March 18, 2008 -
As GamePolitics reported yesterday, elected officials will gather in Massachusetts today to consider HB1423, a law that would restrict the access of minors to violent video games in the same way in which they are blocked from purchasing sexually explicit material.This morning's Boston Herald has weighed in with an editorial urging legislators and Boston Mayor Thomas Menino (left) to drop the measure and focus their energies on more tangible problems:
We know of no direct link between violent video games and... actual violence... This one is, shall we say, constitutionally problematic. Other states have been stopped cold in their efforts to ban the sale of violent video games to kids - as recently as yesterday...
While we appreciate the mayor’s concern over the truly horrifying material in question... the idea has more than a few holes. Is the mayor going to deploy a Video Game Task Force to patrol local stores?
...Other states have spent a fortune defending their bans - and losing... [Mayor Menino] needs to make better use of his time than going after such low-hanging fruit.
GP: Game industry nemesis Jack Thompson apparently will not be involved in today's hearing, even though he drafted the wording of HB1423 for Menino's office in early 2007. Thompson denies that he's out of the loop, however, and apparently was interviewed about the video game law on a Boston radio station this morning.
UPDATE: Thompson's 24-minute WAAF interview here.
Comments
If any of these laws actually gets passed where they make it difficult to purchase the games, then I expect to see alcohol and cigarettes pulled from the supermarkets, and I expect to see R rated movies pulled from block buster.
Kids watch DVDs, why would they make DVD's that are R rated? Someone think of the CHILDREN!
"I was in a gamestop Saturday, and the manager actually pointed out that the game was rated M and was intended only for adults. The parent bought the game anyway"
As would I. You seem to think that the ratings have (or should have) some sort of limiting effect. They do not, nor should they. Game ratings exist so that adults who don't play games can have some idea of what their kid is playing. When I buy a game for my kid I'll be playing that game so I'll know what it contains and whether my kid should play it. I don't need a ratings system to tell me because I'll know - first hand - what's in it.
The only people who use the ratings system are people who can't be bothered to parent their children.
With respect I think you're misunderstanding the statements people are making regarding the ratings.
You certainly have the right to "ignore" the ratings box, although I do think it provides a good summary (no substitute for actually playing the game of course) of the content.
The problem is that many parents are not interested in doing what you do, actually playing the game. I commend you for taking that step but many, MANY parents are not interested.
The violent video game control crowd latches onto this fear many parents have about violent video games turning their children into little Charles Mansons. Then they couple that with the profound ignorance of a large amount of parents regarding video game content and the ratings system to push their agenda.
Advocates, such as myself and most people here, applaud parents like you. We wish their were more parents who take the responsibility on themselves to police the content their kids view.
However, a large segment of parents do not want to be bothered to make the small amount of effort it would take to either view the game or at the very least view the rating.
On a video game, as I'm sure you know, you get a lot of information in the ratings box about the content. If parents would just take the responsibility to read that box and make informed decisions about their child and the content we wouldn't have a problem.
The issue is that a lot of people simply don't want that responsibility, they want it to be a criminal or civil crime to sell M rated games to kids. No responsibility on the parents at all. Just make it illegal to sell the game.
In fact it is the video game critics that want to take away your freedom to buy what you want for your kids.
I think mogbert's issue was that their is an excellent chance that this parent who bought the game anyway would cry about the content and argue that the game should not be sold to kids. Cleverly "forgetting" that it was himself or herself who didn't want the responsibility.
I think the "dumb" comments are meant to refer to those parents who ignore the label, buy the game, then act horrified that little Billy or Suzy was playing such a bad video game.
"It is wrong to portray me as ‘dumb’ for taking on the responsibility of judging that my daughter is mature enough to play certain games."
I'm sorry if you were offended by what I posted. You are one of the responsible parents who takes the time to look into the media your kids are consuming and making your own judgement as to whether or not it is appropriate, and I applaud you for that. You are not ignoring the rating label, you acknowledge it and make an informed decision.
The people people I'm referring to as dumb are those that don't bother to, or can't understand the ratings, buy their kids whatever they ask for, and then scream about the horrific content in the games, complaining that no-one should make such a game for kids.
What material are they specifically discussing as horrifying ?? or is this a throw away 'all games are evil' comment?
At least the point he's making is sensible even if his wording is fueling the misconceptions.
baby steps, we'll get there in the end.
Indeed. I was a bit taken aback by that comment as well. Oh well, this is better than nothing.
