
As reported by the
Indianapolis Star, a committee of the Indiana Senate voted 5-2 to approve a measure which would make it unlawful to sell M- or AO-rated games to underage buyers. Violators could be fined $1,000.
The legislation,
SB0238, was co-authored by by Sen. David Ford (R, left) and Sen. Vi Simpson (D). A similar bill sponsored by Simpson failed to pass in the 2006 legislative session. She argues that video games are different from other types of media:
You become the character, for better or for worse, (including) kicking (a prostitute) out of a car and then beating her to death. If you think (children) are not playing these games because there's an 'M' on the box, you're badly mistaken."
Yesterday's hearing generated a bit of controversy when Sen. Brent Waltz (R) objected to the showing of video footage from violent games on a large screen T.V. during the public hearing:
I am absolutely, totally appalled - first by the content and second that you would bring that kind of filth into this Senate chamber. You ought to be ashamed of yourself.
It's unknown which games were shown, but from the description, we're guessing Postal 2 was among them. As described by the
Associated Press:
One video game clip showed a character urinating on victims and setting them on fire while a narrator made racial comments. Another featured a character gunning down people in church, while another "rewarded" players who reach a certain level with video clips of real topless strippers. Many of the games included bloody beatings or shootings, as well as explicit language.
Said bill co-sponsor Ford:
My thought was you needed to know what you were voting on.
SB0238 now proceeds to the full Senate for a vote.
Comments
news...
It's like that 'Mums for Justice' group in the UK, who seem to think that Video Games lead to an increase in 'street gangs and thuggery' as well as being 'anti-social and addictive' and yet fail entirely to spot their own oxymoron.
Not my place to say. It really depends on the kid. Like I said, there's no such thing as a game that's not for kids. Just kids who can't handle certain games.
"Some of you sound like you’re actually against it because it goes against your rights or something."
Not me personally. But do you ever think that some people on this board just might be below the necessary age, and do have an interest? They would question why their rights have to be restricted even though they scoff at the thought that the games they enjoy every day have some dreadful effect on them. I turned 17 right when the first bills started to get passed. But even before that, when there was just talk about implementing legislation, I spoke out against it, refuted the claims of harm, and my argument has pretty much stayed the same, although I don't rely on the "I played violent games my whole life and it hasn't affected me" position as much anymore, as opposed to general statements about how the evidence showing harm is flawed and unreliable.
"The problem with the argument that 100% of the responsibility falls on the parents is that some people have really crappy parent(s)."
What is a crappy parent? Would someone who doesn't let their kids play M-rated games, yet completely ignores various signs their kid has emotional problems be any better than one who lets him play whatever game he wants, yet is attentive to their needs, and explains the context and consequences of the violence?
"The idea behind this is to protect the kids."
Again, I must ask, protect them from what, exactly? The connection between violent media and violent behavior is tenuous at best, speculative at worst. Take that away, and we are going into the realm of "aggressive thoughts," which are natural in just about everyone, not dangerous by themselves, and possibly completely irrelevant.
"Shutup and go get a haircut!"
Ouch! You got me! My witty retorts merely bounce off!
"don’t any of you think it might be a good idea to keep these kinds of games away from kids below a certain age?"
Yes, that is a good idea. However, it's not the government's job to raise children - that responsibility lies with the parents.
"Some of you sound like you’re actually against it because it goes against your rights or something."
Nail, head.
"The problem with the argument that 100% of the responsibility falls on the parents is that some people have really crappy parent(s)."
So why not do more to make parents better? I honestly believe every kid deserves responsible, mature parents - and frankly, a solid grounding from their upbringing would do more to protect them from the potential (and unproven) dangers of violent media than any knee-jerk reaction would.
"That doesn’t mean we should just let kids get a hold of something that isn’t suitable for someone there age and throw the parents in jail."
I don't think anybody here's ever advocated arresting parents. I don't think there should be any criminal penalties associated with this at all. Retailers need to be more stringent about not selling to kids, although legislation is a step too far with how little else has been tried. Parents need to be educated, and the industry needs to own up when it goes too far.
"The idea behind this is to protect the kids."
I bet wrapping them up in bubblewrap would protect kids from accidents, but I doubt you'd be able to pass a law fining anyone not doing that.
