The proposed laws to restrict kids from buying violent games in Cali...

[The Bastard]

http://www.homelanfed.com/index.php?id=19058

Seems to have his heart in the right place, but he's very assuming about certain things. Nothing too ridiculous...

Discuss...

[Diff-chan]

Im old enough to buy violent video games, and I dont work in retail.

In so many words, I dont give a shit whether or not this passes.

[bbobb]

Yet another person who has never played a game in his life trying to regulate morality...
great...
I've said it before and I'll say it again... it should be left up to the parents.

Although I have nothing against fines for selling M rated or higher games to minors... anything beyond that is bullshit though.

[Videodrone]

I think there should be restrictions, but who cares? When I managed at GS, I wouldn't sell M rated games to 10 year old, but that didn't stop there parent from coming in to buy it, claim that they see worse on tv or that they are just going to play it at a friend house anyway....

Restricting T rated games would be rediculous though.

[cigsthecat]

That is, if one contends that children learn to read and do math through interactive video then one must also believe violent behavior is learned by playing these games. In fact, you don't even need to bring in behavior to see that these games are learning tools. For example, a child can learn how to create a kill zone by playing many of these games.

This is the funniest thing I've read all day.

Unlike movies, in which parents can easily determine whether it is suitable for their child, many of these games must be mastered before the interaction begins at the most violent levels.

He's just arguing against himself here. Both film and videogames have a voluntary rating system in place that parents can take advantage of. There is no difference.

However, like diffusionx I'm old enough to buy them, and I don't even play them so I could really care less. He's still an idiot though.

[James]

I care based on the "slippery slope" style of logic- once you restrict one group it's just that much easier to restrict others. This particular law may not effect me personally, but what comes next might have some nasty consequences.

-edit- Ok, I'm actually reading the article now rather than throwing off a knee-jerk response (which I stand by, incidentally) and I just want to shake this loser. By the head. Using a Power Shovel. So much bad logic and misinformation in one place can't be healthy.

Bad logic- "violent video games where women are beaten and murdered" So it's ok when it happens to guys, but not women? What an utter sexist bastard.

James

[Frogacuda]

I'm ok with it IF games are not required to be rated and unrated games can be sold in stores. When a game has to get board approval to be sold in stores is when this crosses the first amendment line. If this is just enforcing the reccomendations of a voluntary ratings system, I think it's ok.

But that is an important distinction to make. I don't care because I'm afraid I won't be able to buy M rated games, I care because 1st amendment rights are very important to me, and also because this could be abused and lead to effective "bans" of game whereby the ESRB refuses to rate them, much like what's done in Australia.

[Kidnemo]

...

I got about half-way through before I had to close it. I'll give it a try later on today.

Thanks for the link.

[Saint of Killers]

Im old enough to buy violent video games, and I dont work in retail.

In so many words, I dont give a shit whether or not this passes.

You should care. Laws like these could eventually lead to videogames not being protected under the First Ammendment (I believe a judge already ruled this, in the infamous Resident of Evil Creek case, although I think his ruling was overturned). Bad all around.

[Hero]

You should care. Laws like these could eventually lead to videogames not being protected under the First Ammendment (I believe a judge already ruled this, in the infamous Resident of Evil Creek case, although I think his ruling was overturned). Bad all around.

True. I'm not affected directly by such a law (I'm old enough to buy whatever anyway), but it would be detrimental, and pave the way for more restrictions placed by the law. Right now, game ratings' are voluntary, like it should be. It's a service to their customers - better to have informed parents comfy with their purchase, than pissed off buyers. Then again, even the parents don't pay any mind to these, just like with movies, and yet wonder where on earth did their child get such a violent game...

Crap, if you ask me, its none of the government's business to regulate games. Not only does it go against free-speech, but make the parents do their damn job and parent their kids once in a while. No one needs Big Brother watching out for them.