backtop

Print E-mail del.icio.us 54 comment(s) - last by LatinMessiah.. on May 11 at 1:47 PM
New York is the latest state that is making progress towards introducing laws aimed at trying to keep kids safe

New York Senators Martin Golden and Andrew Lanza are planning to introduce legislation that will keep kids away from games considered inappropriate for them.  The senators plan on first creating an advisory board that would monitor how effective the Entertainment Software Rating Board is at keeping adult video games away from minors.

The senators also want to make it illegal for vendors to sell video games without a rating label, for both new and used video games.  Anyone caught selling unrated video games would be fined and possibly face other penalties not yet determined.  All revenue generated from the fines would be used to fund the third part of the senators' proposal.

The third proposal by the senators is a Parent Teacher Anti-Violence Awareness Program, "which will empower parents and teachers to work with students and children on issues related to violence in video games."  The program would educate parents on ESRB ratings and advocate parental supervision with which games their children purchase and play.

States have previously been unsuccessful while trying to ban the sale of violent video gmes to minors due to the broad scope in which a game can be considered too violent. Other state bills have actually been deemedunconstitutional.

Comments     Threshold


This article is over a month old, voting and posting comments is disabled
wow
By jithvk on 4/23/2007 5:09:57 AM , Rating: 4
thats a great move. may be in doom-7 or halo5 we can expect a situation like when we are about to shoot at a monster, the monster will turn to u and will give a touchy speech... that will melt ur heart and u and monster will become friends.. wow.. those games will be full of drama and zero violence.. great move indeed..




RE: wow
By Lonyo on 4/23/2007 5:28:11 AM , Rating: 1
quote:
Video games with specific themes or content must also be submitted to the BBFC to receive a legally-binding rating (contrast advisory PEGI ratings) in the same way as videos. Other video games may be submitted at the publisher's discretion.


The UK system is that some games get legally binding ratings, meaning they can (or should) only be sold to people of specific ages, while other games get "voluntary" (non-legally binding) ratings which are advisory.
Seems to be reasonably sensible to me that at least some games should probably be more severely restricted than others.
It would also shut up those people calling for certain games to be banned.


RE: wow
By crimson117 on 4/23/2007 9:51:42 AM , Rating: 5
quote:
Seems to be reasonably sensible to me that at least some games should probably be more severely restricted than others.

Seems to me that parents need to step up, and government step down. No study has ever found that video game playing leads to real life violence. Why is the government making this their problem? It's not even a problem!


RE: wow
By CollegeTechGuy on 4/23/2007 10:50:47 AM , Rating: 3
A study actually finds that video games only cause aggresive behave in children that are already aggressive. Children that are not normally aggressive do not show any signs of aggression after playing violent video games. Even children with ADHD showed signs of being more relaxed after playing violent video games. My personal opinion on that one, since I was diagnosed with ADHD, is that violent video games have more to do in them and make me think more, and therefore keep me occupied enough to calm me down and not be so "bored".

Heres a link overviewing the research.
http://www.smh.com.au/news/National/Most-kids-unaf...


RE: wow
By somguy on 4/23/2007 11:07:41 AM , Rating: 1
Here's another study that relates video games to an increase in aggression:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/720707.stm

Not that I'm against violence in video games, I just don't like it when people pull claims like: "No study has ever found that video game playing leads to real life violence" out of thin air.


RE: wow
By Rockjock51 on 4/23/2007 12:32:42 PM , Rating: 2
I believe, based on the post above yours, that the increase in aggression observed in the study you posted can be attributed to the subjects been aggressive people already. That said, I'm not against restricted video games. I doubt (Haven't researched it myself) there is any study that links watching Doom the movie to going on a mass murder spree, but there's still restrictions on who can buy it. Why should video games be any different?


RE: wow
By Rockjock51 on 4/23/2007 12:33:19 PM , Rating: 2
subjects *being* aggressive. sorry.


RE: wow
By NuroMancer on 4/23/2007 10:48:26 AM , Rating: 2
The sad thing is that most of the time it is the parents buying the kid the mature rated game anyway.

When I used to work in sales, I lost track of how many times some kid would walk up to their parents, hand them a game to buy, and without looking at it, give it to me to purchase.


RE: wow
By OxBow on 4/24/2007 10:53:38 AM , Rating: 1
While I agree that the real emphasis should be on active, engaged parenting, I also feel that some teeth should be added to the ESRB. Game companies that gimmick the system (like take two did) should face some steep fines and regulation. So should parents that allow their children to access M rated material.

