

Is this really so bad? (4, Interesting)

recursiv (324497) | more than 11 years ago | (#5137478)

This isn't censorship. This is just a restriction against selling these games to minors. A key point is that a parent can still buy the game for the minor if they think their kid "can handle it." Shouldn't the parents be responsible for this? Isn't this what we wanted?

Re:Is this really so bad? (1)

u-235-sentinel (594077) | more than 11 years ago | (#5137527)

Is this what really will happen or will kids line up at the store asking people over 18 to purchase the game for them. Kinda like how they purchase their cigs.

My concern is will this bill make the Government more the parent than the original parent? (did that makes sense?)

Re:Is this really so bad? (1, Insightful)

tsg (262138) | more than 11 years ago | (#5137658)

It's a stupid law.

First, show me the scientific study that proves violent video games are harmful to children.

Second, it's yet another law forcing people to be responsible for raising someone else's kids.

If parents don't want their children playing violent video games then maybe they should take an active interest in their children's life.

There are benefits (4, Funny)

mrtroy (640746) | more than 11 years ago | (#5137489)

The man show can get that little fat kid dressed in a scouts outfit to try and find people to go into bestbuy and buy him a copy of Grand Theft Auto 4 instead of condoms and a 6pack.
The only let down is he wont be able to ask a redhead girl if her carpets match the curtains because unfortunately he will only be soliciting males since its best buy.

And dear god when I have children I may not buy them beer when they are 12 but they can have a gory game anyday...I REALLY dont want to find them in their room with 3 friends huddled around a wired magazine giggling or something *shudder*

I'm sick of this. (4, Insightful)

digerata (516939) | more than 11 years ago | (#5137494)

Laws don't prevent children from mature content.

Its parents that need to protect children.

Re:I'm sick of this. (4, Funny)

filmsmith (608221) | more than 11 years ago | (#5137615) want to put a rating system on parents?

Good! I'm glad. (5, Interesting)

Aash (130966) | more than 11 years ago | (#5137501)

I know a lot of people are going to get all up in arms about this, but personally I think it's a good thing. Having a good ratings system in place for games will help get angry parents off the gaming industries' back.

The truth is, games these days should be rated. I don't think an 11 year old kid should be able to walk into a store and buy GTA: Vice City. Games never really needed to be rated before because they were never really violent before. With a few exceptions, the rise of real violence in games is only about five years old.

The same thing happened with movies. Before the sixties movies didn't have ratings. They weren't needed because before that, it would have been almost unheard of to put graphic violence or sex in a movie. But then filmmakers wanted more mature content in movies, and a ratings system was introduced.

Games are at that point now. Some kind of enforced ratings system is needed, I think.

wonder if slashdotters are libertarian ... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#5137504)

Yep, predictable (if correct).

This is a good thing actually (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#5137507)

I wonder if this becoming law will lead to more socially acceptable games being produced (i.e. ones which do not glorify violence ?) it is well known that the Europeans have more sophisticated tastes than us Americans. Perhaps this will lead to the death of the gory 1st person shoot-em-ups like Quake and Doom (widely believed to be responsible for the Columbine tragedy).

Historically computer games have been designed to appeal to the American market, and so they have been basically violent, gory, and utterly tasteless. Almost all American PC games involve violence of one form or another. From Doom to Quake, to Unreal, it seems the American consumer wants only to kill and kill again. (albeit in simulated form).

Europeans on the whole have a well adjusted attitide toward violence and sex. They tend to abhorr the former and be tolerant of the latter. It is common on European network TV to see breasts, nipples, even sometimes pubic hair but programmes containing violence are subject to strict censorship rules.

Since the content of games is driven by the largest market, perhaps America can look forward to games with less violence, and more sex. With games such as Quake III Arena and Unreal Tournament being directly responsible for the Columbine massacre, I think this change in emphasis could only be a good thing. I've always been puzzled by our American morality whereby it is perfectly acceptable to show a person being violently physically assaulted, and yet to show two human beings making love is completely censored by our prudish tv networks.

How can games like Quake III which teaches kids how to slaughter their schoolfriends and promotes a satanistic agenda possibly be acceptable ? It doesn't make any sense to me - You don't have to be a Christian to see the dangers of Satanism. Let us know what you think about this important issue.

