What is Digg?Sponsored by Travelzoo
Take Advantage of Ridiculously Low Holiday Airfares view!
travelzoo.com - Flights $52 and up for Thanksgiving, Christmas & New Year. But move on it now.
73 Comments
- antipro, on 10/12/2007, -7/+54In related news: Lobbyists for the bill went into violent outbursts after hearing the results. One lobbyist was witnessed paying for sex and then running the hooker over with a car to get his money back afterward.
- Ignignokt01, on 10/12/2007, -3/+12Many of those studies have already been done. All of them concluded that violent games only affect kids who were already violent... it just made them more violent. In other words, the immature little brats were the ones who were inspired by violent games to beat up their friends.
- Arramol, on 10/12/2007, -2/+10I think there's a general reaction to any legislation touching video games in any way. I have no problem with keeping violent video games away from young children, so I'm not hugely opposed to a law like this (though if they were to try to ban violent games altogether, that would be a very different story).
That said, no law is a substitute for active parenting. If you don't have the time to be involved with your children, do the research, and be aware of what they're doing, you shouldn't be having children at all. It's not like minors can earn the $50 for a game, drive themselves to the store, and buy it themselves. I know parenting is tough, but this particular aspect of it isn't. - dclowd9901, on 10/12/2007, -3/+11Who was actually worried that this law would ever uphold? It's just some dumb congressman's outreach to his constituency. Now on his next campaign commercial, he can tell people he lobbied for the bill to protect the children.
- inactive, on 10/12/2007, -0/+7Crime rates are at a 10 year low among pre-teens and teens, national debt however is hovering at all time highs, instead of the CDC study on violent games and kids how about a study that shows the connection between the national debt and the moronic congressmen who insist on launching random studies so that they appear busy to their constituents while stuffing their faces with food.
- inactive, on 10/12/2007, -5/+11you know .. the former president ... hilary clinton .... married to first lady Bill ... you know
- triforcer, on 10/12/2007, -0/+6most stores already have policies that restrict minors from buying mature rated games. the thing is that these politicians want to make it a law just to make themselves look better, forgetting that's it's unconstitutional because games are a form of expression. the ESRB are trying their best to help inform parents about these games, but some parents just don't bother and you know that they are buying their kids GTA and being shocked when they find out it's violent. maybe they should have read the ***** box before buying it for little johnny. what they need to do is drive the point home that mature rated games are the equivalent to a rated R movie, but games have a stigma of being for kids so they don't take it seriously.
- steelmaverick, on 10/12/2007, -3/+7Damn Right! w00t! Now i hope they'll stop with all this nonsense.
- Marshalrusty, on 10/12/2007, -3/+7A Senator for New York
Winner of the spookiest smile award 5 times in a row. - Meshyf, on 10/12/2007, -4/+8I hope they finally do a study on the effects of all media on children so they realize none of it really matters.
- inactive, on 10/12/2007, -4/+8I dont exactly see the bad in stopping minors from buying violent video games, I am a gamer, and have 4 kids I KNOW what each and every game that comes down the pike is all about. And my kids dont take money and go into a store and buy a video game without me there. I DONT believe violent video games lead to violent kids, but I fail to see whats wrong with stopping minors from buying video games without the parents consent.
So someone enlighten me, I havent followed this, and dont know the otherside of the argument.
I am open to changing my stance if someone can convince me otherwise. - Rosco, on 10/12/2007, -1/+5I'm 42, but I like this becaue I think we have enough government intrusion in our lives.
- Arramol, on 10/12/2007, -0/+4Maybe the real solution is a law requiring an IQ test before being allowed to reproduce? I'm joking of course, but I find the idea more and more appealing every day...
- phpirate, on 10/12/2007, -1/+5Apparently theres some guy named "Jack Thompson" trying to whore the news for attention and trying to ban games for the good of god or some hypocritical trash. Thank god I never see his name on digg.
- tjl2015, on 10/12/2007, -0/+4What's even worse is the fact that she probably doesn't honestly really believe all too strongly in this. Now, I respect people of all political leanings, as long as they have convictions and fight for them. She is a very lift-leaning person. In my opinion, some of the better characteristics of the left are their respect for free speach and their caution in matters of war and peace. However, Hillary has had one goal, and only goal, since the year 2000. That's to be elected president in 2008. Why did she run for the Senate? To represent the people of "her" state of New York? She never even lived their before 2000! She ran so she would have more political credibility than simply being first lady.
