Oklahoma Senate OKs Violent-Games Bill 412
CNet is reporting that the Oklahoma Senate unanimously approved a new violent-games bill on Monday that makes it a crime to sell violent video games to children under 18. From the article: "The bill passed 47-0 in the state Senate, but is being held on a motion to reconsider the vote within three legislative days before being sent back to the House to vote on Senate amendments."
You would think (Score:3, Insightful)
You know... "We're doing this for the children!"
What a load of bollocks.
Kierthos
What do they mean by violent? (Score:5, Insightful)
Not much of a solution. (Score:5, Insightful)
The problem isn't some immoral shopkeep hawking his wares to unsuspecting kiddies whilst twirling his moustache, but the permissive parents at home who mostly don't give a damn if their child is virtually running around with a virtual gun shooting virtual people with virtually aroused sexual organs.
Re:How many times do we have to go through this? (Score:5, Insightful)
this is a good thing (Score:1, Insightful)
To me it's obvious that there is some content that is not appropriate for minors, that's why we have ratings on movies PG-13 and R -- video games are no different.
boxlight
another rule made to be broken (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Loop hole? (Score:5, Insightful)
Honestly, I think this may not be a bad idea. I'm a life-long gamer, but I'm also a parent, and I firmly believe that parents should rigidly control what games their children play. Banning the sale of of all video games to minors would help parents in that regard, and may just force the issue with lazy parents, making them go to the store to buy a game for their kid. Maybe even getting them to go together, actually talk to each other for five minutes... yeah, a bill like that might even eventually bring about world peace!
Heh, who am I kidding?
Re:Make it a crime? (Score:4, Insightful)
No, there is no law restricting the sales of movies, books or magazines. It would be unconstitutional, just like this one. Not that this ever stopped a law from being passed or enforced...
Re:Text of the Bill. (Score:5, Insightful)
Bill is Doomed (Score:3, Insightful)
What Part of "Loosely Defined" is hard to grasp? (Score:3, Insightful)
The problem is that what THESE guys define as violent and in bad taste could range from anything from overly pokey nipples to firing off guns of any type (And when you can include Ratchet and Clank or Final Fantasy VII on a list of banned games with enough legalese...)
Re:Not much of a solution. (Score:5, Insightful)
One of my earliest childhood memories is of being at school during play time, at the age of 5 or 6, running around with a bunch of other kids playing war. We divided into two teams, and ran around miming shooting, stabbing and otherwise killing each other, long before you could do the same on a computer. Great fun.
Violent video games don't make kids violent; being human makes kids violent. Some are worse than others, and need special care and attention; despite my favouring violent games, films, etc I've never actually been in a fight in my life.
Re:Text of the Bill. (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:What do they mean by violent? (Score:1, Insightful)
Now getting parents to pay attention to what their kids are doing and becoming involved in their lives...that's another story.
Re:How many times do we have to go through this? (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Then the buyer should just get older (Score:5, Insightful)
If this law is accepted, it will also be accepted that video games are for some reason a less protected form of speech than other media. I that OK with you? It's not OK with me.
Re:Whats wrong with this? (Score:2, Insightful)
I don't believe it is the government's responsibility to regulate the sale of games in this way. Nor do I agree with their assessment of what is or is not appropriate for 17 year olds. That decision rests with the parents and is not to be usurped by the government.
/ age 31
Homosexuality is not a form of sexual conduct (Score:5, Insightful)
Homosexuality is no more a form of sexual conduct than heterosexuality is, the latter of which appears to be missing.
That's purely prejudicial to include one and not the other. A homosexual character in a game makes it illegal to sell to minors? Please.
Re:this is a good thing (Score:3, Insightful)
So - you would be in favor of ratings on books?
Re:Whats wrong with this? (Score:3, Insightful)
This sounds an awful lot like "If you're not doing anything wrong, you've got nothing to hide"
Re:this is a good thing (Score:3, Insightful)
To me this is not obvious, sure there are content that you, or me, would not want your kids or mine. But your censored content are surely different from mine. Some people will have strong objections with things like boobs, penises or even a kiss, others will think that children should be shielded from all kinds of violence.
In the end no one agrees, and this is good, each person has their own sets of morals and beliefs and no one should be shamed for that. But people should not force their morals and beliefs to others, and that is the hard part.
So my point is, every one has an idea what they think is inappropriated for children, but I can bet that those things vary from person to person. I wouldn't mind if a movie shows a boob or two or even a penis or a vagina, it all depends on how those things are showed. A scene with people talking nude while showering, is natural in my opinion, while a scene where a girl is fully clothed but it is treaded as a piece of meat by a machist football player is less apropriated (again in my point of view).
Re:What do they mean by violent? (Score:2, Insightful)
Seriously, what kind of sheltered environment did you grow up in?
Re:Text of the Bill. (Score:2, Insightful)
You realize that some of these "kids" are 14-17, which is the prime age when they learn about their sexuality (90% or more of people lose their virginity before 18). They should have the same option to learn about this sort of thing as anyone 18 or over.
And to note, im over 18, just not so old that im completely out of touch with the reality of the situation.
You don't know what a democracy is (Score:5, Insightful)
How in the world is homosexuality immoral?
Unfortunately, you have no clue about what a democracy is. Here's a hint: Democracy does not mean dictatorship of the majority.
Accepting homosexuality as something normal is not the minority dictating the majority, it's simply the majority showing a bit of respect for the minorty.
Read the Bill (Score:3, Insightful)
This is a STUPID law.
Rdundant (Score:2, Insightful)
It is not going to change a damn thing either, because 90% of time these games are bought by parents/guardians of with their explicit permission.
