http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,210507,00.html

Finally a blow to old Jack.

 

Who isn't mentioned in the article and has nothing to do with the (attempted) ban?

 

Good point. You can bet he's angry about it though  

 

Good. Now maybe rulings like this will keep Jack out of the news..

 

Ya know, in college I did a paper on videogame violence. Back then, the big "advocate" of videogame was then Senator Joseph Lieberman.

I feel that certain games should NOT be played by minors (13 and younger) and are strictly for adult or mature gamers. Banning the sales of the games isn't smart, but checking ID is okay if the minor is not with an adult. The sad part is, there are a LOT of parents anymore that don't pay attention to what their kids are watching or playing. It shouldn't be the GAMERS being penalized, but the irresponsible parents not doing their job of PARENTING.

 

There's something else that can be done to keep Jack out of the news:

Ignore him.

I love how this forum gets bent out of shape everytime he opens his trap. Just ignore the guy. He's gonna get wound up about things, stop giving him the publicity he thrives off of.

 

You know, I'm in the minority here, but I REALLY don't see what's so wrong about enforcing the MPAA or ESRB ratings.

If you don't have proof that you're 17 or older (and you look under 17), you can't go see a R-rated film; why should this be any different for M-rated games...? Personally, I think that you SHOULD ban the sale of M-rated games to minors; the quickest way for minors to get around this would be to have their parents buy the game for them, which, in turn, would allow the parents to be cogniscient of what their child is playing. (Naturally, there's always the older sibling/friends, but I figure that's a small percentage)

Don't get me wrong; if you're over 18, buy as many M-rated games as you want, and said M-rated games should be able to have damn near any content (including graphic sex/violence). Give the M-rated games full reign; in my paradigm, it would be illegal to sell them to minors anyway, just the same as R-rated movies, porn, etc.

 

I'm kinda in the same boat. I agree with the fact that minors (like under 13 or so) shouldn't be playing the more violent, adult games. I agree with the fact that an id should be shown for that and if they're too young, they shouldn't be able to buy it. Don't think the parents should buy the games for the kids either, but maybe if they did, they'd see what's in the game and actually do some real parenting for once.

 

Maybe because a minor can still BUY all the "R" rated movies he wants? What about arcades, too? Video arcades are hurting enough as it is. They'd be dying off even faster if they had to start carding people.

Besides that, we're talking about the government banning sales of violent games to minors, not voluntary self-enforcement. There is no law against a minor going to watch an "R" movie in theaters. That's self-enforced, just like the ESRB games ratings. Just like with "M" games, the occasional ticket seller will "forget" to check for ID. ESRB and MPAA ratings are the exact same concept, enforced in the same voluntary manner. If we don't need legislation restricting "R" movies, we don't need legislation restricting "M" games.

 

Is it because Jacky boy comes from Louisiana? Because there's already been a long string of judges throwing out the whole "Ban M rated games" deal in various other states as of recent.

 

Whoa, really...? When I was 16, I went to my local Blockbuster, and they wouldn't let me rent an R-rated flick without an adult with me. Same goes for the local TRU; at age 14 or so, I wasn't able to buy an M-rated game without an adult to show some ID.

I suppose, in that case, that I am for legislation regulating what material minors are able to see by themselves. I understand, to a degree, how this might affect free speech rights, but as I recall, most minors already surrender the majority of those rights until they turn 18 (hence why they can't vote until then). Porn is regulated - and, honestly, I'm not really sure why sexual imagery should be denied to minors while violent imagery isn't given the same sort of restriction. Depictions of sex are more corruptive than those of violence?

Further, by regulating games/movies, you ensure that the parents (whom, really, these materials ARE targetted towards) have a better shot at being involved in this particular aspect of their child's life.

Although I disagree with Jack, and people like him, very often, I can't really see a good argument why the government should not regulate M/R rated materials.

(As far as video arcades go: it's not quite the same medium when the most violent game there is Area 51, Tekken, whatever, as opposed to GTA3 and the myriad of other violent and subversive games available for home consoles).

 

As I've mentioned in other threads, it needs to be demonstrated that the material is harmful to minors before the government has any business regulating it. That's never been demonstrated and isn't generally agreed on. There's no reason to restrict something that some people think is harmful and others don't until it's proven to be harmful. It looks like a lot of federal judges agree with me.

 

True, and fair enough - but "harmful" is a very subjective word. Does it mean that the child is now scarred for life, and will grow up with antisocial values..? Or does it just mean that they'll get freaked out and disturbed by what they see (as I was when I first watched the "Robocop" VHS that my mother rented for me when I was 11...which I turned off after I watched that one guy at the gas station get shot in the crotch because it was starting to make me sick to my stomach)?

"Harmful" is something that we won't ever be able to prove because so many other factors influence a person's development; peer groups, parents/parenting, socio-economic context, etc. The best we can do, I think, is try to discover whether M and R rated materials prevent a risk factor that will lead kids to develop immoral values and behaviors in the future. And that would require a longitudinal study over the course of at least 5-10 years...but, given that R and M stuff increasingly pushes the boundaries of their given categories (compare PS1 M-rated games and those now on current and next gen systems), even those results will be obsolete by the time the study is done.