As a parent, I don't want my child to be playing violent shooters and many online game activities. It's my responsibility to keep my kids away from these games and monitor their behavior. While I am quite conscientious about this, many parents aren't. It wouldn't suprise me to see a strong correlation between "lax parenting" and "children with violent tendencies." By adding some teeth to the ESRB we could go a long way to solving this debate. Many parents would stop buying those games for their kids if they knew that their were penalties associated with it.

Parents can be brought up on charges with CPS for allowing minors access to cigaretes, alcohol, drugs and pornography, why not violent media?


RE: wow
By LatinMessiah on 5/11/2007 1:32:02 PM , Rating: 2
Couldn't agree with you more, OxBow. The rating system is there for a reason, especially with games becoming more violent and adult-themed. Why not let someone enforce it more strictly if the parents are not going to?


RE: wow
By EndPCNoise on 4/23/2007 11:49:08 AM , Rating: 3
Don't fool yourself. Ratings or no ratings, people will always call for certain games to be banned.

Kids will always continue to get their hands on violent games because there are way too many irresponsible parents who will buy the games for themselves and/or their young children to play. That's why these types of laws will never work.


RE: wow
By Senju on 4/23/2007 6:11:11 AM , Rating: 2
This can only hurt content developers. Lots of great ideas but since it might force the game to change ratings, just toss that idea into the garbage. Rating affect sales as you know so the stricter the rating, the less sales so will cause restricting game development freedom = less fun in games! :<


RE: wow
By Polynikes on 4/23/2007 9:13:35 AM , Rating: 2
Nothing. There's a reason I didn't vote for them.

As far as the "OMG kiddies got violent video games!" problem, how about they work harder on enforcing current regulations instead of wasting time and money creating a new one? ID the kids when they try to buy M rated games. Wow, tough, huh?


RE: wow
By Spivonious on 4/23/2007 10:31:20 AM , Rating: 1
Gamestop/EB Games already does this. When I worked there we needed the parent/guardian to give the okay if a kid was trying to buy an M-rated game. It's truly amazing how many parents were completely okay with their 12 year-old buying GTA even after I explained that the game revolved around drugs and prostitutes.


RE: wow
By jtesoro on 4/23/2007 12:16:51 PM , Rating: 3
What happens if the sales clerk doesn't do this ID or parental approval check? Is the clerk or store liable for anything?


RE: wow
By Spivonious on 4/23/2007 1:25:16 PM , Rating: 3
No, since there is no law prohibiting it. The clerk will get reprimanded though.


RE: wow
By 1615 on 4/23/2007 11:58:18 AM , Rating: 2
I find this incredibly helpful. Until now, I had no idea which games *really* contained the bloody, gory, violent and sexual content that I was looking for. With a mandated 'parental advisory' label, I'll know exactly which games to buy now.

Good job, New York!


RE: wow
By LatinMessiah on 5/11/2007 1:35:38 PM , Rating: 2
It's a win-win situation. So why are people all bent out of shape about this?


RE: wow
By spartan014 on 4/24/2007 12:11:07 AM , Rating: 2
Ha ha.. Good one.

Maybe they can add a mini game to GTA 5 to get our hands on those senators with a chainsaw to boot.. Gears Of War style!!


politics again?
By Pwnt Soup on 4/23/2007 7:09:00 AM , Rating: 2
as if these senators give a damm? its just a political stunt too get votes and/or money from people and businneses. if you want too understand politics, follow the money. so where is the money in this deal? do they get too shake down gamemakers? do they get too use this too raise donations? or do they get too form another useless government agency or pannal too spend more of our tax dollars too protect us from ourselves?




RE: politics again?
By zombiexl on 4/23/2007 7:20:50 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
do they get too shake down gamemakers? do they get too use this too raise donations? or do they get too form another useless government agency or pannal too spend more of our tax dollars too protect us from ourselves?


Option D. All of the Above...


RE: politics again?
By Webgod on 4/23/2007 9:45:16 AM , Rating: 2
Well yeah. More fluff so when it comes reelection time they can say they "pushed for stronger legislation to help keep violent video games out of the hands of children". Something to win the mom vote. I mean the conservative way IS to say, think of the children, protect the children, but this is just dumb.


RE: politics again?
By jpscheel on 4/23/2007 11:37:33 AM , Rating: 2
It's not just the conservative way of thinking, it's every politician's way of thinking. If a congressman/woman decides they want an issue to pass, they work it to "protect the children" and they get applauded for it. It's sad the agendas of Washington require some sort of link to children for the average American to give a crap.


