Reader Comments (rss)

(Flattened / Threaded)

1.  

   

   Anonymous Poster, May 22nd, 2007 @ 9:34pm

   
   

   I find it rather amusing that the bill came about because of the V-Tech Massacre game, despite the fact that there was no way to regulate it.
   
   Can we sit lawmakers down and slap some sense into them in the form of a "Today's Technology for Idiots" book?

   [ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

2.  

   

   Anonymous Coward, May 23rd, 2007 @ 12:13am

   
   

   Remember, being a law maker isn't about making good laws, it is about saying you make good laws so that you can engage in selfless self promotion.

   [ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

3.  

   

   Lawl, May 23rd, 2007 @ 9:56am

   
   

   Your right anonymous coward, its all about the brownie points and staying in office. Its like that on both sides of the political parties. I think what they are banking on is the whole VTech incident and using that and hoping people wont mind. Personally I think that it should be illegal to sell M rated games to minors, but its not the governments job to monitor what kids are playing. Its up to the parents to regulate what their kids are playing or watching on the TV. Parents seem to think that the television is a good substitude for parental interaction.

   [ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

4.  

   

   Matt Bennett, May 23rd, 2007 @ 2:28pm

   
   

   Every time this subject comes up, I ask the same question, every time not answers it.
   
   Why is it unconstitutional to ban minors from certain videogames, but it IS constitutional (supposedly) to ban them from certain magazines (i.e. porn)?

   [ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

5.  

   Re:

   

   Jim Norton, May 23rd, 2007 @ 2:47pm

   
   

   First, is it actually unconstitutional to prevent selling of porn to children, or is it simply illegal (ditto for video games, R-rated movies, etc)? Second, video games may contain lots of violence, but rarely contain hardcore pornography, unless they are specifically tailored to deliver it.
   
   Furthermore, the level of violence in most video games already exists on free television which is not regulated to that degree. So the precedent has been set. What's the point of regulating the consumption of video games to minors when you don't do the same to more readily accessible media like television?

   [ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

6.  

   Re: Matt Bennett and Jim Norton

   

   Disagree, May 24th, 2007 @ 7:43am

   
   

   Matt: It's constitutional to restrict minors' access to porn because porn is "obscene" content, and obscenity is not protected speech under the First Amendment. The Supreme Court defines obscene to pretty much mean "sexually obscene." This is where video game laws run into trouble, since they're always opposing "violent" video games.
   
   Jim: Clearly, you haven't been playing video games recently. Go play games like Postal and Grand Theft Auto. I guarantee that you will not find that level of violence OR obscenity in any television show (public or cable) or rated film.
   
   Furthermore, games are different from television and film. The repetitive action and focus on honing skills makes them more of a learning tool than simply watching a TV series (where each episode is different and probably watched only once) or a movie. The U.S. military uses a console video game system to improve soldiers' shooting accuracy and instincts, for Pete's sake.
   
   I think that the video game laws that have been proposed to date are unconstitutional, because they're overly broad and don't know what the heck they're trying to regulate. But I do think that access by minors to SOME of these games could and should be restricted under the same rationale we use to restrict minors' access to porn, alcohol, tobacco, and sex.
   
   Oh, and the government also restricts the time slots in which radio and tv shows can broadcast content unsuitable to minors, so the whole video game thing really isn't as outrageous as you might think.

   [ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

7.  

   Re: Re: Matt Bennett and Jim Norton

   

   FH, May 24th, 2007 @ 2:18pm

   
   

   Actually they only regulate "family hour" in broadcast TV not cable and satellite.

   [ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

Add Your Comment