Re:This is a good thing actually (0)

Rassleholic (591097) | more than 11 years ago | (#5137534)

With games such as Quake III Arena and Unreal Tournament being directly responsible for the Columbine massacre Video games can go on killing sprees? RUN FOR YOUR LIVES!!!!!!!!

is this considered voilence? (2, Funny)

YAN3D (552691) | more than 11 years ago | (#5137509)

OMG! Hes got a knife!!! []

What do I care? (1)

B3ryllium (571199) | more than 11 years ago | (#5137512)

I'm over 18 and I don't live in America. Hah, in your face! :)

Canada is considering such a limit as well, I think. Not sure what the status of that is. I know some people got, like, carded - just for buying Soldier of Fortune.

Whew! (2, Funny)

BFaucet (635036) | more than 11 years ago | (#5137515)

I was a DOOM fanatic when I was 12 and I went on a murderous rampage when I was 13... wait... no I didn't. That's right! I remember now... I would take out the stress of the day's being picked on by shooting virtual creatures and became less violent towards my peers.

As they should (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#5137516)

I don't think most 40 year olds are mature enough to be playing games like GTA, let alone 12 year olds.

As long as they aren't censoring video games out for people of age, there's nothing wrong with this idea. I belive that children are too easily influenced to be playing games like GTA, but once they're 18, let them play.

And if they're under 18, but mature and responsible, let their parents decide what they can and can't play... An 11 year old kid shouldn't be able to rent pulp fiction or a clockwork orange, why should they be able to play GTA?

It's CLIFFS Notes, people! (2, Informative)

kimota (136493) | more than 11 years ago | (#5137519)

It's Cliffs Notes, not Cliff, not Cliff's not even Cliffs', okay?

You can check the web site:

Thank you.
-Mr. Cliffs (no, not really)

Get a job at best buy... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#5137523)

..and raise your fist and resist!

Why stop under 18 sales? (1)

Soporific (595477) | more than 11 years ago | (#5137524)

Because when they turn 18 they are going to be expected to kill people for Bush's two front war. I mean, lets at least desensitize the kids before giving them real weapons.


Re:Why stop under 18 sales? (1)

escher (3402) | more than 11 years ago | (#5137588)

And they'll have some decent tactical training, too!

What'll be left? (2, Interesting)

pmz (462998) | more than 11 years ago | (#5137526)

If you think about it, Super Mario Bros. is pretty darn violent (you know, smushing all them koopas).

Pac-man is violent.

NCAA Football is violent.

Doom 3 is violent.

Of course, violent to different degrees...where's the line drawn in these cases? I remember having loads of fun with Legend of Zelda and even the original Spy Hunter (remember that?). I was in elementary school at the time. In high school, I do remember having some wierd dreams after playing Doom, however (tell us why Psychologists, before people begin making arbtrary laws).

Re:What'll be left? (4, Insightful)

pmz (462998) | more than 11 years ago | (#5137545)

Oh yeah, don't forget that the federal government is marketing war games to our teenagers to boost enlistment rates.

Re:What'll be left? (1)

mrtroy (640746) | more than 11 years ago | (#5137558)

those wierd dreams in high school after playing doom....well those are unrelated to doom.
These are "wet" dreams that often occur during these could also talk to a psychologist about this while you discuss video games.

Re:What'll be left? (1)

pmz (462998) | more than 11 years ago | (#5137622)

No, no, like Doom affect people differently than games like Legend of Zelda. Why this occurs is a question left to psychological researchers, because there is obviously something to violent video games. However, I'm convinced that the people writing the legislation are trying to dictate what that something is without really knowing what it really is. Just making up some sort of arbitrary guidelines isn't the answer.


Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#5137529)

Note that this is not a law; it's a bill being readied for reintroduction after its original version was killed last session.

I am the president of CAVAB (citizens against violence against Bills). We are attempting to lobby the government to stop the senseless killing of bills. Why not kills some Toms every once in a while? Why must Bills be singled out for killing in our legislative branch.


Mortal Kombat (3, Interesting)

Radio Shack Robot (640478) | more than 11 years ago | (#5137535)

I remember trying to purchase Mortal Kombat II back in the day at Walmart. They wouldn't sell it to me unless I was 17. That was the last game I bought at Walmart. Now I buy everything at radio shack and they don't card. (Except to get your home address. heh)

phew! (4, Funny)

frenetic3 (166950) | more than 11 years ago | (#5137544)

It looks like Congress is getting ready to revisit the 'Protect Children from Video Game Sex

thank god! i always wondered why my friend's DOOM manual was a little sticky.

whoop de doo (0, Flamebait)

scourfish (573542) | more than 11 years ago | (#5137551)

I'm over 18, so I could care less. You little turds will just have to wait till you're 18. No big deal. Same for movies.