"Sometimes grownups do know what’s best. Even politicians!"
The key word there is "sometimes". And even while they may know what's best, that's no guarantee they'll always *do* what's best.
Let the process repeat itself a few dozen times. Years go by. People are still being stupid about it and it keeps going on. Schools now close down because the government can't fund them with money because it's being wasted on unconstitutionalism.
Yay politics.
I think that people who don't understand the difference between Reality and Fantasy should be playing these games anyway.
I wonder which version they got of BMX...X-Box or GameCube. The PS2 was censored after all...I could've tried it back home because it was for rent at Roger's Video.
Anyway. I'm glad the Canadian Government isn't being dumb about this kind of stuff.
The one about the real strippers is from BMXXX. A crappy wannabe BMX game that couldn't ride on being good and had to try to be edgy to sell well, fortunately it didn't sell well and Dave Mirra or whoever sued the dev for sullying his name/series of good games.
Yes, that is my job as the parent of the child. Not the government, and not the register operator. Now, if the register operator wants to voluntarily (company policy as it exists in all major retailers) keep certain ratings out of underage kids hands, thats fine - it's their business decision to turn away sales to keep the 'outraged, easily offended' crowd happy.
The government is 100% another issue. And yes, it, " goes against your rights or something." Read a few judicial decisions turning down similar laws.
"The problem with the argument that 100% of the responsibility falls on the parents is that some people have really crappy parent(s)"
Well that's your judgement to make, and it's your choice to associate with such people (or not as you see fit). But you can't legislate against 'bad' parenting unless it's against a proven, definite, long-lasting, or immediate harm. Video Game violence? Nope, doesn't even belong in the same category.
I honestly want to call that game out as that Jack Thompson game, cause i recall at one point being able to do just that.
Beyond all this nonsense, I'm guessing it's gonna pass and then hit the roadblock known as the industry and finally get shot down, like old times.
There hasn't been any hard evidence leading to anything, just a little brush on the shoulder on both sides.
If the politicians really want to pull something off, sign a deal with the ESRB for an ad (maybe even for a campaign run) and do a PSA.
The problem with the argument that 100% of the responsibility falls on the parents is that some people have really crappy parent(s). That doesn't mean we should just let kids get a hold of something that isn't suitable for someone there age and throw the parents in jail. The idea behind this is to protect the kids.
"But kids don't need to be protected from these kinds of games! These games are fun and make me feel all tingly"
Shutup and go get a haircut! Sometimes grownups do know what's best. Even politicians!
Now run along you little scamps!
Protect the kids from what though. I've said it before and i'll say it again, there is nothing that kids (at least older kids and teenagers) need to be protected from in these games as there is no evidence beyond some extremely weak, inconsistant, incredibly flawed and biased studies that these violent games are actually harmful to kids. Beyond any sort of proven harm, i believe the responsibility falls solely on the shoulders of the parents. Much in the same way it does for religious parents who don't want their kids reading Harry Potter books or atheist, jewish or muslim parents who don't want their children reading the Holy Bible.
Committee passes bill to fine people who allow children to go to school.
LOL
BTW, I'm surprised that nobody mentioned the study that was publicized earlier this week on GP.
Also, I find it ridiculous that politicians continue to use GTA as a way to lampoon the game industry, and yet they still do not bother to actually research it properly or play it even the slightest bit.
"The fact is young children should NOT be playing these games. I’ve heard of children as young as five playing the GTA games and its just absurd."
Yes. I agree. But guess just who it is that buy these games. The kids? Hell no, ain't got the money.
Their parents, that's what. Parents who need something that will shut their kids up and leave mom and dad time to watch their favourite channels.
The fact that the game is overplastered with M - which ironically(not!) stands for Mature - means little to Mr. and Mrs. Don't-Give-A-Shit.
So, with every piece of legislature towards regulating videogames destroyed by this simple fact ALONE, it's time to move on to the whole violence thing.
1.
To date, there is no conclusive evidence of videogames being anything BUT good to a human's mental self.
APA study, anyone? You know, the study a certain lawyer kept bringing up until some time ago. Maybe he read it since then, 'cause it's content explicitly states that a healthy person is NOT affected in any way by ANY form of media. There is no actual murder-teaching, no professional weapons-training. Only a short-term mental stimuli which ultimate results in Nothing.
