Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'General Gaming' started by Eyebrowsbv31, Jun 27, 2011.
And this is where you start walking down a very slippery slope.
As soon as you open the door to ban one thing against the First Amendment, what's to stop law makers from banning other forms of speech if they so want.
Exactly. What is "bad" for children? How do you decide what is "bad" for children? Who gets to decide that?
You said yourself Longo, this law would have achieved nothing if passed. It is still far too easy for children to acquire M rated games and play them. What do you do then? How far does the government get to go in deciding what a parent can and cannot let their child do? This law would have made the selling of an M rated video game to a minor the equivalent of straw buying alcohol or tobacco for a minor. Tobacco and alcohol are known to cause serious harm to anyone, especially children. Video games "deemed to be violent" in the vaguest sense? Not so much.
We do: The M rating. Every game rated as such is marked with it and when a retailer scans it they're supposed to ask for an ID card. The real problem is this:
It's on the parents to control what media children absorb, not the government, not tax payers, and not individuals of sufficient age who the media is intended for.
There are so many games out there rated Everyone and Teen, minors don't need to play Mature games. I grew up on SNES and the N64, I didn't get into the mature games on the PS1 until I was around 17.
Kids today just can't be satisfied with what they got. Play Little Big Planet and Mario and just enjoy that for now. Wait a few years before you step up to GTA stupid brats, lol .
No, what I said was that no one worth mentioning would've been affected by this. That's because all the kids this impacts aren't worth mentioning, obviously, and all of us who are responsible adults wouldn't be affected.
The thing is that the ESRB should be all it takes. But it isn't, since there's no legal reasoning why it should be followed. And parents should be the ones we hold responsible for all of this, as the Fresh Prince said, parents just don't understand. They're uneducated, don't know, and often don't care. Oh, and the slippery slope argument is total bullshit.
Now watch as I solve all the problems in one fell swoop. Pass a law that says that any game rated M by the ESRB is not to be sold to anyone under the age of 17 without a parent or guardian present to consent to it, with the clerk telling the parent that since it's an M rated game it will contain content that they may find offensive, equivalent to that of an R rated movie. And bam, that's it. That's all the whole law. That's all they need to do. Or they don't even need to do that. Just make it so you have to have a big sign of the ESRB rankings everywhere games are sold. And hell, they don't even need to pass those laws, they just need to make a big deal out of it. Put it on the front page of every newspaper, throw it up on Yahoo news, put it on CNN and Fox News, a big thing that explains the ESRB and says "IF YOU HAVE KIDS GAMES THAT ARE RATED M AREN'T WHAT THEY SHOULD BE PLAYING" and suddenly a bunch more parents will stop making shitty decisions for their kids.
Because here's the thing, the mark of society is that the more civilized we get the less tolerant of other people's suffering we become. And the truth of it is that by being uneducated about this kind of shit, the parents are doing things that'll impact their kids negatively. So while I wish we could just say that it's only the role of the parents and leave it at that, we're far too civilized for that. So there does reach a point when the rest of society has to smack them on the head and say "Cut that shit out, can't you see what the fuck you're doing?" And right now, that's what we have to do with parents. Wes's uncle is a perfect example. If someone did that to him, then I have no doubt his kids would be better off. Not just because they wouldn't be exposed to things far too mature for them, but because they'd be humbled and learn that they couldn't always get what they want.
But in all honesty, it won't make a difference either way. Kids will always be stupid, parents are just getting less educated, and video games are going to hell pretty quickly anyway. So why bother trying.
Longo isn't just being Longo. I think a lot of you are attacking this from the teen and college student view point. Although I support the ruling, as a parent of two little boys who LOVE video games I have to look objectively. I see nothing wrong with game stores asking for parents to ok M-rated games. I think that we need to really evaluate the line between T and M though. Because frankly, the first thing I'm going to teach my boys is what is acceptable and what is not. (But therein lies the beauty of it, I'm being the parent. I'm taking responsibility.) The second thing I'm going to teach them is always keep the receipt. Because I'm going to be that lame dad who makes them return it.