1. The difficulty in enforcement.
As the writer says, how is the state going to enforce this law? Station a police officer at every store that sells video games, checking the purchases and IDs of every single person who buys a game?
2. Pursuing laws because it is safer than not doing so.
"absolutely a battle that the mayor feels he should take on." Here is the problem. Even if the mayor was smart enough to see that complete and utter failure of every single other law, including several worded EXACTLY like this, he still can't put it aside. That lets any political rival step in and say "This man doesn't care about your kids!". No matter how rationally it can be explained, about saving the taxpayers money on a lost cause law, about finding and curbing the real causes of youth violence, about the fact that video games do not cause violence, there will always be some shrill alarmist with an agenda to push this issue.
I do not like however, his description of violent games: "games that allow kids to “virtually” beat up prostitutes or take a sledgehammer to the head of an enemy"
The games allow your character to do these actions. If the games contain these actions, kids should not have them in the first place. If parents were a little more responsible, willing to learn and observant, kids WOULDN'T have them! Don't blame the video games if you're too dumb to read the ratings label, or ignore it.
@ Bob
I'd assume they're referring to games like Manhunt. I don't really have a problem with someone referring to the content of certain games as being "horrifying" and the like, as long as they acknowledge that people have the right to make it and consume it, if they so choose.
Personally, I think the Saw and Hostel movies are horrifying, and have no desire to ever see them, but I don't begrudge the people who made them or enjoy them.
Though, I do applaud stores that require an adult to be present when a minor is purchasing an M rated game. But that should only be store policy, not an actual law.
I don't believe Menino gives two craps about the children, or even cares about them the little bit that I do. When I worked retail, I tried to talk parents out ofbuying GTA for their kids (they usually responded with "I don't care", and bought it anyway).
Would this law punish parents who buy M rated games for their own kids?
Are there any figures out there about how kids get M rated games? What percentage buys it themselves, and what percentage get their parents/other relatives to buy it for them?
A responsible and capable politician would research this and stop it before it happens. It seems no one will, though.
"Don’t blame the video games if you’re too dumb to read the ratings label, or ignore it."
I'm sorry, but this is another case of a so-called 'game advocate' rolling over and accepting the game critics' language. There is nothing 'dumb' about ignoring a ratings label. As a parent I'm the ONLY one who decides what my daughter is ready to play, and that's exactly the way it should be. It is wrong to portray me as 'dumb' for taking on the responsibility of judging that my daughter is mature enough to play certain games. More than that - you're making the game critics' argument for them.
I mean if game advocates accept the notion that parents can't be responsible for their children's access to games, then we've already lost.
But that's what my state is good at doing, haplessly spending money. The Big Dig has been ongoing since 1982, it's STILL not done.
I won't continue, I'll just get angry and start bashing.
Why even bother posting the JT radio interview? Its just gonna be the same old stuff.
- I will destroy TT, R*, and the games industry
- I predicted Columbine
- Cho was addicted to Counter Strike
- I wrote a book
- I am a christian
- games are murder simulators
- there is a direct link between violence and videogames
- the First Ammendment is not absolute
Seen it , Heard it.
I completely agree that you should be responsible for your children. But when some kids go out and murder a bunch of their class mates, suddenly the parents aren't so willing to take responsibility... and that's when they blame the ratings and the content, etc. Thats how this whole damn debate started!
I dont think that Shoehorn O’Plenty was berating parents such as yourself, but rather just expressing his annoyance after reading this piece that reminds us all how so many people seem to not understand the ratings system and proper parenting skills in general. From what you said you actually understand whats going down when you decide to buy a game. Not to mention dumb is often used synonymously with ignorant, despite the fact that they mean two different things. Ignorant=lacking of knowledge, dumb=lacking of good sense(just to remind everyone). And quite frankly most parents(save for those who actually play videogames) are very Ignorant on the subject of video games.
Unfortunately, without knowing more details, I can't comment on the Gamestop story. It could have been either. Was the parent clearly buying it for a kid, or a teenager? Was he aware of the M rating, but had decided his kid could play it? Was he willfully ignorant of the rating, because he thought all games were for kids anyway?
These are important details before judging that person.
because it's fun watching him fail.
I personally think jack is abusing these governments by dangling a "pr bonus" in front of them to try to get them to legislate videogames, and then when he finally knows all is lost he blames the local govt and leaves.
