What is Digg?Sponsored by Norton 2010
80's metal band Dokken vs. a chicken. Who would win? view!
everyclickmatters.com - The question has finally been answered, and we've got it on tape. See the showdown.
55 Comments
- metrodigg, on 02/20/2009, -2/+72I guess this means that parents will have to go back to taking an interest--or at least a notice--of what their kids are doing with their spare time.
- hawkspur, on 02/21/2009, -0/+40Parents...doing...parenting?!?!?! BLASPHEMY!
- inactive, on 02/21/2009, -2/+29Would he pass the same law for his violent movies? I was 8 when I saw Terminator ... and it had sex scenes, violence, and ARNOLD is to blame for my problems now.
- inactive, on 02/21/2009, -3/+21Let the individual have the power to make moralistic decisions for him or herself, not a nanny state.
- spriggig, on 02/21/2009, -0/+13From personal experience, kids know what they can handle and what they want to see or play. My 10 year-old boy has seen me play L4D and has no interest in playing it himself. He prefers Sims and ToonTown. My 14 year-old boy plays Halo, Call of Duty 4, and other such violent games and is the nicest, calmest kid I've ever met who cares deeply for his pets and family. For myself, I've been playing since 1981 and have seen and done it all. I don't consider violence to be an appropriate real-life answer to any question (I've never been attack by a zombie hoard in real-life either).
I believe that the media, be it books, movies, TV or video games have virtually no effect on negative actions in the real world for otherwise healthy, normal people. As for non-healthy, non-normal people, they're going to find a reason to be serial killers no matter what we do. - iceman0113, on 02/21/2009, -0/+13"Federal courts have found all nine legislative attempts to curtail the sale of _violent_ video games invalid under the First Amendment, definitively showing that video games are protected speech, just like other content such as books, comic books, movies, and music," Jennifer Mercurio, Director of Government Affairs for the Entertainment Consumers Association said."
While showing breasts or depicting sex gets everyone riled up. - Ninh, on 02/20/2009, -5/+15Those tax wasting dimwits will never learn not to pass the same unconstitutional laws over and over again ...
- inactive, on 02/21/2009, -1/+11You see what happens? You let kids have access to violent media, and next thing you know, we get the Governator elected.
- mpn401, on 02/21/2009, -2/+12It's time American legislators realize that this is, indeed, America. And in America we leave the choices to parents, not big government.
- inactive, on 02/21/2009, -3/+12Once again the government attempts to snatch away the parents right to raise their own children.
- doctorgrim, on 02/21/2009, -0/+8Maybe this generation of gamers, who are also parents, will know what the heck our kids are playing because we'll be playing with them.
- KJGJ, on 02/21/2009, -0/+7Thanks for being a cool dad.
- mrsteveman1, on 02/21/2009, -0/+6Your mommy had to pay for that video game, she should have looked at the rating in the store, or perhaps she could just pick up the damn case some time when it is laying around the house, or set your game console to not play titles rated for adults only.
And if you are old enough to have your own job and pay for a game yourself, mommy shouldn't have any say in it, and neither should the ***** governator. - inactive, on 02/21/2009, -1/+7It's called parenting. Besides, I played violent video games when I was 12, and I turned out just OMFG YOU ***** RETARD I'M GONNA ***** RIP YOUR ***** THROAT OUT fine.
Kidding aside, seriously, I can understand parents not wanting their kids to have access to some of these games, but how hard is it for parents to monitor what their kids are playing? - absurdist, on 02/21/2009, -0/+6"Even though it's been proven Head Start doesn't work."
[citation needed] - MortVent, on 02/21/2009, -0/+5yeah, they can't check the game for the big ol rating on the front that books and movies lack (or do not display so noticeably)
They can tell relative the games they give for gifts must first be okay with the parent. Or they will possibly be returned and traded out if they don't suit them. Or just ask for gift cards so they can shop for the game with the child...
No game machine or computer in the kid's room, put it where the parent has easier supervision of them.
nothing hard about that - Khast, on 02/21/2009, -0/+5Well, Mozart and Beethoven were at one time considered as having satanic music, and look at how the world turned out...