I have no problem with them playing violent games, but I take issue when minors are sawing into an enemy Gears style or checking polygonal boobies on God of War. Both games I love, but games I wouldn't let a 12 or 13 year-old play.
Come back and argue with me when you have kids and you're responsible for them. <mic drop>
Longo, that won't work. You even said this
I say there's no way to stop children for playing violent games. The only thing that happened was giving developers protection. The defense stating the parent/guardian who bought the violent game, is at fault. They've been warned by the use of ESRB. To me, the ESRB is the only thing they can do.
Bret, if everyone was as good a parent as you, we wouldn't have these problems. The big difference though is that you know games, whereas the average parent does not. And that's where the big problem lies.
The problem with that is this: in order for what you're saying to be possible, video games would have to be not considered speech. That was established with today's ruling. If that were to change, how can the courts reasonably deny the same kind of laws on, say, TV, or say, movies, or music, or any other creative medium? When you reach the point where you're saying ""Cut that s*** out, can't you see what the f*** you're doing," the state must then enter the home and monitor parents. That's the slippery slope. Even if you do what you want, most parents are either A) not going give a shit or B) will continue to make whatever parenting decision they were going to anyways. That leaves only one option, which is to criminalize the use of these games by children.
And don't you even think the people who wrote this law wouldn't go there. The main argument for the law came from a particular set of studies that showed violent media "harmed" youth in a very controlled laboratory setting. And by that, it made them more aggressive over the short term. If banning direct sales to minors is the first step, and it doesn't work, like it probably wouldn't, they would take that next step "for the sake of the children." That's not OK, because how does that preclude the government from telling parents they have to do anything? As soon as you set that precedent, it will be exploited, almost guaranteed. It's not worth the risk.
But it doesn't matter, because video games are now protected under the 1st amendment, just like books, television, and movies. Self regulation is the only way to effectively monitor the industry.
These kinds of things have to be left up to the parent, because the government is not in the business of telling people how to live their lives and do their parenting. Yes, some parents are terrible and shitty. Well I'm sorry. That problem isn't going to be solved by having a sales clerk yell at them about what they're giving their child. And the bill of rights makes it clear that if you want that problem to be solved, you're going to have to attack it from a different avenue - maybe by going to the source of the problem (education) and not the symptom.
Bret, i just want to say, my children will not be playing violent games until they reach a certain age where they understand what's going on. I'm not supporting this ruling because I don't understand what being a parent will be like - I'm supporting it because of the broad implications of what a judgment the other way would have on every other first amendment right. And if you actually read the majority decision, you'll see that this is their argument. "Violent" media may have an effect on children, but as a form of speech, it has to be protected from the precedent set forth by the law in question. Vague definitions of violence won't cut it.
Isn't this true whenever a new entertainment medium comes out? In 20 years this shouldn't be a problem anymore, since most people our age are gamers now.
Bascially, kill parents. Stupid fucks. Gawd.
We need parenting robots. fast. Where are the japanese when we need em?
If Lord of the Flies taught me anything, it's that parents make everything booooooring.
If Lord of the Flies taught me anything, it's that fat people are weak to rocks.
I refute this.
Fat kids maybe, but fat people?
Other than the more obvious reasons, I can see another reason why the Supreme Court struck down this law. Okay, sure, you banned retailers from selling to minors but what about programs like Steam? I mean, that 18 year old could be Little Timmy using his mom's credit card.
Yeah, it's actually pretty hard to enforce it in cases like that.
Well then little Timmy's mom should smack him in the mouth for stealing her credit card and buying stuff he's not allowed to play. It's her responsibility to discipline him.
I'm not saying parents have to be perfect, because nobody is perfect, and like Bret said you don't know what it's like until you have kids. But like Wes pointed out, if you don't set any rules or boundaries, kids grow up to be lazy, stupid, pretentious adults. It's not easy being a parent, but let's not kid ourselves, there are way too many people out there who don't know how to raise children. I mean, it's not like you have to write an exam before knocking up a girl.
My grandfather used to say people should get a dog first and if they can't properly train it, discipline it, or take care of it then they can forget about stepping up to a kid.
We've had this system in Australia for a while now.
Still have billions of 13yo twats on BlOps calling you a fag.