If little billy gets carded in the video store, he will come the next day with his older brother, or his Dad and get the game anyway.
Eh, legislation for sake of legislating. This is nothing else but some blatant political maneuvering. Because "protecting children" looks good on the record
Re:Text of the Bill. (Score:2, Insightful)
But unlimited permissiveness typically leads to uncontrolled actions. Which is precicely why parents should be taking more responsibility for teaching their "kids" good values, morals, and practices. Just because the current trend is to give "kids" the freedom to do what they want doesn't mean that it's right. It's the old cliche, "Just because you have the right to do something doesn't necessarily make it right to do."
Re:not a big deal at all. (Score:3, Insightful)
In America we have something called the First Amendment that prohibits the government from regulating speech. I don't know why you think its ok for the government to decide what's appropriate for the people.
Re:Whats wrong with this? (Score:4, Insightful)
Sorry, I think we do. Why are your desires more important than mine?
This is a fad I am very happy to see waining, and I applaud any state or country or franchise that attempts to curb the proliferation of this kind of crap.
You really think the government should step in to stop a fad? Just because you find it distasteful? Do you have any concept of liberty?
Games can be fun and exciting without being derogatory, racists, sexist, or promoting behaviour that many minors in fact mimicking in real life.
Yes they can. They can also be fun and exciting WITH being derogatory, racist AND sexist. I'm glad that we have enough room in this society for both.
If your against this bill, then you are probably 12 years old.
No, you just have to care about freedom of speech for all.
Nobody over the age of majority should have to worry or complain about this bill.
Just because you're not directly affected by an injustice doesn't mean you shouldn't care about it. Remember, all that is necessary for evil to triumph is for good men to do nothing. When you are the victim of injustice, you will be glad that others care.
Re:You don't know what a democracy is (Score:2, Insightful)
To steal a quote:
"Democracy is two wolves and one sheep voting what they are having for dinner."
Re:You don't know what a democracy is (Score:3, Insightful)
Maybe if we actually allowed them to get married this wouldn't be an issue.
Re:You don't know what a democracy is (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:You don't know what a democracy is (Score:1, Insightful)
Re:Text of the Bill. (Score:1, Insightful)
Oh ok, I guess that means your country is more tolerant than ours, since we have them quarantined and all.
The thing people that don't live in the US dont understand is that most of our states are bigger than most countries in Europe. For that reason, beliefs such as this vary GREATLY from state to state. Oklahoma, Nebraska, and the middle states can go on passing laws like this all day long, you know why? Because nobody lives there.
A law like this could NEVER get passed in the Northeast or in California or Arizona. So don't try to say that your country is more tolerant than "Americans," say theyre more tolerant than "Oklahoman's," if thats what they call themselves.
Re:How many times do we have to go through this? (Score:3, Insightful)
Let me cover the traditional major objections that Slashdotters have raised to this sort of legislation:
1) It impinges on the rights of the minor.
Minors have significantly fewer rights than adults; playing video games is not a right that minors possess. It should rightly be up to the parents to decide whether or not their child is mature enough to handle explicit content. Further the law does not say minors are not permitted access to this material period (like states say regarding alcohol), just that they need an adult to make the purchase on their behalf.
2) Involved parents should be able to control their kids' access to this soft of material without such legislation
Too true, though not every parent has enough time to set up a police state within their house; some are too busy making sure their child is able to eat. And not every parent believes that a police state is a healthy environment. These same parents are not hypocritical to also think their child is not mature enough for some sorts of content, and this provides the means for them to establish certain perimeters at the same time the parent expands other perimeters.
3) Kids will get access to the material anyway
Although this is certainly true for some kids, erecting a barrier of this nature means that there is no question on the kid's part as to whether or not this is something their parents want them doing. This sort of specious reasoning is on different from saying that you might as well not establish limits for your child since they will just exceed those limits anyhow. Believe it or not, psychological barriers of this nature do influence behavior. A parent is able to remove the barrier for their child if they feel it is inappropriate in the case of their own child.
It is another tool for parents to help control access to materials. It is not a slippery slope in the direction of censorship; in fact it's an attempt to avoid a slippery slope where our children are exposed to more and more content before they are ready for it.
4) It violates free speech on the part of game manufacturers
No one is saying that game manufacturers aren't allowed to make explicit content, they're just saying a certain group of individuals, who have a high incidence of emotional immaturity, should first get consent from a parent, guardian, or other adult who knows more about their psyche and its ability to distinguish reality from fantasy. Your right to perform free speech is not greater than my right to not hear your free speech, nor is it greater than my right as a parent to not permit my children to hear it.
5) This is just a conservatist attempt at stifling modern forms of art that they personally find objectionable
Maybe this is a factor in such a law, I don't know, I'm not the people who passed it. But that doesn't change the fact that it is a useful tool for me to permit my child to begin exploring the world outside of my supervision, without having to worry as much about what sort of smut they're getting into. I've known 8-year-olds who were more emotionally ready for explicit content than some 21-year-olds. The point is that if I can control access, then I can do a better job of managing access to material that my child might not be mentally ready to accept without it distorting his or her perception of reality.
It's my personal belief that very very few kids are half so mature as they think they are, and that games like the GTA series will have a more significant impact on their world view than they would be willing to believe. I can remember as a kid wondering why I was treated like a kid so much when I always acted so mature. I now look back and see the behaviors I was engaging in, and lo and behold, I was a kid, and it turns out I was more impressionable than I would believe.
Really, if you think you're at a certain leve
Re:Text of the Bill. (Score:4, Insightful)
So American football is now "sexual conduct"?