NY Governor to Target Violent Video Games 306
NoMoreGuns writes to tell us that Governor Eliot Spitzer is planning to target violent movies and video games in a new bill. "Spitzer said he wants to restrict access to these videos and games by children, similar to motion picture regulations which prohibit youths under 17 from being admitted to R-rated movies without a parent or adult guardian. Under Spitzer's proposal, retailers who sell violent or degrading videos or video games to children contrary to the rating would be sanctioned."
Election time already? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
I, for one, have been wondering how long it will be before some thinkofthechildren person starts blaming violent video games or Marilyn Manson for the shooting at Virginia Tech. I haven't seen it yet, but there was a mention in the paper this morning about his handle in some game being 'Ismael', which was written on his arm. Only a matter of time, I suppose.
Re:Election time already? (Score:4, Informative)
Re:Election time already? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Bad headline! (Score:5, Insightful)
I expect that sort of misleading headline from the mainstream press, but Slashdot should really have fixed it.
Re:Bad headline! (Score:5, Insightful)
Movies do not have this regulation. All media or none.
Re: (Score:2)
What? So I, hypothetically assuming I was 12 for example, could go out and buy Blood-Murder-Death-Sex 3 from my local Blockbuster? I could go ask the nice mister at the counter to take my allowance for Death-Death-Death-And-Blood 7 and he'd do it?
There are already restrictions on buying R rated movies, at least where I live, and the same goes for video games (Already). This is really a non-issue if he means M rated by violent.
Re:Bad headline! (Score:4, Informative)
Re:Bad headline! (Score:5, Funny)
I can't be the only one thinking... (Score:3, Funny)
Re:Bad headline! (Score:5, Insightful)
It's a matter of local and state laws, not federal laws. There are no federal laws banning the sale of any movies to minors, AFAIK. However, most states have laws regarding the sale of pornography or movies with strong sexual content. Surprisingly, most states do NOT have laws concerning violence.
So what we as a society are saying is that it's okay for kids to see people shooting, stabbing, kick boxing, or whatever else to each other in a violent rage, but HEAVEN FORBID if any minors see NAKED PEOPLE or, worse, two people engaged in a perfectly normal act that is part of our biological survival process as a species. Hmmm, I wonder which would inhibit the development of a child more...?
Re:Bad headline! (Score:5, Interesting)
Incorrect. The body of law may seem to imply that, but certainly I as a parent don't. And I'm sure most of my fellow parents feel the same way.
Parents should be responsible for their children, not the government.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
But video games are newer, so parents are less comfortable with them. They don't know quite as well what to do with them. At least in my house, us kids bought the video games while my parents bought the movies. So
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
A fair amount of them represent the collective will of the small percentage of the people who speak the loudest and most often...
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
I would posit that the media presents an unhealthy view of both violence and sexuality.
In the first case, the messag
Re:Bad headline! (Score:4, Funny)
I survived seeing lots of bare breasts in German TV ads when I went to Iceland (they show some German channels). I came back unscathed but I did buy a lot of German shampoo for some reason.
Re:Bad headline! (Score:4, Insightful)
On a side note, does anyone else recall that in the 80s a 14 year old kid had no problems renting R rated movies? I would do it all the time. Only one place I rented at actually required parental permission for kids to rent R rated movies. If mom and dad said it was okay, they would rent them to you.
But then again myself and all my age related peers ARE all psychopathic serial rapists and murderers now due to this very fact.... Damn you Jack Thompson you were right!
Re:Bad headline! (Score:5, Informative)
Laws prohibiting the sale of indecent materials to minors do exist, but they exist independent of the ratings system, and already fully apply to video games.
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
Wouldn't fly here. (Score:3, Insightful)
I think we were talking about the U.S. here. On the whole, Canadians seem to accept a much higher degree of government interference than I think would be acceptable in the U.S. (This may or may not be due to a greater degree of trust in their government, but I'd argue anyone who trusts any government is a fool
Re: (Score:2)
Not in the US. I know this is not the same for several European countries.
Wouldn't say "vast majority." (Score:4, Interesting)
You're right about it being voluntary, but I think you're wrong in saying "the vast majority do not." I can't think of any major theater chain in the U.S. that doesn't enforce the MPAA ratings on movies. If you can find one that doesn't, it's just because the employees are looking the other way, not because of any official policy. I mean, the theater owners have representatives in the MPAA -- they sit on the appeals boards for rating movies. (Go see "This Film Is Not Yet Rated" if you want to know names; it's basically a who's-who of theater ownership.)