RE: politics again?
By EndPCNoise on 4/23/2007 11:59:52 AM , Rating: 2
Yeah, this is just another political smokescreen for some politician(s) seeking re-election. They want people to believe they're actually doing something, when actually...

They don't want to deal with the real issues like health care, Iraq/Afganistan, social security, medicare, trade deficit, economy, jobs, energy policy, foreign oil...shall I go on?

This is a just a political distraction from the real issues.


What do they really know?
By AutomationX on 4/23/2007 6:07:26 AM , Rating: 5
So the state of NY wants an advisory board to minitor the ESRB. Do they even know what the ESRB does? The ESRB itself reviews games and gives a rating based on specific points givin for review by the submitting company, and also by actualy playing through a certain number of games per month.

The problem is that the ESRB gives ratings. They are not a police force. They can't do anything about a video game that doesn't break their rating for that game. They are not the clerks that work at a store, actually selling the game. Oh yeah, that's right: The ESRB is also not the parents of the kids buying the games.

Someone should let their representatives in Congress know that it takes a parent to know what their kids play.

As for making it illegal to sell a game with no rating, that goes directly against free speech. Movies do it all the time these days, so why are games so much worse to sell with no rating?




RE: What do they really know?
By Scorpion on 4/23/2007 12:25:00 PM , Rating: 2
Games without a rating should be treated as games with very strict ratings. Unrated movies used to be treated as such. If you want to sell a game geared towards kids, get it rated and approved. If you don't care enough, then expect it to be treated as a "worst case" situation.

I have a peaking interest in this topic. My own state passed a law on video game sales to minors and punishments involved. I wrote several letters to the governor expressing my concern. I actually did not disagree with the entire thing, only in how it was regulated and how the punishment of the crime was handled.

I have been in a relationship with someone for the last 4 years who has a now 7 year old. A constant source of headaches stems from the situation with his original father who, simply, is a very uneducated moron. The kid has problems in school obviously related to the situation with his parents. The other day he came home and started describing a video game he played at his dad's. Pulling people out of cars, shooting them, shooting the cops, running people over, etc, etc. My jaw dropped. I instantly knew he was describing GTA. I grew up playing video games, violent ones, and I still do. In high school my friends and I loaded up the original GTA on school computers afterschool to enjoy the LAN capabilities of the game. Now I personally know the effects that video games can have on a person. I am mature enough to handle some video game violence and distinguish it from reality. A 7 year old does not. And when they come to you explaining this video game with a reverent tone to their voice, it is very troubling to me. Obviously his dad allowed him to play this game. It makes me sick. I know they live in a house that is barely larger than a 3 car garage, and I know he couldn't have snuck off to play this game for a long period of time unattended.

I am a very outspoken supporter of civil rights, but I absolutely think more could be done to limit kids access to these violent games. I fully feel it is first and foremost the parents responsibility. But how can I control what happens in someone elses house? He is not my own son, but I have a very personal interest in his well-being, and his dad is a constant source of teaching him all of the WRONG things.

You cannot control what a parent does with a mature game once they purchase it, but you can control whether or not minors can purchase it. And I believe that does not violate free speech rights at all. I have no problem tightening punishment for those who are caught selling such games to minors. I also feel that unrated games should be treated as having the worst rating possible. No one should control what decisions parents make inside their own home (even though I have ethical problems with the decisions some parents make), the problem can certainly be stopped at the counter.


RE: What do they really know?
By OxBow on 4/24/2007 11:03:45 AM , Rating: 2
Well said.

Although I'd go farther to say that many parents would think twice about letting their kids have access to those games if there were some consequences.

The companies don't want these laws since they'll depress sales. I'm having a hard time feeling sympathy for their balance sheets. I have a lot of sympathy for you, Scorpion, however, trying to help out a child in such a difficult situation.


unrated
By Lazarus Dark on 4/23/2007 10:00:48 AM , Rating: 3
I have never known any jobless kids with enough money to buy a 50 dollar game, not when I was a kid and not now. So except for some rich spoiled kids with credit cards, the people buying games are adults. But then, while you have to get someone with a key to unlock the game case at walmart to get a violent game out, any 10 year old can pick up an unrated extended edition dvd for 10 bucks and pay in the self checkout with no one even seeing. And I guarantee, most of those unrated dvd's have stuff waaay more adult than any game on the shelf.




RE: unrated
By Spivonious on 4/23/2007 10:36:28 AM , Rating: 2
You obviously haven't worked in a video game store lately. 95% of the customers were dressed like thugs spending the last bit of their welfare check to reserve the next "gangsta" game.