2.
There has been no shootings to date where there was found substantial evidence for there to have been a link between the shooter(s) and videogames.
In fact, in many of these incidents that were hailed by pro-legislation people and mass-media as "the result of videogames", the culprits had little to no access to videogames themselves.
3.
Even then, every time a bill is supported by politicians ranting about videogame Content, they ironically enough take EVERYTHING out of context.
Like for example the hooker-beating. I can't EVER recall a mission objective in any GTA game being that of patrolling the streets for hookers and beating them up. Machete-cutting and headmash-rumbling? Not even IN the game, not to mention not a rewarding or vital goal...
Also, do I have to mention the SCMRPG-Bully confusion that most political figures suffer from?
While it's true that kids shouldn't be playing a game like GTA - which despite popular belief do NOT turn your kids into zombified killermachines - there is ultimately only one force powerful enough to prevent it.
The Parents.
The Government Can not and Should not attempt to police this area. It is an area both out of reach and off-limits to the Government.
That is Final.
Silly co-sponsor, facts are for kids ^^
While i agree with what you're saying, i think Josh was specifically refering to younger children like those in their single digit ages and not teenagers or older children who most likely can handle the games just fine.
As for this bill, well there is just five words that comes to mind, unconstitutional waste of taxpayer's money. That is all.
What are all these value judgments about that kids shouldn't be playing M-rated games? That completely depends on the individual. You even admitted yourself that you played many a violent game as a kid. We all grew up with Mortal Kombat, Doom, Duke Nukem, Quake...(sure they weren't GTA, but still pretty graphic). Are you saying there is a possibility that the violence will be imitated, because we all pretty much agree that is not the case, and is what a good deal of our argument hinges on. To me, there is no such thing as a game that is not for kids, just certain kids who aren't ready to play certain games.
Because (some) parents are too stupid to figure out the features of the game system, so we need a nanny state to trample all over the consititution instead?
Yes there are horribly games that go simply for shock value, but we also have Ben Stiller or Will Feral release at least one of those types of movies that redefine low brow humor and every year have a atleast 10 actions movies or Horror movies that redefine use of gore and ultra violence that are released on DVD which kids can get much easier then any videogame.
I also feel like showing Postal 2 is the very definition of sterotyping. Yes the Mature rating often deals with games that involve a high level of violence and or sexual/suggestive content. But Postal is all the way at one end of the spectrum. There is the other end where the violence fits for the type of story (Grand Theft Auto) or something like Eternal Darkness where there is violence, but there is also a moving storyline and experience in which it asks questions and also plays with your own expectations.
The only reason game slike Postal and GTA are scary is because of the amazing fact that they reflect who's playing. Postal not so much, but the level of carnage you cause is up to you. GTA is especially scary because while you are a criminal all the extra violence doens't need to be done. YOu don't have to kill random people, cops, or hookers when not on a misison. I also don't think there were any kill hookers mission in any GTA. But wow ain't it a kick that little Timmy likes to do that.
Pretty much I think the whole debate can be simplified with something I heard Adam Sesslar say in a podcast, "Culture isn't symptomatic of its Art, Art is symptomatic of its culture." If you are frightend by the fact that the ultra violent games can captivate the youth so much, you should be asking why to you have a culture that responds so much to that level of violence.
It didn't start with video games, It didn't start with TV, It didn't start with Moives, It didn't start with comic books. Hell at latest it started the with the writen word, but my bet lies on the fact that it started about the same time the first creatures we would call people started to scratch pictures in walls. Violence for so long in the human species has equaled survival. In the current structure of the world and American society we have so many people in charge of our lives and livelyhoods that its become part of the fabric of society that people joke that if they could get away with a single murder they'd kill their boss. We feel tiny, insignficant and threatened. We like to rout for the people who manage through some act manage to shuck the rules of society and take back control and eliminate everyone in their way. Why else woudl films liek the God Father and Scarface be so popular.