I mean look at his tactics. he used to say "video games are not speech" but then when the courts proved him wrong he stopped saying it. now he's reverted to "the first amendment is not absolute" to try
this man has the most optimistic mindset I've ever seen. I'm pretty sure he could be on a crashing plane going "hey, I've had a good one"
There is no link - no link whatsoever - between video games and real life violence. No study has ever been able to show a connection. When we speak about violent videogames as if they're a force for harm we're undermining our own position.
Until it's shown that violent videogames cause real life violence, there should be no problem in allowing children to play violent games - if the parent thinks the kid can handle it. It's the parent's responsibility, and no ratings board is competent enough to take that responsibility away from the parent. We can have ratings and we can have bans, but neither is anywhere near as good as a parent making responsible choices based on his intimate knowledge of his child. After all, if a parent, who lives with a child 24/7, can't be trusted to make the right decision, what makes us think that a court or a ratings board (who have never even seen the child in question) can?
So let's dispense with the "Parents who buy 'M'-rated games for their kids are dumb" talk. I bought Assassin's Creed for me, not for my 5 year-old daughter, but on occasion I do let her play the non-violent parts - I'm not dumb - in fact I have an IQ somewhere near 140 - hardly 'dumb'. I let my daughter play non-violent parts of violent videogames because I judge that she can handle the parts I let her play (the jumping from building to building parts). Now this is a game that the powers that be would have BANNED me from letting my daughter play. Apparently they don't think that I have the ability to safeguard my daughter, so they would rather do it for me by restricting the entire game - both the violent parts and the non-violent parts. They don't have the control I have to discriminate, so they would block everything - the murder and the violence, but ALSO the game's harmless running, climbing, jumping and horse-riding that is really cool and that can't do a kid any harm at all.
I'm just glad that right now I'm the one with the responsibility, because if it ever gets taken away my daughter will be LESS SAFE than she is now because someone who doesn't know her will be judging what she should be exposed to. That is an inherently dangerous situation because it takes responsibility away from the people who need to be responsible - and that CAN lead to real problems. I mean just look at alcohol - the drug's defining characteristic is that it lowers a person's sense of responsibility. With reduced sense of responsibility, people behave irresponsibly - that's a simple truism. You take away all responsibility and you are left with a person's emotions - rage, anger, etc.. With that you get parental abuse, spousal abuse, gambling problems - yet Mayor Menino wants to get a law that moves towards lowered responsibility. I mean am I the only one who sees how wacky that is?
A big problem in the world today is that people don't want to feel responsible for their actions and for their kids. I really don't think it would be a good idea to support that attitude with legislation that says "Hey, it's okay - we'll do it for you. You don't need to be responsible anymore". That's a recipe for more problems if ever I saw one.
The Herald's editor ain't sounding to me like a huge fan of video game content. Or am I missing the sarcasm? Is he referring to depictions of decapitations, disembowelment, and dismemberment? If so, . . .
DON'T BELIEVE THE HYPE!!!
A big problem in the world today is that people don’t want to feel responsible for their actions and for their kids
totally agree, however a second big problem that I often forget is that most people dont bother to educate themselves on an issue. Any damn issue. They listen to Fox or see JT on TV and think, 'hey they are on tv, they must know what they are talking about.'
I read this and many other sites and therefore understand the issues at hand and the complexity not just of the issues, but the language mindset and politics that motivate it.
Most people dont. they think games are for kids so COD4, GTA or Manhunt is terrible, whilst they sit back and watch Hostel. Hey an 18 rated DVD is for adults, but ALL games are for kids.
Mindless Sheep mentality that permiates our society; reliant on sensationalised journalism for their information without thought of checking the facts.
As the Internet generation grows up ( im 33yo now ) and takes over the reigns from these fossils, hopefully whilst the majority may still be dumb, they can be dumb and informed :p
While we appreciate the mayor’s concern over the truly horrifying material in question - games that allow kids to 'virtually' beat up prostitutes or take a sledgehammer to the head of an enemy - the idea has more than a few holes."
As I've confessed before, I'm a Ms. Pac-Man kinda guy, so I'll have to let the young'uns speak on this.
As has been mentioned several times before, the thing that makes games unique is their non-linear fashion. These aren't games like Snakes and Ladders, where it's mostly a linear game mixed with chance, but are instead growing into 'interactive movies', whilst Fantasy games and even War games had little trouble being accepted as interactive, things like Gangster or Horror genres will probably have a much harder time being accepted. It's kind of odd that people complain that video games make people think they cannot be killed and yet Freddy Krueger has made several sequels, in every one of which he dies horribly at the end, but always comes back. So Freddy can have infinite lives, but Video Games are wrong if they depict more than one?