RE: unrated
By Spivonious on 4/23/2007 1:28:45 PM , Rating: 2
Why is my post rated down? It is a fact at the store I worked at. And in case it's interpreted as such, all three major races in the area (white, black, latino) dress like thugs.


What a waste of Taxpayers Dollars.
By BladeVenom on 4/23/2007 5:44:29 AM , Rating: 3
Everyone one of these laws have been overturned. Can they really be so stupid?

Or, are they just after the video game industry because they have lots of money and don't spend as much paying off politicians? "Youz protection money is due."




RE: What a waste of Taxpayers Dollars.
By codeThug on 4/23/07, Rating: 0
By sviola on 4/24/2007 8:53:41 AM , Rating: 2
It is Capisce, not capiche...


By DarthKaos on 4/23/2007 11:26:30 AM , Rating: 2
I think this is a good step towards making retailers more responsible for selling M rated games to adults only but I still get so mad that it is always video games.

I see more blood, violence, sex, drugs, and hear more crude language in movies and on TV than I do in video games. I hear more songs that offend me than I see video games that offend me.

I have watched more underage kids buy movies, go to movies in the theatre, watching TV shows, and buy CDs than I have ever seen buying an M rated game.

If we are going to crack down on video games, why not include all forms of artistic expression? I am all for keeping adult material out of the hands of children and teenagers but let’s not single out video games.

Standardize the ratings and include music, movies, TV, and video games together. This will help with parental education and it will also justify the cost too. All media will be regulated and parents only need to learn one ratings system to monitor everything their kids are watching, playing, or listening to.




By Psychless on 4/23/2007 5:08:37 PM , Rating: 3
I agree. The parental advisory rating is completely useless in my opinion. As soon as Don Imus offends someone he gets fired and it's big news. Yet, many rappers discriminate against women and talk about shooting, raping them, etc. in all their songs. Slap a label on the corner of their CD and that's it. That's what you call a double standard.


It's unconstitutional
By xxsk8er101xx on 4/23/2007 11:46:44 PM , Rating: 2
I don't know why the people in the US are worried for? In some state, i forget which, the senate (or congress) tried to pass gaming laws 9 times over 5 years. Or, some ridiculous thing. Some court (i think it was federal) has ruled every law they tried to pass as unconstitutional stating it violates the first amendment.

You cannot pass a law that restricts people from buying legal products.

found it

"A federal judge has overturned a Michigan law restricting the sale of violent video games, the most recent in a series of decisions that have gutted similar laws on free-speech grounds." - http://news.com.com/Judge+nixes+Michigan+law+aimed...

Even though the Constitution of the United States of America is constantly being stepped on and spit on there are still a few out there that believe in it. Understands why the laws are there and how it protects the US citizens from the government.




RE: It's unconstitutional
By xxsk8er101xx on 4/23/2007 11:54:02 PM , Rating: 2
"Video games are a form of creative expression that are constitutionally protected under the First Amendment," Steeh ruled. "They contain original artwork, graphics, music, story lines and characters similar to movies and television shows, both of which are considered protected free speech."


RE: It's unconstitutional
By OxBow on 4/24/2007 11:07:47 AM , Rating: 1
So is Hustler magazine, and you can't sell that to a minor.


You got to be joking?
By cheetah2k on 4/23/2007 5:34:34 AM , Rating: 2
What the hell do N.Y. Senators know about gaming?




RE: You got to be joking?
By zombiexl on 4/23/2007 6:25:02 AM , Rating: 2
I think you could simplify that to.. What the hell do NY Senators know?


I've got a better idea
By Webgod on 4/23/2007 9:52:24 AM , Rating: 2
How about Gamestop and EB Games, etc, just put up a poster inside their stores directing parents to WWW.ESRB.COM for more information about how games are rated. Or maybe include a flyer when a parent purchases a game for their kid. Just talk to some game store company rep's, get some firm commitments, and there, no legislation needed.




RE: I've got a better idea
By Spivonious on 4/23/2007 10:34:55 AM , Rating: 2
The poster is already there (at least in the store I worked at). 90% of parents assume that since it's a video game it's safe for kids. Then they get upset at Gamestop when the M-rated game has some nudity. Why do you think your 13 year-old wanted the game?


The funniest part...
By slacker57 on 4/23/2007 11:14:14 AM , Rating: 4
...of this article is this:

quote:
The third proposal by the senators is a Parent Teacher Anti-Violence Awareness Program, "which will empower parents and teachers to work with students and children on issues related to violence in video games."