Movie rental and sales may be a little more lax, because they're more focused on making a buck. However, the big chains all at least pay lip service to the MPAA ratings, and any difference between policy-as-written and policy-as-enforced (like being lax about the "R" rating, because it would hurt sales too much) is just going to get blamed on the employees.
The Book Test! (Score:3, Interesting)
Here's a simple test. Would you have this regulation apply to books? Are there some books -- and I'm talking about the kind with just words in them, now, no pictures -- that are not only inappropriate for anyone under the age of 17, but that should be illegal to sell to those under 17?
Here's me, the pimple-faced kid with the cracking voice from The Simpsons, and I'm behind the counter at a bookstore. Lisa walks up with a copy of Tropic of Cancer and
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
You must be new here.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Bad headline! (Score:4, Insightful)
Common Misconception (Score:2)
What he's targeting is the sale of violent games to minors, in the manner of R-rated movies.
Except movie theaters, from what I understand, are self regulated.
The MPAA ratings and their adherence came about specifically to stop this kind of legislation. By creating their own voluntary code and then getting theaters to agree to uphold it, they maintained control of what movies got what ratings (thus no NC-17 rating for documentaries the government doesn't like, etc.)
Fortunately for the MPAA, theater owners were smart enough to get that they didn't want government control and smart enough to realize
Re:Bad headline! (Score:4, Insightful)
No, he is targeting game stores.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Why crush the head when the throat is such an easy choke point, right Homer?
I don't see the problem with this law (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Kids should not get their hands on these games, but that's the responsibility of the parents. They have the tools.
Correction... (Score:2, Insightful)
Correction... it should read "My Kids should not get their hands on these games, but that's the responsibility of the parents. They have the tools."
When you state that universally "kids" should not get their hands on the games, you validate the idea of creating a law. After all, if it is an absolute truth that "kids" should not get their hands on the games, then the only time the law wo
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
From what I read the goal of the law is to stop kids from *buying* those games, not playing them. When the parents buy the games for them, everything is fine. When the kids want to buy the games themself the shop clerk won't allow it. Thus the parents have more control over what they kids can buy with their money. Sounds good to me.
### A parent definitely has the tools to take this game away and return it if they don't approve.
Yeah, for l
Re: (Score:2)
I think you misunderstand the difference between a parental tool and THE LAW. The law is no more a parental tool than is gravity. Parents don't have a choice in enforcing the law, it will be enforced regardless of their desire, it is out of their hands at that point and is no longer a tool for the parent, but for the state. In addition, you seem to imply by saying parents would have the tools, that they somehow do not have the tool
Re: (Score:2)
Re:I don't see the problem with this law (Score:5, Insightful)
If the law just targets video games, then that is unfair. Other than pornography, there are no laws about content being sold to minors.
Video games, like movies, are voluntarily rated. There is no law to enforce the movie ratings, as far as I am aware, and so there shouldn't be one for video games.
Another poster here said, "All media, or none." And I agree.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Don't tell them now, but comic books no longer carry those stupid "Comics Code Authority" labels advertising their safe-for-children content. Now they have ratings, just like everything else.
Gasp, shock, horror.
Re: (Score:2)
And they don't vote so who cares! It's not like kids are humans with rights or anything.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
The court is dumbfounded that the attorney general and the state are in the position of having to pay taxpayer money as attorneys fees and costs in this lawsuit. The act which this court found unconstitutional passed through committees in both the State House and Senate, and to be promptly signed by the Governor.
There are lawyers at each stage of this process. Some of the members of these committees are themselves lawyers. Presumably, they have staff members who are attorneys as well. The State House and Senate certainly have staff members who are attorneys. The governor has additional attorneys - the executive counsel.
Prior to the passage of the Act there were a number of reported cases from a number of jurisdictions which held similar statutes to be unconstitutional (and in which the defendant was ordered to pay substantial attorney's fees). The Court wonders why nobody objected to the enactment of this statute. In this court's view the taxpayers deserve more from their elected officials.
So not only are these laws patently illegal, but they're a complete waste of
Re: (Score:2)
Your thinking is completely backwards. Those proposing the law should try to prove to *me* why it is necessary, not the other way around. The requirements for passing a law should not be "I don't see a problem with it" but rather "I believe this law is necessary for society."
Thinking "I don't think children should see violence" is a far cry from "children seeing violence is destroying society."
Re: (Score:2)
Oh I dunno, say, Aliens [imdb.com]?