She's also based all of her policy decisions on not what's best for her state or what she personally believes, but on what she thinks will give her wide appeal in a nationwide. That's how you explain a very liberal senator from a very liberal state having the national security opinions of a conservative war hawk and pandering to conservative family-values fundamentalist voters. Do you think she actually, truly believes this is right or in the best interest of free speech and the community? No, she's just doing whatever she thinks is necessary to broaden her base and win the election of 2008. - Anubis2051, on 10/12/2007, -6/+9The dumbest person on earth, that's who Hillary is. No way I'm going to vote for her in '08.
- theuber1337, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3YES! I love living in Michigan! Not only do we live in the general area with the least natural disasters in the country and the best variety of weather, but now we can kill nazi's and terrorists in peace!
- brandonhines, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3If these are getting struck down everywhere I wonder why the MPAA isn't doing something similar for "R" rated movies.
- tjl2015, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3The main problem with a bill like this is that it does greatly reduce free speech, merely by restricting access by minors. Where do you buy your games? For most Americans, the answer is probably a big box retailer, your Best Buys, CompUSAs, Targets and Wallmarts, along with specialty game shops like GameStop. Now, when you were last there, when was the last time you saw an Adult Rated Game? Answer: probably never. These major retailers do not want to be seen as the equivalent of porn dealers. They won't always sell an M rated game to kids, but they don't want to carry anything that a kid would be hurt simply by looking at the box. By putting M rated games on the same legal footing as pornography, you are putting M rated games in the same retail position as A rated games. The major retailers will not want to carry them, an M rating would be a retail shot through the heart. There will be significant pressure on game designers to limit the violence and sexual content of the M rated games.
Now, this may be what these law makers are really after. They would much rather have violent games not even made then trying to keep kids from getting their hands on them. However, as this judge has rightly pointed out, there is a little thing called the UNITED STATES CONSTITUTION that tends to get in the way of the lawmakers' crusade. The games are privately produced, sold on private property, and sold to private individuals. They're not broadcasting in-game footage on the public airwaves, so they have none of the influence they have on broadcast TV. The only way this would be constitutional is if there was some proven public harm caused by violent video games. This judge has found there is none. This isn't smoking, alcohol, or drugs. The only these games could physically harm some kid is if he plays too long and becomes morbidly obese, and if we ban games cause of this we should also ban movies, television, the Internet, and the written word. - adminmatt, on 10/12/2007, -2/+5if some one was a good parent, bills like this wouldn't need to be passed
- Takteek, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3"...based on lack of evidence linking violent video games to actual acts of violence."
There you have it, right there. - sgtawol, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2Dang, wish I could get the Judge's address so I could email him and thank him or something
@ foofy: Why dont people ant the govt to wiretap suspected terrorists without any sort of consent? It's the FIRST step. Head it off before it snowballs.
My personal thoughts about it:Dont make laws that make parents do LESS than they already do. My parents always knew what games I was playing. I bought one they didnt like and they took it away for like 2 years. - arion, on 10/12/2007, -2/+4The difference is that in an R or XXX movie, the breasts are real... or at least plastic. =P
- jhackg0d, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2Little kids shouldn't be playing violent video games... because they usually kick my ass.
- Rosco, on 10/12/2007, -2/+4Thank God there is actually something I can be proud of my state for once again!
- DiggerPlease, on 10/12/2007, -3/+5Games have a warning label on the box. If some kid gets a hold of it then it's his parents or the stores fault, not the makers of the game.
- triforcer, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2the difference being is that the MPAA movie ratings such as R are not enforced by any law and is a voluntary system like the current game ratings.
porn on the other hand is a different story and the game equivalent would be rated A for adult by the ESRB and not carried at all by major retailers. - wookiekiller, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2Lol, eat it Hilary.
- m.sandstorm, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1motionb, there isn't really any opposition to stopping the sale of violent games to little kids. I would say that most gamers are for it. However legislation like this paints a negative picture of gaming in general, and yes it is also a move for politicians (i.e. Hillary) to make themselves look better. This is the reason why many in the gaming community are opposed to it.
Actually there is a group of parents that are opposed to such laws being passed too, because they don't want to government to tell them how to raise their kids. Which is understandable and interesting. - DragonChaser, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1HAHAHAHAH GAMERS SCORED AGAIN!!!
- fatcat, on 10/12/2007, -2/+3Woot Woot I'm in MI and I .... might be a minor. >.>
I loathe Hillary Clinton with all my Being.
Bill is cool though.
*OT* I can't belive "Woot" isn't in the spell checker, wtf. - etx313, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1Niiiiiice! Can you Digg it? We can Digg it! Can ya'll Digg it?!?