We always have to find someone to blame for our societies' problems....we never think of looking where the blame belongs...to the individual. Yup, we sure have grown up to be a responsible society... - mrsteveman1, on 02/21/2009, -0/+5An 11 or 13 year old can't drive to the store to get the game, can't work in a legitimate job to pay for a game.
- inactive, on 02/21/2009, -1/+5About time...Let this idiot law die.
- subsocial, on 02/21/2009, -1/+5Movie ratings are self-imposed by the MPAA. Video game industry has a similar self-imposed rating system with the ESRB. In other words the ratings for either form of media are not law (or at least not Constitutional law). So the thunder still stands I guess.
- michaelrsa, on 02/21/2009, -0/+4I see your point. Hell, I wasn't even aware that anyone could buy R rated movies. Then I guess it should die. Isn't exactly fair if they don't apply the rule to all media, which would be difficult as hell and completely pointless.
- trythison4sighs, on 02/21/2009, -0/+4You're right. But, the law didn't PREVENT kids from PLAYING just purchasing/renting. All this did is to require the interaction of the child's parents. I personally wouldn't allow my kids to buy games on their own. But, that's because I'm a jerk that believes that they have to earn it. So, they don't get money to go out and buy whatever they want.
- inactive, on 02/21/2009, -0/+3Doesn't he have more important things to worry about?
- Opiate, on 02/21/2009, -0/+3You seemed to have turned out fine, their effort certainly played a role in you being able to rationalize properly.
- inactive, on 02/21/2009, -1/+4@Zippy; Thats what parents are for.
- MacEnvy, on 02/21/2009, -1/+3While I think the law is bad, your interpretation is completely incorrect and stems from the populist notion of "government=bad" regardless of the facts of the case.
The law was intended to force parents to make choices for their children. Kids can still play the games, they just have to have their parents approve and purchase it rather than being able to purchase on their own. If anything, the government is forcing the parents to make parenting decisions rather than pushing it out to the kids themselves.
Again, the law was bad for many reasons, but your shallow interpretation is completely askew of reality. - Innuendo24, on 02/21/2009, -4/+6Well intentioned stupidity is still stupidity Mr. Governator.
- inactive, on 02/21/2009, -0/+2@michaelrsa;
FTA: Without any causal links, and with no such laws prohibiting minors from purchasing R-rated movies or even reading violent books, singling out video games creates Constitutional problems no lawyer has been able to argue through.
Its a dumb law, let it die. - teedurden, on 02/21/2009, -0/+2California has a massive budget deficit and they waste their time and money with legislation crap like this? They deserve everything they get.
- setset, on 02/22/2009, -0/+2ooHHH you got punked by subsocial! Ouuuu wahaha sqwa!
- unrealmp3, on 02/22/2009, -0/+2GAME OVER!
- michaelrsa, on 02/21/2009, -3/+4Isn't as easy as you think. I have excellent parents, raised me right, my mom didn't like me playing violent video games but there was no way she could know which was violent. If I'm playing GTA 4, and she came in I could just start driving my car correctly and not killing people and she would not know the difference. On top of that, I don't think many parents have the time or interest to go through every video game and see whether they approve.
Cinemas don't allow minors see R movies, how is it any different from selling a video game? - MF2x, on 02/21/2009, -0/+1I don't believe that mature video games cause kids to become more violent, but rather if they choose to be influenced by those they associate themselves with. Peer Pressure affects adults too. It's all over the place.
- setset, on 02/23/2009, -0/+1@ hatdrop,
Actually, I retract my statement. Sending kids to private school is the SECOND best thing parents can do. The BEST thing they can do is teach the children themselves. When parents start empowering themselves to be responsible for their kids, kids will benefit. If parents give up their responsibility to the state, the kids will be detached from their homes and families. I agree, it is difficult to send kids to private school. I've myself never went to private school but that did not stop me from learning. My comment is neither ridiculous, unfeasable, nor both. It is attainable. Self education is paramount. - Ajajadude, on 02/21/2009, -0/+1Parents don't parent. Most of them don't, anyway. My parents didn't need to police me and my music habits (I don't think there were that many games for the NES and SNES that had "mature" content), but my brother on the other hand...