While we're at it... (Score:5, Interesting)
Lets ban children from watching, listening to, or reading the news. There are all kinds of accounts of anti-social behaviors contained in the news. Shouldn't we be "protecting the children" from that too?
Besides, are social problems like school related shootings really being encouraged by video games, or is it possible that massive news coverage plays a larger role? I mean, I take what I see on TV to be a lot more "real" and "possible" than anything I see on a video game.
Re: (Score:2)
The main problem is that the anti-game lobby has a compelling story to tell: "Participating in simulated violence predisposes you to commit violent acts." It's intuitive and easy to understand, which is why it has currency -- even if it's incorrect.
Meanwhile, the gamers' story is: "If a nine-year-old wants to blow somebody's simulated head off, and see the blood run everywhere, over and over, hundreds of times a night, there's nothing wrong with
Re: (Score:2)
Lets ban children from watching, listening to, or reading the news. There are all kinds of accounts of anti-social behaviors contained in the news. Shouldn't we be "protecting the children" from that too?
Or from reading the bible.
Violence:
"And when he was come into his house, he took a knife, and laid hold on his concubine, and divided her, together with her bones, into twelve pieces, and sent her into all the coasts of Israel." (Judges 19:29)
"Thus David prevailed over the Philistine with a sling and a stone, and he struck the Philistine and killed him; but there was no sword in David's hand. Then David ran and stood over the Philistine and took his sword and drew it out of its sheath and killed him, and cut off his head with it." (1 Samuel 17:50-51)
"And I will set My jealousy against you, that they may deal with you in wrath. They will remove your nose and your ears; and your survivors will fall by the sword. They will take your sons and your daughters; and your survivors will be consumed by the fire." (Ezekiel 23:25)
"And when Herod saw that he had been tricked by the magi, he became very enraged, and sent and slew all the male children who were in Bethlehem and in all its environs, from two years old and under...." (Matthew 2:16)
Suicide:
"Then said Saul unto his armourbearer, Draw thy sword, and thrust me through therewith; lest these uncircumcised come and thrust me through, and abuse me. But his armourbearer would not; for he was sore afraid. Therefore Saul took a sword, and fell upon it.
"And when his armourbearer saw that Saul was dead, he fell likewise upon his sword, and died with him." (I Samuel 31:4-5)
Sex:
"Let your fountain be blessed, and rejoice in the wife of your youth, as a long hind and a graceful doe, let her breasts satisfy you at all times." (Proverbs 5:18-19)
"Your stature is like a palm tree, and your breasts are like its clusters. I said, 'I will climb the palm tree. I will take hold of its fruit stalks.' Oh may your breasts be like clusters of the vine and the fragrance of your breath like apples." (Song of Solomon 7:7-8)
"Now when evening came David arose from his bed and walked around on the roof of the king's house, and from the roof he saw a woman bathing; and the woman was very beautiful in appearance. So David sent and inquired about the woman. And one said, 'Is this not Bathsheba, the daughter of Eliam, the wife of Uriah the Hittite?' And David sent messengers and took her, and when she came to him, he lay with her; and when she had purified herself from her uncleanness, she returned to her house. And the woman conceived, and she sent and told David, and said, 'I am pregnant.'" (2 Samuel 11:1-5)
Incest:
"And Lot went up to Zo'ar, and dwelt in the mountains, and his two daughters with him; for he feared to dwell in Zo'ar: and he dwelt in a cave, he and his two daughters.
"And the firstborn said unto the younger, Our father is old, and there is not a man in the earth to come in unto us after the manner of all the earth:
"Come, let us make our father drink wine, and we will lie with him, that we may preserve seed of our father.
"And they made their father drink wine that night: and the firstborn went in, and lay with her father; and he perceived not when she lay down, nor when she arose.
"And it came to pass on the morrow, that the firstborn said unto the younger, Behold, I lay yesternight with my father: let us make him drink wine this night also; and go thou in, and lie with him, that we may preserve seed of our father.
"And they made their father drink wine that night also: and the younger arose, and lay with him; and he perceived not when she lay down, nor when she arose.
"Thus were both daughters of Lot with child by their father." (Genesis 19:30-36)
Sources:
Ban the Bible? [loompanics.com]
Saving our children from the bible [elroy.net]
Please keep in mind I'm not actually suggesting that the bible should be baned or anything like that.
Re: (Score:2)
Added bonus: when the giant books are purged down to a couple pages, they'll be cheaper and easier to read!
