Illinois governor proposes ban of the sale of some games to minors

D

Duo_Maxwell

CAGiversary!
Feedback
36 (100%)
Link

Just wondering what some thoughts were on this topic as it's often tallked about other places but rarely here. To be honest these bills have never worked in the past, don't know why they keep throwing them out there. Personnally it seems like just another strike at video games to me. I like his little qoute though...perhaps he should actually monitor what his daughter does like a decent parent should do.
 
Can you post the article - I would like to read it. Unfortunately, it is blocked for me.

I am not in principle opposed to rating games and not letting children play some of the more violent and or sexually oriented games - just like the movies.

CTL
 
See there is one whole flaw in this. Many places do not sell M rated games to minors anyways, like Toy's Aren't Us and Walmart. The problem is that the dumbass parents in America go out and but GTA for their 10 year old son.

It's not the games fault some people are more violent it's the fact that the parents don't give a shit about their kids or what they do.
 
[quote name='Quackzilla']shock value games like GTA and Manhunt should be treated like porn.[/quote]

Not at all. As an adult I have a right to have that crap.

Children as minors, don't.

CTL
 
[quote name='CTLesq'][quote name='Quackzilla']shock value games like GTA and Manhunt should be treated like porn.[/quote]

Not at all. As an adult I have a right to have that crap.

Children as minors, don't.

CTL[/quote]

That's what I mean, you could buy it on the internet or on the back shelf of a store somewhere, but it would be sepatated from the regular games.

That way parents would definitely know what their kids should and shouldn't be playing, but it will still be available to adults, just like porn.
 
Exactly. I don't have a problem with the ratings or descriptors; movies and CD's have them, and they're still technically 'voluntary.'
Parents need to be involved with what their kids are exposed to, but it's impossible to vet every single thing they may be interested in. So these allow the parent a quick and easy way to pre-judge certain items, which can then be more deeply studied on a case by case basis. A game like Manhunt or GTA:SA you can probably tell enough about from the box or the rating/descriptors, that you know you don't want your 8 year old to play. As he approaches 14, 15, 16, the decision may vary based on the child and the parent; the parent can always go in and buy the game for the kid even if the kid can't.
I don't have a problem with this. I do wish, however, it would be consistent--don't let kids into R-rated movies without parental approval, and don't let them buy Eminem or NWA or whatever CD's.
Of course, that certainly does open up room for a snowball effect--what about books? I've read Stephen King since I was 10, but there were definitely some not-for-kids passages in there. Or comic books; I'm reading Jack Kirby's New Gods and Mai the Psychic Girl right now, and there are definitely some specific graphic instances [Mai] and general tone of violence [New Gods] that I wouldn't necessarily want a 6 year old to have access to [of course, a six year old probably couldn't make it to the store on his own, so that might not be an issue--for a 13 year old, they're not that bad.]
But some video games are just *so* drenched in violence or 'adult themes' that it's easy to say 'Young kids should not play this', and by not allowing them to be sold to kids under 16 or 18 or whatever, if the kid is interested in it, that helps to nudge the parent into getting involved/aware.
 
for those that were unable to read the linked article from IGN:

Illinois Considers Game Ban
Another state considers jail time for selling violent games to minors.
By David Adams

December 16, 2004 - Illinois governor Rod Blagojevich is proposing legislation which would make sale of violent or sexually explicit videogames a Class A misdemeanor, an offense which can result in a $5,000 fine or one year in prison.

Retailers in Illinois, as in much of the country, may currently sell violent videogames to minors, although the industry has made use of the ESRB's content ratings, such as "T" for Teen and "M" for Mature, for years now. The ratings are intended as a guide to both retailers and parents as to which games are suitable for children.

Governor Blagojevich wants to sharpen the law. Not only would sale of adult-themed games to children result in misdemeanor charges, but violent or sexually explicit games would have to be labeled as such -- more than the current "M" rating.

"If you're 18 or older and you're a grown-up and an adult, that's your business," Blagojevich told the Associated Press. "But I don't believe that my 8-year-old daughter has a constitutional right to cut somebody's head off in a game that she plays."

The Interactive Entertainment Merchants Association (IEMA), a game retailer group, has already issued a response to the proposed legislation, emphasizing that a new program of carding and stricter enforcement of ESRB ratings is only now completing roll-out.