- zippy757, on 02/21/2009, -5/+6..and when the 'individual' is 11 or 13 ?
- gadlaw, on 02/23/2009, -0/+1They just need to write the laws better, there is a place for government in the name of the people, to protect minors.
- trythison4sighs, on 02/21/2009, -2/+3You're right. But by allowing children to make the decisions not the parent is ridiculous! If that were the case we should also change the laws against pornography, alcohol, tobacco, marijuana, cocaine, heroin...
- gadlaw, on 02/23/2009, -0/+1They just need to write the laws better, there is a place for government in the name of the people, to protect minors.
- Dhaos, on 02/22/2009, -0/+1That is why there is that giant letter in that corner of every box that says M as if a game called "Grand Theft Auto" isn't enough to know that you might be stealing cars.
Single parents or not, the writings on the wall. - DavidGX, on 02/26/2009, -0/+1Attempting to legislate morality fails.. surprise surprise.
- setset, on 02/22/2009, -0/+1"Again, the law was bad for many reasons, but your shallow interpretation is completely askew of reality."
No, it wasn't. Government has been trying to raise children for years. Private and home schooling is the best thing you can do for you kids. Send them to a public school and watch them come out like everyone else. - Exhibitionist, on 02/22/2009, -0/+1Unless he's recently had a buttload of cosmetic surgery, the guy in that photo is not Arnie.
- trythison4sighs, on 02/21/2009, -1/+1But, The State IS involved. They want to set it up so that pre-k is mandatory. Even though it's been proven Head Start doesn't work. And in Cali they keep trying to prevent parents from home schooling!
Like the public school system there is sooo fantastic! /s - inactive, on 02/24/2009, -0/+0Social laws are never efficient. It alwas comes down to the individual to be responsible. Parents need to pay attention to what they buy their kids.
- Sutley, on 02/23/2009, -1/+1Yeah, I should be free to decide whether I can rape and pillage! ***** the government!
Oh, wait... that's ***** retarded. What you're implying is law has no place in your moralistic decisions. Perhaps Bangladesh is a more suitable country for you. - hatdrop, on 02/23/2009, -1/+1setset, do you realize how ridiculously unfeasible your comment is? you assume everyone has the money to send kids to private school or time home school. most of those families have to have both parents working to make ends meet. so if you need both parents working to make ends meet you can't do home school, and if you are only making ends meet how the hell do you pay for private school?
sending them to private school or home school may be the "best" thing you can do for your kids, but we're in a recession who the hell has the money or time to burn? you shouldn't put a price on your child's education but being able to put food on their plate comes first in my opinion.
btw i went to public school, my undergrad was ranked in the top 20 for public top 50 overall in the US and i scored in the 95th percentile on the past lsat. definitely not the best, but certainly not bad at all. i know of dozens of friends and acquaintances in similar positions. it's not where you send your kids but whether or not they have the drive in themselves. - Ajajadude, on 02/21/2009, -2/+1You're assuming all parents put the effort into properly raising their kids. You wouldn't believe how amusing, and depressing, it is to see parents make up every excuse under the sun for their children when they've been caught doing something illegal (i.e. high schooler stealing alcohol from a store) in order to prevent their kid from getting in trouble. I'm not saying all or even a large number of parents are like this (though, the area I'm living in makes it seem that way) but all it takes is one kid with a very long leash to negatively impact other people.
- zippy757, on 02/21/2009, -3/+1and when the parents aren't around... I agree that's what parents are for...I've been one for a long time.....
..the 'it's the parents job' argument assumes there are 2 parents...not 1 ( as is the case in 20% of homes ) and single parents simply can't do it all...they need help....a mother working to make ends meet, raising kids simply isn't going to know video game x from video y.... (they are at work ) -
Show 51 - 56 of 56 discussions
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is