Here we go again. (Score:5, Informative)
Apparently there was a quote from the group responsible for the bill saying that they would try again. Millions of dollars wasted in 'thinking of the children', when most stores do that anyway.
Re: (Score:2)
No they haven't (Score:2)
This one just implements the same rules regarding buying a ticket to an R movie.
Big fucking deal.
A parent isn't , and can not be, around there teenagers 24/7. It isn't possible and would be unhealthy for the child.
Theya re not banning the games, or even banning minor from playing them, only purchasing them, and if a Teenagers needs toi sneak off to buy a game, then they are most likly violating there parents whishes. A lot of people say it's up to the parents, and they are right
Let me see if I've got this... (Score:3, Insightful)
The only thing I can see about this bill that might concern people is the definition of violent. If, by that, the bill means M rated then who cares. M rated is supposed to be sold to 17 year olds or older, so now it'll be enforced by law, that's nice. Now then, if by violent the bill intends for all games with violence, with no care to the rating, to be sold to 17 or older then we have a problem, especially since every game has violence except the most absolutely boring arcade games.
That's all I'm concerned about, how is a violent video game defined? I'd presume by the movie part as well that it means M rated but hey, it's politics, they could very well mean to ban all games in one fell swoop.
Re:Let me see if I've got this... (Score:4, Informative)
So, you don't think it could just be a store policy that prompted them to ask for your driver's license? Not all store policies are based on laws, you know. You really should be a bit more sure before you use a phrase like, "I know for a fact..."
Re:Let me see if I've got this... (Score:5, Interesting)
I know for a fact this is not true. For a writeup of this, see:
http://arstechnica.com/news.ars/post/20070223-891
Video game restrictions, unless if it has something to do with pornography, are voluntary, just like movie restrictions are. Now, mind you, you have to look hard to find someone willing to violate these restrictions, which is why many people mistake this for a law.
I'm all for it (Score:2, Interesting)
I know a ten year old who was playing GTA San Andreas and thought that the dildo he found in the police station was a purple balloon. He's running around beating people up with it when I walk in and ask him where he found that weapon. Well, I'm still laughing. His mu
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Comment removed (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Parents are too caught up wi
gamestop (Score:3, Insightful)
There are NO regulations on movies in the USA (Score:4, Insightful)
Either way he is an ass.
There are no laws in the USA regulating the sale of any entertainment medium. There are regulations on things like porn, but those are a genre and they are notoriously vague in that at least once a year a comic book store gets busted for selling comic books with drawings of boobs.
If videogames were to be singled out there would have to be a mountain of evidence that shows that they are dangerous to children. No such mountain exists. Therefore, it is just singling out videogames because it is an easy way to look like you are "looking out for families."
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
I know it's too much to expect those here on
Re: (Score:2)
There is no law req
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
There is also nothing preventing a kid from buying an R-Rated film from Wal-Mart or what is much more common, the special "unra
Terorists and Cops. (Score:2)
As vague as the definition of "porn" is "terrorism" is just as loose, and far more telegenic.
Tycho Brahe said it best (Score:2)
But frankly, I'd be perfectly happy to have things be a bit more European around here, with less tolerance for violence in the media and also less prudish reserve
Wouldn't it be novel... (Score:2, Insightful)
A greater issue at hand (Score:2)
I don't see this issue as a matter of whether video games are bad for children. This issue has more to do with society and how it relates to family and more generally accountability. Fifty years ago, a matter like this wouldn't really be a question since parents either wouldn't give children money to buy such things. If this wou
Eliot Spitzer not an ass (Score:4, Informative)
Like many slashdotters, I have an extremely low view of politcians but Spitzer is a good man.
When he was in New York District Attorney's office, he single-handedly ended the Gambino crime family. When he became New York's Attorney General, he showed a great zeal in going after biggest Wall Street firms like Goldman Scahs, JP Morgan that were inflating stock prices and giving biased investment advice to customers. He did it inspite of a great deal of pressure. Then, he went after music companies practising "payola" schemes to get their songs played on radio. He didnt even spare huge insurance companies like AIG and chip manufacturers practicing price-fixing and other fraud.
Even in the current case, he is NOT against violent video games. He is just against the SALE of mature-rated video games to minors. This is no different than preventing minors from purchasing tickets to R-rated movies
Re: (Score:2)
Except that no law prohibits minors from purchasing tickets to R-rated movies. And the only thing preventing poor little Johnny from turning the TV on in his room to watch some R-rated flick on TV is the same thing that would prevent him from playing M-rated games...good parenting.