"Over the course of the past twelve months IEMA members have redoubled their efforts, investing in training of store-level staff, installing and promoting ratings awareness signage, and fundamentally changing the way in which they merchandise games," commented IEMA president Hal Halprin. "Our members recognized that they have a social duty, and met that obligation head-on, re-investing in their relationships with consumers."

Similar legislation in states such as Washington and Missouri have been proposed without success. In California, legislation which began as similar to Illinois' proposal eventually passed in softened form, requiring only that ratings and ratings explanations be clearly displayed at retail.

And in a real effort to stay fair and balanced unlike some news networks, here's the official press release from the state of Illinois.

Full link
 
I'm of course not for letting 10 year olds play Manhunt (though I don't get why anyone would wanna play that game period). However, one of my biggest issues with this law is the fact that he calls upon retailers to put up parental advisory signs and descriptors of their own for each game. That's just silly and would cause a great deal of undue expense at the cost of a retailer. The ratings system is there in plain slight of everyone and every video game section or store I've been in has a sign telling people what the ratings mean. And if perents happen to be unsure all they need do is ask a clerk...all the info is already there for thsese people but they're just too damn lazy and apparently the Illinois government wishes to make things easier for every parent.

Now I get dtcarson's comment about parents not being able to monitor all facets of their child's lives, but is is one facet where it wouldn't be all that difficult. It's not drugs, alcohol, or even porn. Video games are an activity that require kids to be almost totally stationary so it's quite easy to see what they are doing or playing. The governor tries to make this out to be a safety blanket for parents, loving the fact that he's the first state apparently and going after a billion dollar industry. In fact, no ban like this will stop kids from getting these games. Under age kids smooke and drink right now, bans don't stop that. Retailers should have and do have some current responsiblity, but the ultimate responsibility really falls on parents in the end no matter what.

Oh yeah and video games being treated like porn is just stupid and if I remember right a similar law was attempted in Indianapolis and deemed unconstitutional for some reason. If you do this you're basically calling video games a vice and I don't feel as though I need to go into some shady backroom or speciality shop to get my copy of Halo 2.
 
I don't have a problem with restricting the sales of games by age like other content related material like CD's, movies, pornography etc..

What I've been wondering is how on Earth the rating system is working. I fail to see how Halo 2 is rated M in a human/alien shoot 'em up with minimal red and purple blood. Meanwhile Burnout 3's objective, in one game mode, is to crash and destroy as many vehicles as possible, then hit the "car bomb" icon to increase extra damage and that game is rated E. Something is not quite right there.

My GF and I were buying games for her nephews and I went over their "wish" list and told their mom why they should have Halo 2 but not GTA: SA even though both were M rated. Fortunately these kids are so insensitive to "trendy" games that you can buy them the current NFL, NBA, NHL and MLB games and they think they've died and gone to heaven. Why is that? I think because their parents have them involved in sports and they get to see at least one game for each league in Pittsburgh once a year.

I have a problem with any government mandated content regulation. I don't care what the intent is. We've never regulated porn, movies, CD's, books, DVD's legally so why start with games?

BTW, the entire government of Illinois from the governor to legislature is Democratic.
 
[quote name='Duo_Maxwell']Oh yeah and video games being treated like porn is just stupid and if I remember right a similar law was attempted in Indianapolis and deemed unconstitutional for some reason. If you do this you're basically calling video games a vice and I don't feel as though I need to go into some shady backroom or speciality shop to get my copy of Halo 2.[/quote]

I didn't mean Halo 2, I meant shock value games with prostitutes, sex, drugs, etc like GTA.
 
Well there's one problem with your theory Quack.

It's fairly well known that EA took on "The Godfather" license and it, no doubt, is going to feature extortion, prostitution, revenge killings, drugs/booze, bribes and every other vice and criminal act known to the films. Activision took on "Scarface" as a license. Both, obviously, are an attempt to compete with GTA and create a crime "franchise" for both companies.

Now "The Godfather" and part 2 wond countless Academy Awards including Best Picture. They are artistic masterpieces of film yet undeniably are not for children. Now these movies did not get such lofty praise for being full of "shock value". So where are you going to start drawing the line between artisitic violence and violence that may be justified; like Sonny beating up Connie's husband after he abused her. That segment furthered Sonny's character and lead to his eventual murder as his sister was used as bait to lure him to his point of death.

Gratuitous? Unnecessary? Shock value? Not in a gangster film. Why would it be so in a gangster video game?
 
