Video games are not art
Previously discussed, Illinois has passed it's near comical video games regulation:
SPRINGFIELD, Ill. - The Illinois Senate approved a version of Gov. Rod Blagojevich's proposed restrictions on the sales of violent and sexually explicit video games to children, even though some senators said the idea is unconstitutional.
ADVERTISEMENTThe measure approved Thursday would require store owners to determine which games are too violent or sexually explicit for anyone under 18. Anyone selling them to a minor could be fined.
Both chambers have now approved the video game restrictions, but the Senate version removed the possibility of jail time for offenders. That means the revised bill now goes back to the House.
The sponsor, Sen. Deanna Demuzio, denied the measure would interfere with free speech rights.
"Video games are not art or media," she said. "They are simulations, not all that different from the simulations used by the U.S. military in preparation for war."
I am still waiting to see if the state of Illinois will file suit against Donald Rumsfeld because, hell, he will send any minor who asks for one a violent, simulation game as used by the U.S. military in preparation for war for FREE!
Comments
RE: Video games are not art
I think its kind of late to have such a legislation in place, any "damage" is done. They waited way too long.
perhaps before video games became so violent, someone should have thought of the impact that interacting with such games would have on youngsters.
I say most this country's children have been playing violent games (13-20) since their inception. Are the children any more violent of today than they were 20 years ago? I think so, but i could be wrong. Um, at least I believe they are desensitized to violence.
Bottomline, I would have been for such measures many moons ago. I say to them. "Too late jackasses."
RE: Video games are not art
I wrote a a rant about this last year, when it was proposed rather than an actual reality.
Legislating games as such is stupid.
Granted young kids should not be watching pornographic or violent material (well except for road runner and so on, right?) but no government is ever going to replace a PARENT, no matter what dumbass laws it passes.
RE: Video games are not art
Well, I'm not going to pretend I know the evolution of video games like most everyone else who reads this site... but I've seen some pretty graphic video games here lately, far more graphic that Space Invaders! I could get off on a feminist rant about how women are portrayed in these new (and borderline pornographic)video games, but I'll spare you..
As for government trying to "parent" America's children... I think the legislation isn't such a bad thing. With technology advancing as fast as it is, today's parents just might not have a clue what their children have easy access to.If video game producers are going to design them such that they are ultra-violent or ultra-pornographic, I think they should be restricted.. just like porn, alcohol, cigarettes, etc...
Just my point of view, have a great day!
RE: Video games are not art
I understand the desire to regulate it, however, this is just bad legislation...
1. It puts the responsibility for deciding what is appropriate in the hands of the store owner. That is just asking for trouble. If the government wants to regulate it, they should either require ESRB ratings and go by that or establish a board to review games. Moreover, expecting a store owner to review all the content in every item on their shelves is unrealistic.
2. The delineation in this law as to what is or isn't appropriate is just comical. The previous story here about the debat (does human on zombie violence count as human on human) and especially in light of the DoD distributing a FREE game to minors that would violate this law, it seems wrong.
I'm not saying there isn't a role for regulation here, but this is a bad law. Moreover, the final responsibility will always be at the parental level. People seem to think that if the government passes a law their kids won't get porn or violent games, and that just isn't true. If you kid wants porn, booze or smokes, he can get them law or no law. It is, in the end, still the parents deal.
RE: Video games are not art
When I am not pretending to "know the evolution" of video games I also actually write articles here. One of them I linked to in my above comment. In that article I detail what Coop is saying, its bad legislation because it attempts to make the store owner the damn parent, that wont work on many levels.
The bottom line is, make whatever damn laws you want, there is no excuse for not parenting (and yes I have kids).
It has nothing to do with "fast technology" and all that BS, parents need to pay attention to the input their kids get, and many parents are too busy or lazy or what have you to do that. Its very unfortunate but trying to legislate it simply wont work, it will just lead to more governmental mess.
(And yes the government should stop regulating porn, cigarettes, alcohol and other things also - as I said in the previous article. These things are not appropriate for kids, hell no, but at the same time the government is not an appropriate baby sitter.)
RE: Video games are not art
I'd like to see how the law was actually written. Is it really the store owner's responsibility to review and determine if minors should be allowed to buy them? That seems a little ridiculous to me...
I do think it's a parent's job to raise a child... but for the sake of arguement, there are a lot of idiots out there raising kids (or not raising kids as the case may be). With a law like this, at least it gives the minors the feeling that it's "wrong".. Like minor's with cigarettes... they get them and they smoke them... behind the bleachers, in the bathroom, out of sight. They know there's a reason they shouldn't have them, so they hide it. Yeah, they'll do the same with video games, but the "de-sensitization" to violence wouldn't be quite as effective if that little voice in their minds are telling them that it's against the law.
RE: Video games are not art
Try this game and see if you are a programming language inventor or a serial killer.
http://www.malevole.com/mv/misc/killerquiz/
RE: Video games are not art
That thing is great, I have seen it before but still great.