Everyone just likes it if its simple. Nobody wants to admit that perhaps the reason their kids have a culutre that likes violence ever so much is because you cheered when Jason's Mother first killed all those teenagers at Camp Crystal Lake, or that your grand kids happen to like GTA because you thought there was nothing wrong when you watched the Lone Ranger and had no trouble with him wasting all those Injins. Life's complicated, kids will see things they shouldn't see, read, or hear at their currnet age. Trying to lock it all up with laws aren't right because it pretty much makes parrents think that they don't have to do anything because government will handle the parrenting for them. You don't like the culutre of violence you need to put it in perspective for the child at each and every step, one child at a time through personal interaction. Ask the questions, try to get them to explain what they saw and what they took from it, and best of all set limits. DVD players, TV's, and Videogames have Parental controls. Even doing that much will limit what they can play and unless you've got a kid who's willing to try at minimum 9999 or you have an very simple password they won't be able to play that copy of GTA no matter how they got it.
Yeah, I know; but on the same hand, if they don't know anything about the plot, etc, then it could easily be thought that you're going around killing people without any real reason. Because they don't know what it's about.
Doesn't really matter what game they're using; it's the message that counts. "We're going to bring up a bill that is unconstitutional and will surely be shot down, force the State into a legal battle in which it will surely fail and end up with substancial legal fees, because I need easy votes instead of looking for a real solution because it would take away my precious do-nothing time. I LOVE KIDS, VOTE FOR ME!"
...
Sec. 4. A video game retailer who sells, rents, or permits another person to sell or rent a video game that is prepackaged and rated:
(1) M by the Entertainment Software Ratings Board to an individual less than seventeen (17) years of age; or
(2) AO by the Entertainment Software Ratings Board to an individual less than eighteen (18) years of age;
commits a Class B infraction.
Sec. 5. A sales clerk who knowingly or intentionally sells or rents a video game that is prepackaged and rated:
(1) M; or
(2) AO;
by the Entertainment Software Ratings Board to an individual less than eighteen (18) years of age, knowing that the individual is less than eighteen (18) years of age, commits a Class B infraction.
So it's okay for a manager to sell M-games to 17-yr-olds, but not sales associates? Ooookay...
I( wish that were true in a sense. I would love the San Andreas game to give me some (or all) of the cars in that game. But even if it could make you the character and give you weapons (or cars in my case) you will still need to know how to use them correctly.
Posting from school.
- Warren Lewis
Unless the law applies to *ALL* media, it's unconstitutional. Apply it across the board or not at all. Movies, books, games, no exceptions.
Good point and well said. Rereading what I posted earlier some of my point probably got lost in that rant of mine. I agree that this is unconstitutional and potentially harmful, and as I said earlier, "parents need to watch what their kids are doing." Although the bill has *potential* to be helpful, yes it does cause more harm then good.
Kids are growing up with game systems and televisions in their rooms with more and more single parents busy at work and trying to provide. I do feel at some level there should be some prevention to keep games out of the hands of younger children. However no, it should not be at a government level. Perhaps a retailers own policy to more aggresivley monitor their sales.
This is both ridiculous and pathetic.
Also i dont think there would be a problem if the church shoot out was in mosque to kill terrorist.
hmm didnt they make a game where they kill saddam hussin. And then I bet if a game make made a game to kill president Bush there would be a huge public out cry. Even if the game allowed u to play for both sides.
I been wondering if these politicians have been watching TV lately or have they been snorting coke of some prosititue then beating her to death and taking there money back.
and well next thing u know it will be like that family guy censorship episode where u have government officals following you around and then government officals following the government officals around and so on and so on.
DECLARE WAR ON INCOMPENTENCE
Yes, I agree that ALL kinds of media are not strictly controlled enough, it has been pointed out enough times that children can get hold of violent movies even more easily, I don't accept that the polticians voting on this aren't aware of it.
But to single out computer games when the 'interactive' element has been disproved time and time again, and to purely judge those images on your OWN opinion of what you want to see or not, as these politicians have done, rather than considering it as a representative of the People, they have only represented themselves and their own opinions. Unfortunately, politics seems to be becoming more and more a case of people trying to change the world to suit themselves, without any consideration for the opinion of the voter whatsoever.
Well, the bill is going to cost them a fortune for their inablility to think in terms of anything other than control, so hopefully they will learn a lesson from it.
While I agree that young children should not be playing games such as Grand theft Auto, I also think that it should not be up to the state to make parental decisions for them, especially in a context as blantantly unconstitutional is this one.