Its been said before... (4, Insightful)

pogle (71293) | more than 11 years ago | (#5137553)

But I'll say it again. Congress shouldnt have any mandate here. Parents, pay some fscking attention to your kids and what they do!! Take active part in their lives, learn something about their pastimes and games. It works, I'm living proof. Lotsa violent games in my past and I've never decapitated anyone without good cause.

Even today my mom hears updates from me now and then on my progress in the Warcraft3 ladder, and what the game is basically about, even if she has no idea how to play it. She also got a kick out of GTA Vice City and Conkers Bad Fur Day, and feels fine about my little sister playing them since she has established a *firm foundation* in my sisters upbringing to the effect that you don't really maul people with chainsaws... :)

In otherwords, teenagers, talk to your parents! Show them what you play, encourage them to understand the nonsense that Congress is doing, and have them take a more active role.

Re:Its been said before... (1)

stratjakt (596332) | more than 11 years ago | (#5137676)

This bill is about parental responsibility.

If my kids want a game, I'll have to buy it for them. They wont be able to walk into EB and buy it without my knowledge. And if it's sold to them, without my knowledge or consent, the retailer will be the one responsible.

If your child goes to 7-11 for a slurpee, and the retailer sells him a copy of Jugs, is the parent still responsible?

And people without children should shut the fuck up and stop preaching about how others should raise theirs. Espescially when said people are still in high school.

Pssst...Hey, Mister... (5, Funny)

zillyorg (323074) | more than 11 years ago | (#5137560)

The parking lot of Best Buy will come to resemble the parking lot at the liquor store....

"Psst. Hey, Mister. Here's fifty bucks. Can you go inside and get a copy of GTA Vice City for me?"

Blame the parents not the retailers (3, Insightful)

Neil Watson (60859) | more than 11 years ago | (#5137562)

I don't know whether or not violence on TV or in video games has a negative impact on children. We argue about Columbine and why these kids ended up the way they did.

I do know that if a child is exposed to sex, drugs, violence, barney or anything else it can be solely blamed on bad parenting. Parents, forget about planning your next cruise, or meeting that special someone now that your divorce is final. Forget about trying for that new premotion to get your career on track. Your job is to raise your children. It is not the job of daycare or school or Gandma. Raising your children is your job. Nothing else matters.

R Rated vs X(XX) Rated (2, Insightful)

stratjakt (596332) | more than 11 years ago | (#5137565)

Noone under the age of 17 may watch an R rated film unless accompanied by an adult, and I believe they may not purchase one either. It is a crime to admit someone under the age of 18 to an XXX rated film, or to sell, rent, give it to them.

With more and more games pushing the envelope closer to traditional porn, stuff like BMX XXX, GTA 3 or DOA Volleyball, this isn't surprising in the least.

Nielson and others have shown that upwards of 90% of the video game *players* are over 21, so this really shouldnt have much of an effect at all.

The ESRB has done a great job of rating games, and are much more descriptive than their TV and movie counterparts, but irresponsible retailers frankly ignore them.

I saw a kid who looked to be 9 or 10 buy a copy of BMX XXX from blockbuster the last time I was there. This game is just full of nudity (at about a playboy level), sexually explicit language and swearing. Left unchecked, the sequel will probably spiral into hardcore porn. It's a crappy game, and the nudity is a gimmick to sell it.

I generally cringe at new legislation, but the industry is incapable and unwilling to police itself. It's illegal and frankly wrong to sell pronography to little kids, even if it's submarined into a second rate Xtreme-SpOrtZ game.

bah! (1)

yE oLdE pHaRt (609262) | more than 11 years ago | (#5137569)

We need good parents not laws We also need younger politicians We also need Doom 3

One reason (1)

isorox (205688) | more than 11 years ago | (#5137570)

Give me One good reason why this is a bad thing.

Re:One reason (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#5137601)

Violence, as defined by Congress is not exactly what you think of it ...

Generation gap a MILE long. (2, Insightful)

Eric_Cartman_South_P (594330) | more than 11 years ago | (#5137576)

These old congressmen think they can save the kids by keeping them away from Max Payne et. al? Little do they know most 15 year olds are too busy having sex, smoking weed, and fighting on the tennis courts after school to really care what games are on the shelf.

Good think all the fucking, drinking, smoking and fighting youth will be kept safely away from Vice City 3. Don't want them getting any bad ideas.

Several interesting things to point out... (5, Interesting)

zaren (204877) | more than 11 years ago | (#5137578)

from the article:

"Baca's office told me the new bill is being modeled on a St. Louis ordinance that makes it illegal to sell or rent a violent video game to a minor without a parent/guardian's consent."