[quote name='Quackzilla'][quote name='Duo_Maxwell']Oh yeah and video games being treated like porn is just stupid and if I remember right a similar law was attempted in Indianapolis and deemed unconstitutional for some reason. If you do this you're basically calling video games a vice and I don't feel as though I need to go into some shady backroom or speciality shop to get my copy of Halo 2.[/quote]

I didn't mean Halo 2, I meant shock value games with prostitutes, sex, drugs, etc like GTA.[/quote]

You can't single out one M-rated game over the others (I have a feeling this is why a similar law was ruled unconstitutional). That's bascially censorship and a horrible way to do it too. Now, should the ESRB envoke the AO rating on those games more often then I could see a better arguement, but legislators and retailers have no business saying which M-rated games get sigled out over the others.
 
That's what I mean, pornos aren't rated R, so why should the videogame equivalent extreme be rated M?

And to PAD, the Godfather is about a crime family that does bad things, and should be M rated, but GTA takes it to the extreme and needs the AO rating.
 
[quote name='Duo_Maxwell']I'm of course not for letting 10 year olds play Manhunt (though I don't get why anyone would wanna play that game period). However, one of my biggest issues with this law is the fact that he calls upon retailers to put up parental advisory signs and descriptors of their own for each game. That's just silly and would cause a great deal of undue expense at the cost of a retailer. The ratings system is there in plain slight of everyone and every video game section or store I've been in has a sign telling people what the ratings mean. And if perents happen to be unsure all they need do is ask a clerk...all the info is already there for thsese people but they're just too damn lazy and apparently the Illinois government wishes to make things easier for every parent.

Now I get dtcarson's comment about parents not being able to monitor all facets of their child's lives, but is is one facet where it wouldn't be all that difficult. It's not drugs, alcohol, or even porn. Video games are an activity that require kids to be almost totally stationary so it's quite easy to see what they are doing or playing. The governor tries to make this out to be a safety blanket for parents, loving the fact that he's the first state apparently and going after a billion dollar industry. In fact, no ban like this will stop kids from getting these games. Under age kids smooke and drink right now, bans don't stop that. Retailers should have and do have some current responsiblity, but the ultimate responsibility really falls on parents in the end no matter what.[/quote]

I'll admit, I didn't read the article. To ask retailers to add *additional* signs and descriptors is indeed an unfair burden, and redundant and possibly inconsistent.

No ban will prevent a kid from getting something he wants, I know that. But that doesn't mean we shouldn't try.
It would be easier to observe a kid's gaming habits than possibly some other things, and a video game can be a group activity, but not necessarily. Lots of kids have whole entertainment setups in their room, for example. And there are still plenty of 'latchkey kids', who are without parental guidance for some part of the day.
I don't think this law or a similar law is or should be a replacement for parental guidance, I see it as an aid. Like my saying, as a parent, "I'll teach my 12 year old kid why smoking is bad; you do your part, Mr Retailer, and don't sell him cigarettes." If he turns 15 and I allow him to smoke, I'll buy them for him.

another point: Any retailer can refuse to sell whatever he wants; that's not censorship. A voluntary rating on a game is not censorship either.
 
[quote name='CTLesq']Can you post the article - I would like to read it. Unfortunately, it is blocked for me.
[/quote]
Try using Guardster to get to it. Im able to get to blocked websites at my school with it.
 
[quote name='CTLesq']Can you post the article - I would like to read it. Unfortunately, it is blocked for me. [/quote]

The DoD allows political sites but bans videogame sites?
 
It's a great idea. Let's use draconian law to punish behavior which has not been definatively proven to cause any damage. Brilliant. I expect nothing less from the mid-west.
 
[quote name='camoor']It's a great idea. Let's use draconian law to punish behavior which has not been definatively proven to cause any damage. Brilliant. I expect nothing less from the mid-west.[/quote]