"You become the character, for better or for worse, (including) kicking (a prostitute) out of a car and then beating her to death. If you think (children) are not playing these games because there’s an ‘M’ on the box, you’re badly mistaken."
I've seen a lot of anti-video game politicians use this question-begging argument, as if it's understood by all that an interactive violent activity is worse than a passive one simply because of the interactive nature. If anything, I'd argue the opposite, since at least in video games (as opposed to movies, music, or whatever other media the post-Tipper Gore political world wants to demonize), the interactive nature provides a release for whatever "sick" fantasies kids may have.
"I am absolutely, totally appalled - first by the content and second that you would bring that kind of filth into this Senate chamber. You ought to be ashamed of yourself."
I, too, am absolutely, totally appalled - first, by the blantant disregard for the First Amendment and second by the notion that these politicians would bring this kind of nanny state rhetoric into the Senate chamber. THEY ought to ashamed, and they ought to stop wasting taxpayer money and unlawful horeshit like this.
Soo, as soon as San Andreas finishes loading my game, I suddenly change races, sprout cornrows, my clothing magically switches and a robotic arm comes out of the console and places a gun in my hand. wow, I didn't know the developers could make that happen [/sarcasm]
I say this myself having played many a violent video game at a younger age. The real problem is parents just need to pay attention to what the hell their kids are doing.
But still, if parents feel their kids are mentally stable enough to play these types of games they can still go to the store and pick them up themselves.
Now I'll be honest, if I were still under 18 this would piss me off to no end. What an inconvenience (and embarassment!) that I would need my mother to come with me to buy the games that I wanted. But now that I'm older I understand the way the world works, it makes sense. I can tell you I would not want my children playing games like this until they are mentally mature enough. And you can bet your arse I'd be a responsible enough parent to take the five minutes to sit down and talk to them about what they are playing; if not play it with them. Its not much different than needing to be 21 to drink or 18 to buy cigs and see r-rated movies.
In my opinion, this bill doesn't hurt anyone (yet..) but does have the potential too. As was mentioned earlier, the rating system is ran by a third party, possibly making this unconstitutional. Thats the real reason this should make you upset and the bill stopped. Otherwise, it has good potential to keep violent games away from immature children who cannot handle them. Although, I suspect the politican had alterior motives himself other than actually protecting children. Just trying to get some limelight for the next election.
And for the record, yes I work in the video gaming industry.
I saw an episode of this new show called "criminal minds". Its about a group of special cops that kick ass and take names. In one episode there was this crazy dude that had a woman, in vicotria secret stuff.(she had a mini skirt on and she wasnt totally nude but very poorly covered) She was tied up sitting on her knees in a barn house, and her captor was quoting something from the bible. Then he released 3 rotrilers on her. Now, you dont SEE it happen, but its pretty freaking obvious when you see the person watching the tape, when she covers her eyes.
Most video games that have violence is for justice. A wrong doing done to the player that must be fixed. Other games, like GTA have a rating on them that says M. M means that its for mature gamers, ages 17+ and not suitable to anyone under it. So, who is the first line of defense on this issue? Yeap, as we keep saying time and time again, its the parents.
These laws will do them no good, when the parent is willing and ignorant enough to buy these games for their kids.
If it was RE4, then I don't see why they should be complaining about it. In the game, you go around and kill parasitic terrorists whose plan is to destroy the United States. Unless these politicians hate their country, I think we can all assume they've never played, listened, or seen any of RE4's plot.
And that's why I'm not a politician, nor do I have any desire to become one.
Again, it's Postal 2 - at one point you need to go to Church to confess your sins, which you can murder freely in (Which I certainly did not do! Oh, these screenshots? Uh.. research. Yeah.) - but as soon as you get to confessional, it's raided by Al Queida style guys. Carnage ensues!
It's all in the name of fun. Honest!
As far as I'm conserned...I pull out anyone from their car and beat them up and then drive on the sidewalk running over all kinds of pedestrians...not a city of hookers.
Um...Oh! How about Resident Evil 4! Don't you kill a few in the church? (been a while since I played)
As stupid as all of this is, people, this IS politics. These guys are hired to stir the masses with half-assed media displays about killing hookers. From how it was described he showed Postal 2, BMXXX, and probably some GTA. Now, excluding GTA, Postal 2 hasn't been on shelves in ages, and BMXXX was rated so badly that it disappeared from production all together.