Which means that if I think my 10 year old (well, he's only 6 now, but that's not the point) can handle a "mature" game, I can give him permission to get it. This is far from an outright ban, and more palatable in my eyes (the eyes of someone with kids of his own).

Also, there was mention made of having to hire adults to work the registers, under the theory that they'll be more responsible, and less likely to rent / sell "mature" games to minors. I made a leap of logic and figured that maybe minors would be forbidden by this law to work that kind of position. If this were to happen, it could cause problems for all kinds of businesses - how many grown-ups are going to want to earn the wages of a register jockey? This could leave nobody manning the tills, and a LOT of places folding up shop.

Lastly... Postal 2 is going to be a first person shooter?!? Check out that screen shot - wielding a can of gas while the store you're in burns! That game's gonna rock! }:^D

IN SOVIET RUSSIA.. (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#5137587)

Violent games consider age limits for Congress!


Absolutely AWESOME (1)

ZX3 Junglist (643835) | more than 11 years ago | (#5137592)

Maybe this would help to keep all of the 14-year-old 1337 h4x0rz out of my counterstrike games..

Wrong target... (3, Insightful)

goatasaur (604450) | more than 11 years ago | (#5137596)

Video games are apparently the scapegoat of the new century. I don't see how this proposal is going to help matters -- most retail stores voluntarily enforce the ratings that are already on games. The ones that don't, well, that's where GOOD PARENTING comes in... if you aren't paying attention to what your kids are doing, then the consequences of their actions are on your head.

I haven't learn marksmanship from GTA3, and I've played CounterStrike for years, and I don't think I could effectively defuse a C4 bomb. Violent video games have never conclusively been tied to violent behavior.

Violent movies, on the other hand, have. A more significant problem is the RIAA's granting of the PG-13 rating to movies that are way too violent and gratuitous to be seen by children. Theaters now hardly even enforce the 'R' rating! I have seen a ridiculous amount of news articles about children hurting themselves by imitating popular movies. The RIAA's policies are backwards and inane.

Examples of borderline PG-13 movies:
Eight Crazy Nights
Bad Company
The Fast and the Furious

All the above movies have more violence and obscenity in them than almost any video game in recent memory, but the RIAA apparently thinks constand mindless violence and sexual innuendo is OK!

I strongly disagree with this policy regarding gaming, but since it involves "protecting the children" I don't know a politician who would stand up to it. Seriously, do any of them have the balls to support violent video games?

What I got from the article (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#5137597)

Man, now I really want Postal 2.

I'm torn (4, Insightful)

drinkypoo (153816) | more than 11 years ago | (#5137599)

On one hand, I know that if I were a parent I'd want as much help as I could get to prevent my child from getting access to things I didn't want them to have.

On the other hand, where do you draw the line? It seems stupid, for example, to prevent a child from buying BMX XXX but allow a different one to buy edible underwear at frederick's of hollywood. I mean, neither one offends ME, but you can see where I'm going with this.

In the end the only things whose sale should be legally controlled are things which are physically dangerous; Drugs (alcohol/tobacco/high-test prescription medication), and firearms. Anything which is not immediately harmful... well, your child has no rights to speak of until the age of 18, save to be free from abuse, and to not be neglected. You have the legal right, and furthermore I think the moral right and responsibility to go through their things. You also have the responsibility to not be a fucking asshole when you find something that upsets you, and take a step back, and ask who it's hurting.

Now HOLY SHIT you people are getting ready to mod me down and scream at me about privacy because you think it's sacrosanct, but let me tell you something, you have a legal responsibility to care for this child until they are 18, and unless you're a shitty parent you have a responsibility to your own sensibilities to raise them right. If you have a child you can trust so you don't have to raid their hiding places, that's fantastic, and I'm happy for you. You're doing your job, and I think you should have some more kids so everyone else can learn from your example. But for those people who have children too young and/or irresponsible to make wise decisions, NOT looking through their shit could literally kill them through neglect.

Mind you, I'm 26 and have no kids and I have this opinion. I just know what my friends were like as kids. Except for not doing much of anything I was told, I was comparatively a perfect angel until the age of 15, which is when I moved out and started smoking cigs, smoking weed, drinking, and so on. Until then I had straightedge sensibilities. But I know what my friends were like, the little hellions, and they desperately needed more guidance.