I dunno, the more info I see on the topic the more, and the more I study psychology (in college), the more I believe some restrictions should be in place in terms of violent games. You're not going to get me to care much about sex, but there is plenty of evidence violent content has effects, even if only for a short time. Jackass is a perfect example, where kids tried to do the stunts they saw (resulting in some deaths I believe). The average kid is fine, the average kid can watch r rated horror and violence movies too (and does), but some kids can't handle it. My little cousin who's twelve, with bipolar, started telling me how he identified with the song thug love by bone thugs and tupac (lots of guns going off and talking about shooting people). Now, it's one of my favorite songs, but that scared me a bit. His mother also makes sure he has a steady flow of games like gta 3 vice city and such (he takes extra pleasure in shooting the civilians in gta 3). Now most kids aren't like him, but many are and the parents simply aren't aware, and many parents won't listen (his mother wouldn't) when people try to tell them it's not appropriate. Treat violent games like r rated and nc-17 movies, maybe then they will start realizing what they're buying. I have yet to see anyone show, with any real evidence, that games like gta 3 aren't harmful to at least a stastically significant minority of children. It seems that the majority arguing it either are going by their own experience, or have an agenda in promoting video games. I don't like stopping sensible, rational children from seeing material they can handle, but there are enough children who can't handle it to warrant it. That's not to say I don't agree that jail is going way too far.
 
[quote name='Quackzilla']WHAT. THE. shaq-fu.

He is bipolar and his mom bought him a shaq-fuing GTA game?[/quote]

Ya, she's one of those "it's just a game" parents. I spend a decent amount of time with the kid (he flips out a lot, cursing, yelling etc., though for some reason I'm the only one who has never had a problem with him, he's never flipped out on me), and I tried to tell her he shouldn't have them, but she wouldn't listen. I know many kids can handle it, hell when I was 12 I watched violent movies, played violent games (though they weren't nearly as graphic then, mortal kombat and night trap being the ones that got the most complaints), watched porn etc. and there was a very clear line between images and reality, but to some kids it is blurry. Kids used to act out power rangers, urkel etc., it doesn't seem that way anymore, and for those that are already a little messed up, crazy, stupid, whatever, these games can make it worse.
 
[quote name='alonzomourning23']...I don't like stopping sensible, rational children from seeing material they can handle, but there are enough children who can't handle it to warrant it. That's not to say I don't agree that jail is going way too far.[/quote]

I don't know, this is one of those instances where I see liberalism going too far. All of the kids can't see some material just because a few crazy kids won't be able to handle it? Doesn't appeal to my American sense of fairness.
 
How is this any different from the movies? A 13 year old kid can't walk up and buy a ticket for a rated R or above movie, why should they be allowed to play games that have the same content?
 
[quote name='camoor']
I don't know, this is one of those instances where I see liberalism going too far. All of the kids can't see some material just because a few crazy kids won't be able to handle it? Doesn't appeal to my American sense of fairness.[/quote]

They can still see it, now they will need parental approval (or at least the approval of someone over 21). Maybe then parents will start taking these games more seriously. Children shouldn't decide for themselves whether they can see these things or not. Obviously though, while the law might state 17 and will effect anyone under, it isn't targeted at 16 year olds. Though I just heard (while driving home) that ontario is going to make it illegal for children under 18 to buy M or AO games link, struck me as odd that they're going to actually be stricter than the ratings. It also said that they're are going to make the ratings system universal, movies, games etc. will use the same ratings (though I can't find this online, so I can't say if my memory is entirely accurate on this part). That would probably be a good idea here, a parent seeing an "R" rating on a game would likely take it more seriously than an "M" rating.
 
[quote name='alonzomourning23'][quote name='camoor']
I don't know, this is one of those instances where I see liberalism going too far. All of the kids can't see some material just because a few crazy kids won't be able to handle it? Doesn't appeal to my American sense of fairness.[/quote]

They can still see it, now they will need parental approval (or at least the approval of someone over 21). Maybe then parents will start taking these games more seriously. Children shouldn't decide for themselves whether they can see these things or not. Obviously though, while the law might state 17 and will effect anyone under, it isn't targeted at 16 year olds. [/quote]

That's cool, I think your basic idea is pretty good, it's just that in America you're treated like a kid until you're 17, at 18 you can grab a gun and kill Arabs in the desert, and even then you still can't drink until you are 21. Just seems to me that if the government can ask for such a great service from it's youngest citizens, it should be forced to grant them more privleges.
 