Heck, how many times did Flash Gordon 'kill' Ming?
I do like stores that have a policy for informing parents of the content of the game before selling it. But I see nothing wrong with a parent choosing to buy the game anyway. It doesn't make them bad parents, or ignorant. And I don't think anyone here has said otherwise, either.
Ah... but you didn't know what the game was or how old the child was, so how could you say you would do the same? You may have decided the title was too violent, gory, or sexual for a child of that age.
As you pointed out, the rating of the game is only a guideline, and parents are able to be guided by it or ignore it. However, that doesn't stop MY feelings that children under a certain age shouldn't be allowed full access to nudity and excessive gore. Would I let a 9 year old pay the "T for Teen" Super smash Brothers Brawl? Of course. Would I let a 9 year old play Halo? Sure, I don't think it would be that bad. However, I probably wouldn't let my 9 year old play God of War.
You may recall (or not) about a parent that sits near me at work complaining that a movie she was having her 7 and 8 year olds watch had a sex scene in it. She completely ignored the movies PG-13 rating and felt it was OK for kids based entirely on "Jim Carey was wearing a tutu, it was a kids movie".
As gamers grow up, the target audience is maturing. That means that some developers will go for another type of "low hanging fruit", the cheap and sleasy games (see: BMXXX, the eXtreme topless BMX game from Acclaim). I wouldn't expect that to be appropriate for younger audiences.If you disagree on this point, then our difference go beyound the current scope of this article.
So before lamblasting those of us on this board for indicating that irresposible parents are ignoring the ESRB ratings, keep in mind that irresponsible parents ARE ignoring the ESRB rating. If you are seeing the rating and taking them into account when you make your purchase, you AREN'T ignoring them, you are overriding them. That isn't what we are talking about. In the example I gave, the child WAS much to young (like seven) to be playing the game that the father was buying for him (can't remember the title, but was a fairly gory title). The father didn't give any indication that he was actually making a descision, kind of like whene Sears asks if you want to sign up for their credit card, you don't pay any attention to the question. He just waved his hands and grunted an affirmative.
Although they do clown Jack more than once or twice.
He goes, " . . . GTA Vice City." They go "Great game! Great game! Love that game."
It’s as if their brain is saying “If it wasn’t OK for the kid to play, they wouldn’t have it in the store.”
That's the mentality that puts mature-rated animes in the same category as disney, barney, and teletubbies.
@Robert Gauss:
"Once again a poltician does not bother to check out exactly why the bill he intends to pass is going to fail and bring financial loss to the state and the taxpayers."
What does he care? He's not the one footing the bill when it fails...
@Ian Cooper:
The only people who use the ratings system are people who can’t be bothered to parent their children.
Now we both know that's not true. I mean if they actually bothered to read the rating and think, "Gee, maybe Manhunt 2 *isn't* appropriate for little 12 y/o Johnny" then we wouldn't even be in this mess... but here we are.
And about your 2nd post, once everyone starts acknowledging that, then we'll stop. But I just don't see that happening anytime soon.
@DCOW:
Yeah but I agree, we've seen this episode... I'm still waiting on the series finale when his career finally crashes and burns, and it becomes a national gamer holiday.
I think the phrase "take the money and run" could also describe Jak's M.O. in regards to that as well. I’m sure he doesn’t do all this for free, and that he charges some sort of consulting or service fees for his participation, then skedaddles when the going gets bad and washes his hands of involvement, leaving the governments to take the fall.
"I am a Christian, So I believe everyone is bad".
What a fucking retard.
Then a caller mentions how him and all him friends from high school who played games like Halo and GTA have families and good jobs, and don't go out and kill people.
To this Jack tells the caller that he and his friends are not a reliable statistic. And says that it is different if you consider the whole universe of people.
What a fucking retard.
In fact the entire interview is a joke. Especially the 'spaz' guy who works for the radio show. He says that he thinks they should limit games, but then goes on to say he is afraid it might affect movies and books. To this I say Fuck You Spaz!
So I'd take it this is the first time Jack has heard from a gamer family that plays violent games and have good jobs and families. Because that's the only logical explanation for him to believe it's not a reliable statistic.
By the way, the more someone toots his horn about being Christian, the less he actually is one. It's an inverse law.
I guess that makes JT 5 inches short of being the Antichrist or something? That man brings it up every chance he gets.