Re: (Score:2)
And that's not illegal either. A guideline set forth by an independent ratings board isn't a law.
If I worked at a movie theater I could sell a ticket to a minor, and honestly, when I worked at one way back in high school I did it all the time. I never let someone grossly underage in, but I didn't give a second thought to those who looked close enough.
It's very difficult for a 17-year-old to ask some who 'could be
If at first you don't succeed, ... (Score:2)
If at first you don't succeed [slashdot.org], just keep trying, right? Hey, it's not their money these scumbag politicians are wasting each time they get their state(s) sued over these idiotic laws, right?
It's about time! (Score:3, Funny)
Guess they'll have to get their violence elsewhere (Score:2)
Get that ... out of office please (Score:2)
Another thing is the harsher laws on DWI (and DWAI) only account for more 'poor' people that get caught to lose their jobs and life. I know a guy, that has been re-applying for his license for years. The D
NJ thanks you. (Score:2)
Life Immitates Bulls*** (Score:2)
The piece is clearly satire. There are notices to that effect all over the site, but all the same it's become sadly prophetic:
Spitzer doesn't care... (Score:2)
What happens to the law. He knows just as well as everyone else that this law will get struck down as unconstitutional. What he is seeking is to establish himself as the politician who did something to protect the children.
However, elections are coming up for the Republican party, and he needs to show the people that the Republicans are thinking of the children. It doesn't matter what the ultimate fate of the bill is, this is just political posturing for himself and the Republican party.
The Republic
The Idiot of the Year Award goes to..... (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Next thing you know you've got people blindly blaming the Republican party for idiotic actions of a Democrat governor.
Back to the point, the real issue is that here yet another Democrat sees government as the solution to
So The Governor is anti Virtual Death (Score:2)
Attn: Developers - New Game Idea (Score:4, Interesting)
In this game, you should get points for:
humiliating and ostracizing people who are different from you,
evading taxes by exploiting questionable tax breaks,
using barely legal accounting practices,
manipulating other people's emotions for political objectives,
taking campaign contributions that create conflicts of interest,
and suing people under immoral circumstances for profit.
Personally, I'd rather kids pretend to shoot people.
What's the big deal? (Score:2)
Are you for removing the restrictions on alcohol, tobacco, firearms & movies (including porn)?
How about restrictions on driving?
How about the age of consentual sex or entering into binding contracts?
Whats the difference?
Why d
Re:Fine, sanction the retailers... (Score:4, Interesting)
Make it illegal for retailers to provide the game to kids. That way, when the kid gets it from his inept, irresponsible, moronic parents, and actually *does* do something he saw in the game (probability dictates some retarded insane person is going to do it eventually, and you *know* what the media is going to focus on instead of them being retarded and/or insane), then the game companies and the publishers and the retailers can all say "look, the game says Adults Only, but that kids' parents got it for him, so they are obviously to blame." It will all be on mommy and daddy's shoulders then, and they won't have a leg to stand on.
That wont' stop the media from blaming video games entirely, of course, but it still weakens their argument.
Re:Fine, sanction the retailers... (Score:5, Interesting)
As the saying goes, "you can't legislate stupidity." Parents are increasingly irresponsible and clueless when it comes to what their children say and do. We're having trouble with my 10-year-old stepson because he feels we're being unfair because we won't let him have games rated T-for-Teen, or have his own cell phone. He rails at us because we won't simply let him go where he wants, when he wants, and we won't continuously feed his bad habits. He constantly tells us how "other kids' parents don't do this," to which my standard reply is "I don't care what other parents do." And I don't, because I see how other parents let their children push them around, guilt them into buying them things, browbeat them when they don't get what they want. And these people cave in!
But again, that's what they decide to do. Parents will do stupid things and while you can make those things illegal, you can't make people not do them. Parents have to decide for themselves that buying these games for their children are a bad idea.
Re: (Score:2)
But removing the retailer's culpability from the picture simplifies it drastically. Either the kid stole the game, got it from another adult who wasn't his parent, or his parents' bought it for him. Or he downloaded it from a bittorrent tracker of some sort. Regardle
Little late... (Score:2, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Don't be so sure. The clock tower massacre [wikipedia.org] was in 1966. Spacewar [wikipedia.org] dates from 1962. Your point stands regardless.
Re: (Score:2)
And whose job is it when the parents decide that they can't be bothered?
gah! (Score:2)
No, this is a toll to help parents, as far as the store goes, making it a policy to check ID will pretty much remove responibility.
really, how much effort is checking someones ID?
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)