[quote name='alonzomourning23'][quote name='camoor']
I don't know, this is one of those instances where I see liberalism going too far. All of the kids can't see some material just because a few crazy kids won't be able to handle it? Doesn't appeal to my American sense of fairness.[/quote]

They can still see it, now they will need parental approval (or at least the approval of someone over 21). Maybe then parents will start taking these games more seriously. Children shouldn't decide for themselves whether they can see these things or not. Obviously though, while the law might state 17 and will effect anyone under, it isn't targeted at 16 year olds. Though I just heard (while driving home) that ontario is going to make it illegal for children under 18 to buy M or AO games link, struck me as odd that they're going to actually be stricter than the ratings. It also said that they're are going to make the ratings system universal, movies, games etc. will use the same ratings (though I can't find this online, so I can't say if my memory is entirely accurate on this part). That would probably be a good idea here, a parent seeing an "R" rating on a game would likely take it more seriously than an "M" rating.[/quote]

The ratings system is pretty damn self explanatory if you ask me. Plus like I said earlier there are signs all around the stores explaining the system, the clerk will often times tell you what the ratings mean, and esrb.com is an obvious resource with a wealth of info and is the very first result for about every search engine if you type in "video game ratings". Plus that's not including the even more obvious descriptors on the back of the package.

Now if you were a parent with a child that is interested in video games wouldn't you use all these resources that are almost right in front of you? It's not a matter of parents not understanding, it's a matter of parents more than often not caring and no law is going to ever help resolve that problem.
 
I do not believe legislation such as this is a path we need to head down. The ESRB rating system is an excellent guide for parents and retailers. That said, unless the government is willing to start prosecuting parents, legislation of this nature will not deter psycho mothers (or fathers), such as alonzomourning23's aunt, from distributing these games to children. It is frightening, but I think this avenue is much more common than children, like the 8-year-old daughter of Illinois governor (D) Rod Blagojevich, walking into a store and buying Mature rated games. Prosecuting the dimwitted minimum wage sales clerk for selling the game to a child, but not the psycho parent for distributing it, is somewhat hypocritical.

I'd be interested in seeing a study using PAD's scenario where a child walks into a store to purchase The Godfather DVD then returns to purchase the video game. I may have to borrow some kids and conduct this study myself using the Chronicles of Riddick R-rated DVD and M-rated game.
 
That could be a porblem as the DVD you're thinking of is actually Unrated. May not be a problem though as I don't have a clue what the restrcitions are for unrated films, just thought I'd mention it as it makes the scenario even a little more intriguing.
 
Already considered that. There is an R-Rated Chronicles of Riddick / Pitch Black Value 2pk. Although, I would prefer a more one-to-one comparison such as PAD's scenario. However, I suppose any R-rated film / M-rated game combination would work.
 
[quote name='Quackzilla'][quote name='CTLesq']Can you post the article - I would like to read it. Unfortunately, it is blocked for me. [/quote]

The DoD allows political sites but bans videogame sites?[/quote]

Its odd. Sometimes I can get into ESPN, other times I can't. I actually had to play with the link to be able to post here. Once I got it to work I bookmarked it. I go to the main page and select "forums" all the way on the right.

As for news and politics I have access to all of those. Where things become hairy is when I go to a sports website. The military is not trying to restrict my access to news or politics.

But can you justify from a work purpose ever going to a gaming site if you do what I am currently doing?

No.

CTL
 
[quote name='camoor'][quote name='alonzomourning23']...I don't like stopping sensible, rational children from seeing material they can handle, but there are enough children who can't handle it to warrant it. That's not to say I don't agree that jail is going way too far.[/quote]

I don't know, this is one of those instances where I see liberalism going too far. All of the kids can't see some material just because a few crazy kids won't be able to handle it? Doesn't appeal to my American sense of fairness.[/quote]

If you are a child nothing is fair.

Deal with it.

CTL
 
[quote name='CTLesq'][quote name='camoor'][quote name='alonzomourning23']...I don't like stopping sensible, rational children from seeing material they can handle, but there are enough children who can't handle it to warrant it. That's not to say I don't agree that jail is going way too far.[/quote]

I don't know, this is one of those instances where I see liberalism going too far. All of the kids can't see some material just because a few crazy kids won't be able to handle it? Doesn't appeal to my American sense of fairness.[/quote]

If you are a child nothing is fair.

Deal with it.

CTL[/quote]

I'm not really sure what you mean.

I do know that whenever I percieve a law affecting America's youth to be unfair, I will fight to get it changed.

Darn it, you made me make a "will somebody think of the children" post. #-o :)
 
A law preventing kids, possibly as young as 6, from purchasing games like Grand Theft Auto, Manhunt, Suffering, etc, without their parents knowledge, is "unfair" to a child? Um, okay. Had you said this law was unfair to the retailer, I could see that.
Although, in a way, laws like this actually *help* the retailer. What if a retailer, before the law, sells a young kid an inappropriate game, and his parents don't like it, and get mad at the retailer? The retailer could be sued [like we saw with WalMart and that Evanescence thing.] By simply eliminating the option of selling directly to underage kids, this helps protect the retailer.