- vtwin, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1I'll probably be dugg down since I may insult everyone posting in this thread, but I find it funny that people saying "Violent games doesn't make people violent" also often post very hateful comments. Just look at every stories posted on digg having this same topic.
Sure kids don't go out in the street to steal cars and shoot people because they played GTA. But it may help banalizing "lesser" forms of violence, like bullying, harassment and verbal abuse.
Incidentally, the reason why many male kids want to play these games is to be in the" cool gang", to avoid being bullied at school. - inactive, on 10/12/2007, -3/+4Don't celebrate yet. Abortion laws were thrown out with Roe vs. Wade, but that didn't stop South Dakota. They'll keep trying.
- ajwinder, on 10/12/2007, -1/+2all the anti-hilary comments, while nice to hear as i tend to not like opurtunistic coat-tail-riding stuck up bitches, are severly misplaced. Shes a sentator from the state of new york. The law passed was a state law in michigan. They aren't related at all.
- m.sandstorm, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1Damn two years?! That sucks for you, but your parents are doing the right thing. And I agree that they shouldn't make laws that take the responsibility away from parents. The retailer's job is easy if they look like a minor don't sell, but parents go in these stores buying these games for their kids because they're too ignorant about games in general. There is an interesting article about this very issue on arstechnica, unforunately I do not have a link. =(
This is off topic but very interesing. Well as you all know Wal Mart pulled GTA:SA off store selves due to the Hot coffee thing, but yet they still sell God of War which puts GTA + Hot Coffee to shame when it comes to violence and sexual content. Sounds like WalMart gets shook when hype surrounds a product they sell. - tidejwe, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1Good. Honestly, I think it can make people LESS violent. I was pretty violent growing up (wrestling, boxing, Rugby, beating up people that picked on my brother, etc). I was always grounded from playing video games, and never cared about them. I moved out, went to college, started playing violent video games, and no longer had violent urges. Haven't fought at all since. Not involved in any violent sports anymore, etc. I am as calm and gentle as you can imagine and mostly intellectually inclined now. A BIG difference from growing up (when i wasn't playing ANY games). Maybe violent video games and violent movies fulfill the violent person's need for violence in some ways instead of feeding it. It gives me my fix! :)
- truemidge, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0I realize that this post will most likely get many -digs, but I have to comment on this, as it's something that I am very passionate about, as both a gamer and a mother. First of all, let me start by saying that I have been a gamer for 18 years, and a parent of multiple children for 14 years. I have great respect for the values and freedoms that we enjoy in this country, and do not agree with banning violent content in games, but I DO see a very real need for the industry to unite with parents in understanding what our children actually need and providing it. Parents have a responsibility to educate themselves on everything that their children are exposed to (yes, it is actually possible), and I'll tell you why. I, too, used to believe that watching R-rated movies and television didn't affect children adversely, but I have learned differently in the last ten+ years, through some honest delving into my own psyche and the psyches of others, through therapy and my own research. The facts are that all of us, as children, are influenced by everything that we are exposed to, much more than any of us would like to realize. When we are born, we are pure, and our spirits are much like blackboards, ready to be written on by the adults that raise and (hopefully) nurture us. Now here's the kicker, and the thing that many people have an issue facing : many things that we are exposed to as children that are of an adult nature (meaning sexual - NOT nakedness, actual sexual exposure, whether seen or experienced, and likewise violent acts) harms our psyches, or spirits. Most of these things are very difficult to detect in children unless you know what you're looking for, and many children compartmentalize and disassociate from the damage until later in life, when problems surface and are taken for "normal" behavior in our society, mostly because so many people have these issues and don't recognize them as such. I'm talking about the numbness to real-life violence, the propensity to either escalate our sexual exposure with little REAL joy and pleasure experienced, or the later, withdrawl and shame associated with our sexuality. Through true and honest seeking of understanding of ourselves, these things can be identified and worked through, but until a person sees the issue for what it is, it is impossible to do anything about it. Most of society chooses to walk around with their ignorance rather than carry anger for their caregivers for not protecting them as children. I have chosen to take my blinders off, and I continue to learn more about myself and this world we live in all the time. I do not offer this post to bring anyone shame or blame for their choices; this is a long-standing issue that we have all been victim to. We have a choice, though...to continue to embrace the ignorance or to protect the children all around us, to protect them the way we were not. Because we were worth protecting, and so too are they.
