New MA Bill: Video Games = Porn

Szechuanosaurus

JamesKeenan wrote: »

The fact of the matter is this entire argument and legislation is centered around the idea that violent video games are a dangerous, corrupting force on par with cigarettes and alcohol, and needs to be controlled as such to protect kids from themselves. I hold this to be fundamentally wrong, and if parents wish to prevent their kids from seeing certain movies or playing certain games or watching certain television programs, that is their responsibility.

The argument might be that a legally-enforced rating system would give the parent the knowledge and the power to prevent their kids from seeing certain movies or playing certain games. Some game titles like Grand Theft Auto are self-evidently 'not for kids', however, even that game title only alludes to one crime committable in the game. Are parents supposed to arm themselves with encyclopedic knowledge of the content of every game and film or would a system that forces publishers to adhere to certain rating guidelines that give parents an at-a-glance knowledge of any questionable content in the media they are buying for their child be a more realistic method of empowering the parent to make informed decisions? Furthermore, if said system prevented children from by-passing parental consent and buying the questionable material themselves wouldn't that help the parents who want to restrict their child's access to this material?

Rating and certification systems are perfectly sensible in their own right. They operate responsibly in other countries and rarely result in overtly heavy-handed censorship. The problem lies with them being unconstitutional in the United States. The success of such a law all depends on how corrodible the US constitution proves to be - ie can they push it through some loophole like claiming videogames are devoid of artistic merit, further dissolving and eroding the original remit of the US constitution?

ViolentChemistry

Adrien wrote: »

ViolentChemistry wrote: »

Edit: What you just described, simply going to another counter, it doesn't work with products where the cashier can be thrown in jail for selling them to you, does it?

It really, really does. Cf. alcohol and cigarettes.

Fine then. Let's just not have laws since people will just get around them anyway.

Edit: It's not to late for Plan B in this thread...

Victor15b

kildy wrote: »

Victor15b wrote: »

kildy wrote: »

You really are stating a case where the only logical end point is "we need laws to cover this".

No, the logical endpoint is that the legislation is pointless.

Explain. If it is well known that selling minors something will result in jail time, you're saying people will still not stop selling them said something?

I know I won't buy beer for minors no matter how much they ask, because it risks a generally steep penalty. And the cashier at the liqour store will definately not do it.

However, we all know how easy it is to get into an R rated movie as a minor, and that's because it's unregulated.

I really need you to show your work here, because I can't find a single method that your post leads to the "we shouldn't clamp down on this" angle that supports self enforcement as a viable option.

My argument is not supporting the issue of violent video games, nor is it opposing it.

The point I am trying to get across is: The Massachusettes legislature is wasting time and money by working on this bill.

In my personal experience, rating systems do not produce thier intended results, therefore the end conclusion is that this bill is a waste of time.


The acutal issue of whether or not violent video games should be regulated is a different argument.

Bottom line is, the current state will nopt change whether or not this bill is passed.


To me, its the same thing as saying: "We want to crack down on traffic violations, therefore, all police officers will now wear green uniforms instead of blue ones"

JamesKeenan

Szechuanosaurus wrote: »

JamesKeenan wrote: »

The fact of the matter is this entire argument and legislation is centered around the idea that violent video games are a dangerous, corrupting force on par with cigarettes and alcohol, and needs to be controlled as such to protect kids from themselves. I hold this to be fundamentally wrong, and if parents wish to prevent their kids from seeing certain movies or playing certain games or watching certain television programs, that is their responsibility.

The argument might be that a legally-enforced rating system would give the parent the knowledge and the power to prevent their kids from seeing certain movies or playing certain games. Some game titles like Grand Theft Auto are self-evidently 'not for kids', however, even that game title only alludes to one crime committable in the game. Are parents supposed to arm themselves with encyclopedic knowledge of the content of every game and film or would a system that forces publishers to adhere to certain rating guidelines that give parents an at-a-glance knowledge of any questionable content in the media they are buying for their child be a more realistic method of empowering the parent to make informed decisions? Furthermore, if said system prevented children from by-passing parental consent and buying the questionable material themselves wouldn't that help the parents who want to restrict their child's access to this material?

Rating and certification systems are perfectly sensible in their own right. They operate responsibly in other countries and rarely result in overtly heavy-handed censorship. The problem lies with them being unconstitutional in the United States. The success of such a law all depends on how corrodible the US constitution proves to be - ie can they push it through some loophole like claiming videogames are devoid of artistic merit, further dissolving and eroding the original remit of the US constitution?

Ah, but you miss my point. I wasn't arguing against a rating system, or the ESRB. I was arguing against the laws. Rating systems are great.

Anyhow, I don't know many but the most sheltered kids who even at age 11 or 12 could handle GTA fine. Gasp! How can that be?! Well, it's only my own anecdotal evidence, but it is my experience, so it has obviously had some effect on my views.

Young kids, age 8 perhaps, you may very well want to keep out of reach of GTA or A History of Violence. In reality, it's up to the parent to decide whatever, maybe ever let their kid play anything above T rated games ever. I don't find a law here anything but moral legislation. Moral as opposed to ethical.

Har har har.