I suppose we should give all the 6 year olds subscriptions to Swank or Juggs, since that's an unfair law preventing them from having those. Oh, and a carton of cigarettes for Christmas. Let's be sure and go to WalMart to pick up a .20-.20 as well.
I'm sorry, saying 'think of the children' relative to THIS law is, well, nonsensical.

The kids CAN see the material. If their parents allow them to do so. Which is exactly as it should be.

I agree that there is an inconsistency in ages. For the government, you're an adult at 18 [for military service [still voluntary] or voting], 21 [for drinking], 16 [for driving], 14 for adult price at a movie theater, 10 for the adult menu at a restaurant, etc.
Thank the states for the driving ages [which do vary], and thank Richard Nixon for the voting age of 18.

And LOTS of people, adult and children, are barred from doing certain things because a few people can't handle it or take offense. For instance, I couldn't say a prayer at school if I wanted to, because some people take offense. Where's your outrage about that?
 
[quote name='camoor'][quote name='CTLesq'][quote name='camoor'][quote name='alonzomourning23']...I don't like stopping sensible, rational children from seeing material they can handle, but there are enough children who can't handle it to warrant it. That's not to say I don't agree that jail is going way too far.[/quote]

I don't know, this is one of those instances where I see liberalism going too far. All of the kids can't see some material just because a few crazy kids won't be able to handle it? Doesn't appeal to my American sense of fairness.[/quote]

If you are a child nothing is fair.

Deal with it.

CTL[/quote]

I'm not really sure what you mean.

I do know that whenever I percieve a law affecting America's youth to be unfair, I will fight to get it changed.

Darn it, you made me make a "will somebody think of the children" post. #-o :)[/quote]

Spare me the save the children. Why? Precisely because they are children.

They simply don't have the same rights as adults in a wide host of areas.

Its that simple. And video games fall under that umbrella. There is nothing more to discuss.

CTL
 
[quote name='dtcarson']I agree that there is an inconsistency in ages. For the government, you're an adult at 18 [for military service [still voluntary] or voting], 21 [for drinking], 16 [for driving], 14 for adult price at a movie theater, 10 for the adult menu at a restaurant, etc.
Thank the states for the driving ages [which do vary], and thank Richard Nixon for the voting age of 18.
[/quote]

Yeah, this paragraph was basically my point. There is a real disconnect in this country as in "You can't see an honest movie about war without mommy" when you are 16 and then suddenly "Here's a gun son, go fight the war" when you're 18. Obviously there is no time for teens (considered children by the govt) to learn critical thinking skills before they are asked to make life-altering choices.

As to giving Jugs and 40s to 6-year olds, yes that is patently stupid. However at the same time I don't want my 9pm TV viewing restricted because some parent won't monitor their kid's viewing habits. There is a middle-ground.

[quote name='dtcarson']And LOTS of people, adult and children, are barred from doing certain things because a few people can't handle it or take offense. For instance, I couldn't say a prayer at school if I wanted to, because some people take offense. Where's your outrage about that?[/quote]

Are you serious? I'm sure that many public rights groups will help you out if you ever decide to take this to court. I had some mormon friends in HS (we had some pretty cool convos, some of them are actually quite smart) and they would always say grace over their food in the cafeteria. There was a Jewish kid who wore that small Jewish cap and no adminstrator ever made him take it off, even though the school had a rule about wearing hats in the classroom.

Now, if you're asking to pray to Jesus or Mecca over the loudspeaker, then I can understand why it's not allowed.
 
[quote name='CTLesq']
Spare me the save the children. Why? Precisely because they are children.

They simply don't have the same rights as adults in a wide host of areas.
[/quote]

They still have the right to be treated fairly. Many times children can surprise me with their ability to grasp the essence of complex situations, even if their basic level of understanding is childish.

In terms of actual policy, it seems to me that after age 13, the US mollycoddles teens and places them in a state of extended childhood. No wonder these US teens are morose, they are physically adults, and yet they are given childish rights and responsibilities.
 
[quote name='camoor'][quote name='CTLesq']
Spare me the save the children. Why? Precisely because they are children.