So...basically, yeah, I didn't really make any points or counterarguments just now, unless brainstorming on the difficulty behind terming something "harmful" counts. Oh well.  

 

"Harm" does damage. It's generally assumed in this case to mean long-term damage to the emotional and/or social development of the child. What you described while watching Robocop is merely displeasure. Displeasure might get the viewer a refund from some companies, but it's not going to hold up as "harm" in court. People who try for that are a major contributing factor to the problem of too many frivolous lawsuits.

 

I have no problems with government regulating M/R rated material to minors just the same as they do tobacco and alcohol. Maybe not just the same, but I wouldn't mind them doing something to keep these kids from buying the games and seeing the movies that the respective industries fully admit to not being suitable for young children.

That being said, the problem with this law was that it was worded way to subjectively:

Does that mean all M rated games, or some M rated games that just have lots of bad language or some sexual content? What does an "average person" consider to appeal to a "morbid interest in violence" and just exactly what the hell is a "morbid interest in violence. Those are all too vague of terms to be able to be applied to a large and diverse community with varying moral senses.

If they would have said that they were going to ban the sale of all M rated games to minors and the law failed I would say that sucks, but I'm glad this particular law failed because it is just a way for people to legislate their morality onto other people.

 

Alcohol and tobacco aren't a good comparison at all. They're physical substances that:
a) have been proven to cause harm, especially to children, and;
b) have chemically addictive properties.
A minor is not considered to have proper judgement to fully understand and submit him/herself to that harm and potential addiction or to use the substances responsibly.

As it stands, with no proof or even any evidence that M games are harmful to children, legislating morality is exactly what a law banning sales of M games to minors would be.

 

Ok, Flamepanther, for the sake of argument:

Why are minors not allowed to purchase pornography?

 

Because whether it's true or not, it's more uniformly accepted in American culture that kids shouldn't have access to pornography. Our culture doesn't consider minors capable of fully understanding sexuality and its possible emotional and reproductive consequences, which is the same reason a minor can't have sexual contact with an adult. Giving pornography tp a child is considered a sort of psychological child molestation. On the other hand, violent crimes are about the only thing for which a minor can be "tried as an adult" in court. If we can try minors as adults for violent crimes, then they must be capable of understanding consequences and knowing right from wrong when it comes to acts of violence, and therefore there's no reason to legally bar them from violent games or movies.

It also depends on what you consider pornographic. R-rated movies can have provocative nudity (a good case for calling it pornographic) and still be legally accessible to children. Effectively, certain forms of soft pornography are legal for minors to view or own.

 

On this I'll agree with you

I've wonder why this board pays attention to ANYTHING he does/says.I mean everytime people get seriously tweaked

 

True; there's Playboy, and then there's magazines with actual depictions of sex. I'd say, given that, there are degrees of "porn." Still, though, if you're an adult, R-rated and M-rated material (which is made and marketted towards you, the adult) should be allowed completely free reign.

What I thought you said that was most interesting was this:

What if I replace "porn" with "violence"? Ie, "minors aren't capable of fully understanding violence and it's possible emotional and lifelong consequences, which is the same reason a minor can't purchase a firearm, dynamite, etc."


(Fear not, I read your whole argument  ) I'd advocate that not ALL minors know the difference between right from wrong when it comes to violence (as the courts imply). I seem to remember some news stories a decade or so ago, when Power Rangers first came out, and some kid beat up another kid pretty badly because he had seen it on TV; he didn't really understand that he had critically injured his peer. Furthermore, I remember some 10 year old bullies when I was younger who watched WWF or Rocky and tried to e-enact those scenes with smaller kids because it was "cool," whereas they didn't really understand that they were inflicting pain on others, or that violence wasn't something to be glorified and replicated.


I'm not seeing how presenting a child (who is psychologically and emotionally unprepared to understand/empathize/process what they see in violent material) isn't also a form of psychological molestation, to be honest. [And, further, I'd rather have a kid educated in sex so that they ARE aware of the psychological and reproductive consequences when they do become active - if providing the sex education necessary to offset the influence of porn gets the job done (as it appears in European countries, where seeing nudity or far more explicit sexual innuendo on television is common, as I've heard), then...well, I guess it's time to change what this country deems "acceptable." -EDIT: Not really making a counterargument in this discussion, just a brief rant about our culture/society.]

In any case, legislating morality should not be done, especially given that some modern morality isn't founded in actual contemplated contemporary philosophy (Kant, Mills, etc). However, at the same time, I'm also not comfortable with the idea that kids, some of which who are far not psychologically ready or educated to interact with material not meant for them, have unrestricted access to exactly that, whether it be violent or pornographic in nature.

Flamepanther, I'm not sure if you've said it or not, but would you be okay with a 9 year old child renting Saw or Manhunt (the video game) for themselves?