And just one last comment back on subject, no one here disagrees that bad stuff is bad for kids (porn, violence). Sometimes people seem to mix up the direction of the arguments, sure bad stuff is bad for kids, the point here was that legislating it this way just wont help and rather will simply create more inefficient and costly government, and put more burden on private businesses to play law enforcement.
Whether or not a lot of idiots are "out there" and raising kids (something I surely cant argue with) this law simply wont help.
The only way to really get a kid to not do something that is bad for them is to teach them to understand what good and bad are and why something is bad (or to simply exclude them from what is bad until they are old enough to do the learning about it).
Making things illegal doesnt really address the problem, that problem being kids understanding WHY things are good versus bad. (And I dont really think kids will decide not to do something, in the abscense of parenting as has been suggested, soley because it is illegal. I was once a kid and I know lots of kids and I have worked with kids as an adult; I dont think in general we give them enough credit for how smart and capable they are, they will not do something thats bad if they understand why its bad, but they wont not do it just because you have to be 18 based on a law, at least in my experience. I sure wish we could pass a law and address many problem kids and many absentee parents, hell yeah, I just dont think it works that way.)
RE: Video games are not art
"I sure wish we could pass a law and address many problem kids and many absentee parents, hell yeah, I just dont think it works that way.)"
Since this is not 'the best of all possible worlds' that is not going to happen. Sometimes as a society we just have to step up to the plate and do the next best thing.
It would be great if all parents would feed their children a balanced diet too. But many spend what money they get on drugs and neglect the children. So, for the benefit of the children our society chooses to feed those children even though they have parents who could.
If parents will not protect their children, that does not justify allowing those children to go unprotected.
RE: Video games are not art
"And I dont really think kids will decide not to do something, in the abscense of parenting as has been suggested, soley because it is illegal."
This is certainly not what I was suggesting. Of course they will (I did too), but if their parents are not teaching them what they should and should not participate in, how else will they know? If the law is in place, at least that gives them some guidance on how to make their decisions.
RE: Video games are not art
This basically comes down to a matter of balancing. Which is more important someone's first amendment right or the need to protect children. In order to accomplish something in one are sacrifice is demanded in another.
RE: Video games are not art
And that is a fair discussion to have. However, in the above we see people denying that games are even speech.
Again, there is a discussion to have here and laws that could be OK, but you have to come at it from the right perspective to begin with. Arbitrary and subjective legislation is never good, and denying that videogames -- a larger industry in the US than all of Hollywood, by the way -- is not "speech" is as insulting as it is narrow minded.
RE: Video games are not art
@"This basically comes down to a matter of balancing. Which is more important someone's first amendment right or the need to protect children. In order to accomplish something in one are sacrifice is demanded in another."
I dont think thats a fair discussion. That is a false dichotomy. Its not free speech versus protecting kids. Thats missing the point. Its whether or not such a law will be effective at protecting kids, and where the burden of enforcing that law will be placed.
Again, no one is arguing that kids should be exposed to bad stuff. Sure there are free speech implications that we could get into, but I dont think anyone here is advocating requiring the kids to see the bad stuff based on the bad stuff is free speech. Its safe to say we all agree the kids shouldnt see it, the question is whose job is it to enforce that.
RE: Video games are not art
Question for Cooper...
Why do you classify video games as "speech" rather than a product? Just curious, I've never thought about it and honestly have no opinion on that.. I would like to hear yours.
And if a company is going to CHOOSE to sell something that can be potentially harmful, physically or mentally, to one or more persons... shouldn't they at least take on the responsibility of regulating it's distribution... wether it's carding someone for a video game, a background check for the sale of a weapon, or verification of a prescription at the local RX? It's certainly not a new thing to require retailers to take on some responsibility for the products they sell, why should video game retailers be any different?
Although, I'm still not clear on who determines the ratings (for lack of a better term) on the games.
RE: Video games are not art
Well, (a) Software is speech, under the law, protected by the same copyright that a book or music is. (b) To say that a 3D model or a scene or a peice of music or a line of dialog in a movie is somehow "speech" and the same model, the same music, the same dialog in a game is not is a doomed arguement to begin with.
So what you are telling me is that Walgreens gets to decide what is a prescription drug? Does the average gun store owner get to go "It's just a little .22, I don't think you need a background check." The retailer ISN'T responsible for regulating its distribution, only following regulations laid out by the government. That is a big difference from "Hmm, I have this item that nobody in the government has told me I need to follow X regulation on, but if I sell it, somebody somewhere may decide that it should have been regulated." Even porn comes with clear guidelines and plain disclosures.
The ratings printed on the games are set by the ESRB (Entertainment Software Ratings Board) an offshoot of the IDGA (Iteractive Digital and Games Association), which is similar to the way the MPAA puts ratings on films. However, this law doesn't "codify" the ESRB ratings. It simply says that it is the store owners responsibility to not sell products that fit a loose definition of "violent" to children under 18. Arguably, that means even a Star Wars game with a "Teen" rating from the ESRB and "Shooting Clonetroopers" (Human on Human violence) is banned for all MINORS, not just, say, 5 year olds-- but only if someone complains.