They simply don't have the same rights as adults in a wide host of areas.
[/quote]

They still have the right to be treated fairly. Many times children can surprise me with their ability to grasp the essence of complex situations, even if their basic level of understanding is childish.

In terms of actual policy, it seems to me that after age 13, the US mollycoddles teens and places them in a state of extended childhood. No wonder these US teens are morose, they are physically adults, and yet they are given childish rights and responsibilities.[/quote]

And it is fair to treat them differently - because they don't have the same UNDERSTANDING as an adult does.

And you don't make policy for the 1% that breaks the curve. You make it for the middle 80%. I am sure you are aware of the 80/20 rule.

CTL
 
And they are being treated fairly. Any 13 year old can have GTA or whatever. All he has to do is ask his folks to get it for him.
There's a difference between this, and the 9pm viewing.
Network TV has standards because for all intents and purposes it's totally free, all-access. For cable, you have to pay extra and make an actual decision/action to get it, so it's not subject to the same rules.
You can watch porn or Juggs or violent stuff on tv. The 'public airwaves', ie, the what, four basic OTA networks, since they are easily accessible by youth, do have standards. That's not at all like carding for games. If you're of age, there's absolutely nothing stopping you from buying every copy of GTA.
And while there certainly are mature geniuses at 14, no offense, most kids under 18 that I've seen or met are total dumbasses, both intellectually and morally. But the same goes for most people over 18.
 
Well seeing how the EB I purchased SA from was selling the game to mostly kids and knew they were selling an M rated game to minors - I think that retailers should be made accountable for such blatant disregard for something that is supposed to help kids and parents.
 
[quote name='Scrubking']Well seeing how the EB I purchased SA from was selling the game to mostly kids and knew they were selling an M rated game to minors - I think that retailers should be made accountable for such blatant disregard for something that is supposed to help kids and parents.[/quote]

Accountable, with a hefty fine?

Yes.

Class A misdemeanor, an offense which can result in a $5,000 fine or one year in prison.
Click to expand...

No.
 
Accountable, with a hefty fine?
Click to expand...

You don't really need more than that. Retailers biggest fear is to lose money so that will put them in check real quick as long as the fines are enforced.
 
[quote name='Scrubking']Well seeing how the EB I purchased SA from was selling the game to mostly kids and knew they were selling an M rated game to minors - I think that retailers should be made accountable for such blatant disregard for something that is supposed to help kids and parents.[/quote]

Did you think of not shopping at that store and letting them know you disapprove of their practices and will be shopping elsewhere?
 
[quote name='MrBadExample'][quote name='Scrubking']Well seeing how the EB I purchased SA from was selling the game to mostly kids and knew they were selling an M rated game to minors - I think that retailers should be made accountable for such blatant disregard for something that is supposed to help kids and parents.[/quote]

Did you think of not shopping at that store and letting them know you disapprove of their practices and will be shopping elsewhere?[/quote]

Well seeing how I couldn't pick up my preorder from anywhere else...

Besides what is my not buying from them going to do? Almost every store does it.
 
[quote name='Scrubking'][quote name='MrBadExample'][quote name='Scrubking']Well seeing how the EB I purchased SA from was selling the game to mostly kids and knew they were selling an M rated game to minors - I think that retailers should be made accountable for such blatant disregard for something that is supposed to help kids and parents.[/quote]

Did you think of not shopping at that store and letting them know you disapprove of their practices and will be shopping elsewhere?[/quote]

Well seeing how I couldn't pick up my preorder from anywhere else...

Besides what is my not buying from them going to do? Almost every store does it.[/quote]

Didn't you just say it was the retailer's biggest fear to lose money? Let them know that they are losing your future business if it means that much to you.
 
If any legal action is taken, it should be so that stupid kids can't play violent games. They can't handle it; if you put the game in the hands of someone mildly intelligent they know it is a GAME!!!

Everytime you start your console it should give an IQ test and from that determine what games you can play.
 
[quote name='spyhunterk19']If any legal action is taken, it should be so that stupid kids can't play violent games. They can't handle it; if you put the game in the hands of someone mildly intelligent they know it is a GAME!!!

Everytime you start your console it should give an IQ test and from that determine what games you can play.[/quote]


lol

The parents should take them when they buy the game.

Hell even better, when in the hospital giving birth, give the parents IQ tests, and if they fail give the kid to someone else.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
bread's done
Back
Top