• We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.

Illinois Gov to Make Selling Violent Vid Games to Kids a Misdemeanor

Amused

Elite Member
A battle over sale of violent video games

Illinois governor's push to prevent sales to minors pits civil liberties against desire to protect children.

By Amanda Paulson | Staff writer of The Christian Science Monitor

CHICAGO ? When Francisco Rosa and his friends play video games, their favorites are the most violent: "Grand Theft Auto" - in which they steal cars, shoot police officers, and beat up prostitutes - and "Killzone."

All of the games are rated "M," for mature, but Francisco, who is 16, defends them, noting that they have the best graphics and technology.

If Illinois Gov. Rod Blagojevich (D) has his way, however, it could soon get tougher for boys like Francisco to buy such games.

During a week in which millions of kids woke up to video games under the tree, debate here has been raging over many games' content, and who should control access to them. The governor's proposal, which would make selling violent or sexual games to anyone under 18 a misdemeanor punishable by up to a year in prison or a $5,000 fine, is just the latest maneuver in an ongoing battle among kids, parents, the game industry, civil libertarians, and politicians eager for parents' support.

It's a law, say experts, that would likely run afoul of the First Amendment. But it raises pressing issues: Are some games unsuitable for kids? And whose responsibility is it to monitor access?

"Parents get a double message from the industry," says Blois Olson of the National Institute on Media and the Family. "It gives ratings, but sometimes in the same sentence it says these games have no effect on children." He stops short, though, of supporting laws that regulate sales, calling instead for independent ratings, better enforcement, and education for parents.

The current game-rating system is similar to the one for movies. And, like the movie guidelines, it's self-regulated. A store can card teenagers, and many refuse to sell M-rated games to anyone under 17, but no law requires them to abide by the rule - and critics cite lax enforcement

"Games are more realistic than they ever have been. Something like "Pac-Man" can't even be compared to games that are 3-D, where the person controlling the joystick is behind the goggles of a fighter," says Abby Ottenhoff, a spokesperson for Governor Blagojevich. "As a society, there are certain things we have decided universally aren't appropriate for kids - alcohol, cigarettes, pornography. The governor believes these games are similar to those things and that the negative impact they can have on kids is real."

The problem with that analogy, say critics, is that items like cigarettes and alcohol don't fall under free-speech protection. Similar attempts to regulate video-game sales - including laws in Indianapolis, St. Louis County, and Washington State, have been struck down by courts as recently as July.

One problem is in defining the forbidden material, says Clay Calvert, codirector of the Pennsylvania Center for the First Amendment at Pennsylvania State University. Blagojevich's law would define violent games as, in part, "those realistically depicting human-on-human violence...."

"But what does the term 'realistic' mean, and how realistic does it have to be?" asks Professor Calvert. "When a term is vague, it can have a chilling effect on freedom of speech," and courts won't allow it to stand.

The governor hopes to defend the proposal with studies, such as ones from Iowa State University and Stanford, that link video-game use to aggression. But such research generally shows correlation, not causation, and the law limits its interest to causation.

Still, moves like this one are a perennially popular political maneuver that draws momentum from real-life incidents - the news that the Columbine perpetrators liked to play "Doom," for instance, or that two Tennessee teenagers who fired randomly at motorists, killing one person and wounding two more, admitted they were imitating Grand Theft Auto. Calvert says that in 2004 alone, he counted more than 20 state and local bills that tried to regulate game sales.

Even if such laws never pass muster with a court, many say video-game content needs attention, particularly from parents. One game that caught Blagojevich's attention was "JFK Reloaded," which has players take on the role of Lee Harvey Oswald, and was released on the anniversary of Kennedy's assassination. That game is Scottish and not for sale by US retailers, but parent watchdog groups say that popular games like "Grand Theft Auto: San Andreas" and "Halo 2" aren't much better.

In "Manhunt," the player stalks and kills victims in increasingly gruesome ways; in "Leisure Suit Larry: Magna Cum Laude," players try to have sex with college women and the box urges them to "help Larry earn a BA in T & A."

"A game is different from watching a movie or reading a book - it's so interactive and lifelike," says David Mikec, a middle-aged recruiter browsing the PlayStation 2 aisle of a Chicago Best Buy. Though he enjoys some of the M-rated games, he says he's surprised himself with how conservative he's become regarding minors. "I played 'Manhunt' recently. I couldn't believe how violent it is. I wouldn't let anyone under 16 play it, but I think the majority of people who play it are kids."

In store aisles, titles like "Killzone" and "True Crime" are tucked in among "Finding Nemo" and "Harry Potter." But signs warn customers that the store checks IDs. And the Interactive Entertainment Merchants Association, (IEMA) which represents about 85 percent of US game retailers, says enforcement has improved significantly since it decided to overhaul its policies last year.