It's kind of a shame though. If they could enforce this law there would be a bit more cash going to the state, but seeing as its an unconstitutional piece of vomit... Well, it won't ever see the light of day and Indiana will now owe legal fees. Kind of the opposite effect.
Hopefully, Hal Halpin is working on a plan...knucklehead politicians need to pay one way or another.
Any idea which game they're talking about? The only one I can think of is Max Payne, and it's a satanic church, and you "gun down" a mob boss...
Posting from home.
- Warren Lewis
It would go like this, you'd drive down the street, stop your car, press the 'sex' button, press the 'beat up' button and then a message would flash up saying 'you got a point'
And if you think our generation cares that much; then you are sadly far behind the times. Which you are already.
"I am absolutely, totally appalled - first by the content and second that you would bring that kind of filth into this Senate chamber. You ought to be ashamed of yourself." And I, sir, am appalled that this is an issue, and it is thinking like yours which is shameful.
Gah, that's a pretty bad commerical... i mean it's just way too long and wordy XD
campaign commercials gotta make each of their points short and right to the point. gotta make sure you account for all the voters, including those with short attention spans for such things otherwise they'll just tune you out.
Gotta cut back on the details; "Half-million dollars wasted trying to pass an obviously unconstitutional bill", "ignoring warnings from experts", and "that your against all that", are pretty much the only things voters are gonna remember anyway.
"You become the character, for better or for worse, (including) pulling (a terrorist) out of a house and then shooting him to death. If you think (children) are not playing these games because of adult content, you’re badly mistaken."
Committee passes bill to fine people who allow children to act out real-world events that are pushed in their face by the mainstream media on a daily basis.
If you think that slapping legislation on it is going to stop kids from playing it, you're sadly mistaken.
I also have a sneaking suspicion that there is part of a sentence missing from the article. I'll correct it here:
Yesterday’s hearing generated a bit of controversy when Sen. Brent Waltz (R) objected to the showing of video footage from violent games on a large screen T.V. during the public hearing:
"I am absolutely, totally appalled - first by the content and second that you would bring that kind of filth into this Senate chamber. You ought to be ashamed of yourself."
Sen. Waltz then sat back down to continue his lude emailing of interns and pages.
There, that's more like it!
Theres worse on TV every night, no doubt. Would she complain if that "brought that kind of filth" into the senat chamber?
I just thought of something entertaining. If I took up a career in politics and was running against any of these jokers come election, here would be one of my commercials.
"Governor (insert name of silly politician here who's tried to pass legislation like this) tried to pass legislation trying to make it illegal to sell Mature-rated video games to minors. This has been tried several times before in other states and each one was declared unconstitutional. All this was done under the guise of "Won't someone think of the children?" This bill failed like all the others, shot down by the courts for being unconstitutional and ended up costing you, the taxpayers, the half-million dollars the state had to pay to the ESA in legal restitution fees. Do you really want someone in office who is willing to spend YOUR hard-earned money on useless endeavors just to get votes? Do the right thing and vote for sabin_blitz, the leader with the constitution at heart." Thismessagewaspaidforbytheofficefortheelectionofsabin_blitz.
Committee passes bill to fine people who allow children to play Cowboys and Indians.
This is such a silly law (like so many of these "THINK OF THE CHILDREN" measures). How is it going to be enforced? Maybe there will be a police officer assigned to every store that sells video games on stakeout at the cash register, just waiting for the cashier to slip up, then busting him. Maybe there will be a hotline where you can shop these heinous criminals to the law.
Perhaps it will be parents who bring to the authorities attention the fact that a cashier sold their child an AO game. But then again, that parent would have to be asked "You gave your child enough money to buy a modern computer game (~$60), then let them go and spend it on whatever they wanted with no supervision? If anything, they should fine parents for not properly looking after their children.
I mean, these games haven't seen the inside of a shop for years, it was published in 2003 and has a huge M on the front of the box for crying out loud!
Can you actually pull a prostitute out of a car in GTA?
I would'nt know I never played any of them, did'nt like the settings much.
...