This is the whole of the problem in a nutshell. Parents need to "be empowered" to talk to their kids about video game violence? Do they also need to be empowered to feed their children and send them to school and give them shelter? Do the senators get a sword and knight the parents "Sir Protector of Thy Children"? Oh, that might be too much of an image of violence right there. They might think it's a "training program" for the Crusades.

It's called being a parent. There's no empowerment by the government or any other agency. That's what you signed up for when you had kids, don't wait for the government to give you a certificate telling you you're allowed to have parental guidance over your kids.

"By the powers vested in me, by the state of New York, I now shall teach my kids not to emulate video game violence."




Who needs arms regulation?
By MrWho on 4/23/2007 6:25:59 PM , Rating: 2
It's amusing to see american politics once more trying to regulate videogames, against any real effort for an effective gun control.

Of course we all know that videogames are far more dangerous...




RE: Who needs arms regulation?
By LatinMessiah on 5/11/2007 1:45:24 PM , Rating: 2
I wouldn't say videogames are "far more dangerous", but may potentially be equally dangerous.

Thanks to Counter-Strike, I now know more about real guns than I did before I ever played it. That's a pretty good sign of the kind of influence a video game can have on "gullible" player, especially tactical first-person shooters that are based on actual guns found at your local gun store.


Vista
By rsmech on 4/24/2007 12:04:05 AM , Rating: 2
I have only looked at it briefly, but doesn't Vista have something to control game content were a parent can control what ratings for games are allowable to play. If it does then the politicians are stupider than those electing them because obviously if it was a big concern for the parents they would be using Vista for this reason. But I forget big brother wrote the book on raising kids. This really makes short term limits appealing, this is just a ploy for votes later.




RE: Vista
By OxBow on 4/24/2007 11:12:08 AM , Rating: 2
My TIVO has a ratings filter with password protection. My PS2 and PS3 have similar rating filters for movies and video games. The ESRB can work, but it needs some teeth to encourage parents to take the five minutes to enforce it. Otherwise, law parents will ignore it.


Typo
By fbrdphreak on 4/23/2007 11:49:21 AM , Rating: 2
Very last words in the post: "deemedunconstitutional." Needs a space in there :)




By giantpandaman2 on 4/23/2007 12:48:09 PM , Rating: 2
Cuz I never see them. Unless, maybe, it's the $5 games that let you play poker. But what's objectionable about them anyway?

It's a hassle for lower tier game makers, and a pain in the ass for retailers. The net effect? Probably just a waste of taxpayer money.

The industry has bent over backwards to police themselves. The government has no reason to step in.




release several versions
By consumer on 4/27/2007 2:54:51 PM , Rating: 2
I'm not clear on what they want to achieve. Do the people concerned want to soften games like doom3 by removing violence or do they want a better rating system? If the manufacturers released several rating of each game they would probably sell better. If I see a game that looks interesting but it has an "E" rating I just put it back. Games that have an "M" or more likely going to get purchased by myself because it wont have any "nuetral" aspects that allow undeveloped minds to play it. It wouldn't bother me one bit to see a title like Battlefield 2 available in all three rating catagories. I would know that my M version would be more suited to me than a T version. Games like that could get some much needed "gore" effects (but I should be able to turn them off).




It's a pity...
By cornfedone on 4/23/07, Rating: -1
RE: It's a pity...
By Larrymon2000 on 4/23/2007 9:03:33 AM , Rating: 3
Maybe you should think about what you were doing when you were young, assuming you had some sort of a childhood.


RE: It's a pity...
By zombiexl on 4/23/2007 9:09:06 AM , Rating: 4
quote:
The only way you legislate moral values

I'm pretty sure you dont legislate moral values. You may have laws based on moral values, but most are common sense anyway.. You know like Thou shalt not kill translates to dont kill people, i think most people know its wrong to kill someone.

That said, other than the rude way you present it I agree that kids are pretty jacked up these days.

But guess what.. its the parents responsibility to control them, not the video game makers. They market their products to adults as well. Actually the last time i checked the largest target demographic for most games was over 18.


RE: It's a pity...
By LatinMessiah on 5/11/2007 1:47:52 PM , Rating: 2
You're a pity. Comments like that don't help the situation.


"DailyTech is the best kept secret on the Internet." -- Larry Barber

DailyTech Poll
Which web browser do you use on your primary personal machine? 






44 Comments









botimage
Copyright 2009 DailyTech LLC. - RSS Feed | Advertise | About Us | Ethics | FAQ | Terms, Conditions & Privacy Information | Kristopher Kubicki