Proof (1)

Jeedo (624414) | more than 11 years ago | (#5137602)

Woldnt it be nice to first _PROOF_ that video games do damage to children?

and by children i dont mean -18 year olds, i mean -13 year olds.

Bet you money... (1)

tarnin (639523) | more than 11 years ago | (#5137604)

that they try and say during the debates (if it goes that far) that games are helping to breed a state of uncaring twords terrorism. It's getting pretty old that the gov is using that excuse time and again to restrict our rights but the sad truth is alot of people are falling for it.

Penny Arcade (2, Informative)

theLOUDroom (556455) | more than 11 years ago | (#5137608)

Here's a short summary of the debate that lead up to this bill:

Here. []

It's a good thing they're handling this, otherwise "first person shooter" games might start being produced, and all our kids would be turned into mass-murdering psychos.

It should happen anyway (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#5137623)

Think about it. Would you want your 12 year old kid being able to rent Basic Instinct or Natural Born Killers at the video store? Then why would you want them to rent or buy State of Emergency or GTA? Unless you think 12 year olds should be able to go to the movie theater and see Hannibal without adult supervision, you are hereby challenged to explain to me why that kid should be able to rent violent video games.

retarded... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#5137626)

I think this legislation is a great idea! Instead of kids getting violent ideas from video games, they'll just watch the vin diesel movie XXX and steal a car and ramp it over a bridge. but hey, at least they won't be able to blame it on video games. i'm 15 and i am a gamer. they can take away my mouse and keyboard when they pry them from my cold dead fingers.

Oh, the Children! (TM) (5, Funny)

goingincirclez (639915) | more than 11 years ago | (#5137632)

"Save the Children from Drug-laced shroom hallucinations": (Super Mario Bros.)

"Protect our children from reckless race-driver wannabes": (Ridge Racer, Wipeout, etc etc)

"Save the children from mind-melt controller-tossitis" (Tetris)

"Teach children tolerance for ghosts of all colors" (Pac-man, Luigi's Mansion)

"The Crusade to stop anti-alien racism" (Contra, Half-life, etc etc)

Get a grip! I opine that ratings are a generally a good thing. But I hate the whole "Save the children" "Promote tolerance" angle politicians use... it's demeaning.

There are people who need, want, and/or should be informed for whatever reason about the content of media they may be interested in. Big deal. Settle on a standard and let the people make their own decisions, and parents assume their responsibility. Leave the Children (TM) out of it.

shout glory! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#5137635)

thank god you'll never have to be 18 to buy a real gun and commit real violence and kill real people. but maybe now without these videogames kids will never think of things like that.

Role Models (1)

Dutchmaan (442553) | more than 11 years ago | (#5137636)

Hey! Our president didn't waste his time with violence inspiring video games and look at how calm and relaxed and well adjusted he turned out!

It's a joke people!

it wont work (1)

st0rmshadow (643869) | more than 11 years ago | (#5137663)

Well, I'll be 18 in a few years anyway, until then, I can just order games off the internet. Feh.

Compelling reason for support (1)

Syncdata (596941) | more than 11 years ago | (#5137670)

I'm not saying I like the idea of this legislation, but this legislation could do something great for the game industry, namely, slow the production of First person shooters.
The market saturation with FPS's is worse than it was back in the Street fighter 2 days. Maybe we'll have developers producing clever all ages games, rather than just another romp through a scary mansion.

I'm a parent and a gamer. (4, Insightful)

Chocolate Teapot (639869) | more than 11 years ago | (#5137680)

Yet again we see legislation completely missing the target. Although I agree that violent/sexually explicit games should be clearly labelled as such to help responsible parents monitor their children's activities, let us not forget the fact that ultimately it is the parent's responsibility to enforce the rules. Making it an offence to supply such games to children is simply shifting the responsibilty away from parents. With the increase in online gaming in recent years, it is not so much the actual game content that bothers me, but rather the language/behaviour of the opponents that my children may encounter during a gaming session. Kids are surprisingly aware of the difference between reality and fantasy when it comes to violence on the TV and in games. Tom & Jerry is gratuitously violent, but my kids never had a nightmare about it and I don't discourage them from watching it. I am, however, particularly careful to wait until they are in bed before playing UT online - it saves me having to explain some of the more colourful nicknames and language to an 8 year-old looking over my shoulder.

Mod me down for being a boring old fart if you wish.

Question.. (1)

deego (587575) | more than 11 years ago | (#5137681)

So If i am a parent who thinks that a particular "violent" game is okay for my kid, will Big Bible^W Brother arrest me for "lending" it to my kid?
Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?