RE: Video games are not art
Video game retailers should not be responsible for determining what should and should not be sold to minors, in my opinion. I'm not arguing for that... They should be reviewed and rated before even being packaged and distributed to retailers.
However, I don't know what the big deal is with having to card someone. It doesn't take that much extra effort on the part of the retailer.
RE: Video games are not art
@"However, I don't know what the big deal is with having to card someone. It doesn't take that much extra effort on the part of the retailer."
Ask the retailers:
If the act becomes law, retailers who sell or rent violent or sexually explicit video games to people younger than 18 could face up to one year in jail or a $5,000 fine.
Retailers also will be required to mark violent and sexually explicit games with labels similar to the "parental advisory" labels found on music CDs, and to post signs explaining the game rating system. If retailers fail to act, they can be hit with a $1,000 fine for the first three violations and a $5,000 fine for subsequent violations.
Naturally, the Illinois Retail Merchants Association (IRMA), which represents about 23,000 stores across IL, is completely against any statewide ban. The association feels it's wrong for them to be forced into becoming "the violence and sensitivity police for the state of Illinois." David Vite, president and chief executive officer of IRMA said, "This is not just about video games. This is about the government asking their taxpaying, tax-generating and employing companies to do what parents should be doing. It's wrong."
http://biz.gamedaily.com/features.asp?article_id=8562§ion=feature
Its a huge burden on the retailer and on the individual clerk, when the burden belongs on the PARENT.
RE: Video games are not art
If the product they are selling is potentially harmful, I think they should share some responsibility. I'm not sure we will agree on that...
But, I've finally found the text of the law:
Sec. 12B-25. Labeling of sexually explicit video games.
3 (a) Video game retailers shall label all sexually explicit
4 video games as defined in this Act, with a solid white "18"
5 outlined in black. The "18" shall have dimensions of no less
6 than 2 inches by 2 inches. The "18" shall be displayed on the
7 front face of the video game package.
8 (b) A retailer who fails to comply with this Section is
9 guilty of a petty offense punishable by a fine of $1,000 for
10 the first 3 violations, and a business offense punishable by a
11 $5,000 fine for every subsequent violation.
I don't think a store clerk should have to do this.
Sec. 12B-35. Availability of brochure describing rating
32 system.
33 (a) A video game retailer shall make available upon request a brochure to customers that explains the Entertainment Software Ratings Board ratings system.
2 (b) A retailer who fails to comply with this Section shall
3 receive the punishment described in subsection (b) of Section 4 12B-25.
This leads me to believe that they can use the ESRB ratings for the regulation, however it does not explicitly say that the ESRB ratings are acceptable under this law. It does seem to be bad legislation.. as far as the way it's written.
RE: Video games are not art
"I dont think thats a fair discussion. That is a false dichotomy. Its not free speech versus protecting kids. Thats missing the point. Its whether or not such a law will be effective at protecting kids, and where the burden of enforcing that law will be placed."
You will find this type of balancing act in many supreme court decisions. Many of the civil rights decisions are balancing decisions. As are most first amendment decisions. It is not a false dichotomy, it is reality.
RE: Video games are not art
"Its a huge burden on the retailer and on the individual clerk, when the burden belongs on the PARENT."
In the bestof all possible worlds.
And we have already established this is not the best of all possible worlds.
RE: Video games are not art
If you're interested in reading the law, I found it at:
http://www.ilga.gov/legislation/fulltext.asp?DocName=&SessionId=50&GA=94...
RE: Video games are not art
@"You will find this type of balancing act in many supreme court decisions. Many of the civil rights decisions are balancing decisions. As are most first amendment decisions. It is not a false dichotomy, it is reality."
Whoooa. I wasnt saying free speech isnt balanced against protecting the "greater good" in common use (though I digress to argue that the "greater good" is fiction - indovidual rights and cases are how we should address things unless "shared property" is involved, but thats a large digression). I was saying its a false choice in this specific argument. No one is arguing here in this forum that some protection for kids should not be present because of free speech rights. (Though I have seen this argument made by the video game industry concerning such laws in the past.) There are lots of cases where free speech vs "greater good" does factor in, but thats just not relevant in this discussion. No one is arguing the kids should be exposed to bad stuff, the argument, once again despite the extreme risk of further misunderstanding, is over how to stop the kids from seeing bad stuff.
And @"In the bestof all possible worlds.
And we have already established this is not the best of all possible worlds."
Thats just bullshit. Make an actual argument not some nebulous, "its not utopia" statement. I am not saying it IS the best, I am saying the law is not efficacious at all and there is no substitute for the parent. You can make the law, whatever, it wont address the problem (kids without involved parents will still get the games, still not understand the issues, so on).
RE: Video games are not art
Thanks to trinity for the info on the actual law. I do agree that its a poorly implemented law (yet as I have stated I dont think even a "well implemented" version would be a good idea).