- inactive, on 10/12/2007, -1/+1That really was a good one. It went up and down more than once. I wonder if anyone noticed the hidden message in my followup comment.
This is a funny thing: People seem less likely to downmod long comments, but also less likely to read them in full. You could have a perfectly rational and accurate comment, but people will rationalize their downmod if obvious rebuttals are not addressed within the text of the comment itself (i.e. if it isn't obvious that the comment was "well thought out"). At the same time, it may be possible to post a comment that APPEARS to be "well thought out" but is actually complete nonsense and get no downmods at all. People seem to scan comments quickly for agree/disagree signals without actually reading the whole thing. - LinkOmega, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0Great to hear. I wrote a report for school on game violence and its effects on people. I think the biggest study found that playing violent games sometimes increases heart rate. ...big whop
- Anubis2051, on 10/12/2007, -2/+2I see no problem with banning kids from seeing XXX movies, but I mean come on, R-Rated Movies? I have been watching those since I was like 11 years old. I don't think that they are to extrame for most kids, just like violent video games. Most kids can tell the diference between reality and fiction.
- ericsnels, on 10/12/2007, -1/+1Don't know what I'd do without my GTA.
- hollywoodone, on 10/12/2007, -1/+1I remember Hillary planing to run for pres in 08, not sure if she still plans to, but hopefully this wont be her vendetta if she does become v.p. (has no chance of p)
- Anubis2051, on 10/12/2007, -3/+3Yeah, but Hillary is worse all around, and more fun to make fun of. Jack Thompson is still prety bad though. God help us if he decides to run for president in 2008.
- chazster, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0Movies and music aren't getting the attention as videogames are because at this point people understand that there are movies and music with adult materials and then there are those for children. However, videogames haven't gotten that level of understanding. There are still many people see videogames as children's toy and who can't grasp the notion that more adults play videogames than children.
- inactive, on 10/12/2007, -2/+2Here's an interesting downmod. Somebody saw that I mentioned Roe vs. Wade and decided to censor me. If pressed, he would probably rationalize that abortion is an unrelated topic. But, if abortion is an unrelated topic, is it appropriate to downmod a comment based solely on that issue? Shouldn't that portion of the comment just be ignored?
This is the method by which "consensus" forms in online communities. Given enough time, rationalization on the part of the downmodder would not even be necessary, because "everybody knows Digg is a politically conservative site."
Personally, I'm divided on the issue of downmodding vaguely abortion or "liberal policy related" comments. I actually have encouraged the practice many times, because it seems to me that liberals have a stranglehold on most community sites in existence, and I think that the nature of liberalism makes it that way--they're just more attracted to the Internet and more capable of dominating communities. Liberals always want to make friends, you know? A liberal will only tell someone he's wrong point-blank if he has six or more other liberals there to back him up. They're very conspiratorial. It seems best to not ever let them get the impression that they can rely on those six or more other liberals to support them in their foolish dogmatic opinions--and you do that by downmodding them on sight.
On the other hand, there is a time for common sense. Abortion laws actually WERE thrown out with Roe vs. Wade, and legislators in South Dakota actually DID try again despite it being common knowledge for the past 20+ years that to do so would be illegal. The situation is exactly analogous, if maybe a little hyperbolic. We should exterminate the Jews. (I don't know that the right to violent video games is as important as the right of a woman to choose, but it depends on how you look at the issues.) My pointing out that fact is not an endorsement of liberal politics.
Or maybe my take on this downmod is way off. Maybe it was just a run-of-the-mill revenge mod, or maybe somebody just hates any mention of abortion.
But make no mistake about it. Legislators WILL try again. - shoguning, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0As many other people pointed out, this law doesn't ban 'bad' games. It does make it illegal to sell them to minors. Also, it isn't stated in the article which games it would affect. All it says is "certain games". Anyways, I'd take Super Smash Bros over GTA or Halo any day.
- MediaShipper, on 10/12/2007, -5/+5I think he means it's spelled Hillary with 2 L's
- inactive, on 10/12/2007, -3/+3kid and parents fault
- Foofy, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0I think we all carry some responsibility when it comes to protecting minors. Even a parent who does there best to keep their kid from cigarettes/alchohol/porn is going to slip up at some point and then it's up to a clerk at the store.
People need to accept responsibility now and then and stop trying to pass the buck to others (publishers, parents, or stores.)
And for those who don't mind kids getting into this stuff, well I guess it's your right to go out and buy it for your own kids. Take the responsibility to buy the stuff you think your kids should have. :P -
Show 51 - 73 of 73 discussions
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is