A recent study by the National Institute on Media and the Family showed that 34 percent of children between 7 and 14 were able to buy M-rated games (about half of boys succeeded, and just 8 percent of girls) - an improvement from the year before. The research also shows that 87 percent of boys who play video games have tried M-rated ones.

"The governor's heart is in the right place, but he was misinformed," says Hal Halpin, president of the IEMA, noting that members have worked on posting signs, training staff, and demanding IDs. "Now that we've instituted these policies, we believe parents should be the ones deciding what they're kids play."

In Francisco's case, that means that even if sales were regulated, he'd still be able to play them. "I don't see anything wrong with them," says his father, as he heads to the cash register to buy the M-rated "Metal Gear Solid 3."

And his soft-spoken son doubts a law would hinder teens from getting the games. "I understand why their saying [we shouldn't play them]," he says. "But ... we hear these things in the streets. Playing the games takes our mind off other things."

 
Originally posted by: aphex
Do we even need parents anymore?

Nope. We have the nannystate "liberals" (nothing liberal about them) to take care of our children for us.
 
Yep, I heard this was coming.

I really hope this goes nowhere since my industry would likely be next in line for this kind of law.
 
What is the punishment for selling minors pornography? I think it should be about the same.
 
OH NOES!!!!111!1!1!!111

We'd better outlaw selling boooks to kids about warfare or other violent subjects.


I guess we could start with comic books. Such gore and sex and violence. Oh my!
 
Originally posted by: maziwanka
i want to punch the IL gov in the face

So does any other thinking person.

This guy is one of the most "liberal" govs in the country. That's what got him elected.

The sad thing is, the "liberals" of today are nothing of the sort. They seek to micromanage everyone's lives for their own good.

It's almost worse than the RR trying to save peoples souls.
 
Nothing wrong with this. If the parents want their kids playing these video games, then they'll buy the games for them. If not, then the kids don't get to play.
 
Does anyone know if any of the lawsuits against video game companies for causing suicides/violence/etc. has ever been won?
 
Originally posted by: dabuddha
Nothing wrong with this. If the parents want their kids playing these video games, then they'll buy the games for them. If not, then the kids don't get to play.

Actually this is very disturbing. Once the goverment begins enforcing silly rules like this they'll continue on to other things.
 
Originally posted by: Arkitech
Originally posted by: dabuddha
Nothing wrong with this. If the parents want their kids playing these video games, then they'll buy the games for them. If not, then the kids don't get to play.

Actually this is very disturbing. Once the goverment begins enforcing silly rules like this they'll continue on to other things.

So you'd be ok with your 10 year old son or daughter being able to buy games like GTA3?
 
Originally posted by: dabuddha
Originally posted by: Arkitech
Originally posted by: dabuddha
Nothing wrong with this. If the parents want their kids playing these video games, then they'll buy the games for them. If not, then the kids don't get to play.

Actually this is very disturbing. Once the goverment begins enforcing silly rules like this they'll continue on to other things.

So you'd be ok with your 10 year old son or daughter being able to buy games like GTA3?

If you were a decent parent and actually paid attention to what your son or daughter was doing/playing on the computer or a video game system, it'd be a non-issue if they could buy the game or not.
 
Actually, this law enables good parenting. Its like the law for explicit music. Ok, if I'm 14 years old, I can probably buy gta3 and some explicit cd's, and own them with my parents never knowing. Its really not all that tough, hence the law. But with these laws, my parents have to buy it for me. I really dont get whats so bad about this.
 
Originally posted by: TallBill
Actually, this law enables good parenting. Its like the law for explicit music. Ok, if I'm 14 years old, I can probably buy gta3 and some explicit cd's, and own them with my parents never knowing. Its really not all that tough, hence the law. But with these laws, my parents have to buy it for me. I really dont get whats so bad about this.

These laws are not required for good parenting. I don't want the state determining what is appropriate for my child.
 
Ok, so your fine if you had a 12 year old child that just went and bought uber violent video games, and hid them in his room when not playing. ?? And dont say that its not possible for him to buy the game, cuz thats the point of the law.

What if an 8 year old somehow bought gta3 and hid it? Maybe a 5 year old picked it up.
 
Originally posted by: TallBill
Actually, this law enables good parenting. Its like the law for explicit music. Ok, if I'm 14 years old, I can probably buy gta3 and some explicit cd's, and own them with my parents never knowing. Its really not all that tough, hence the law. But with these laws, my parents have to buy it for me. I really dont get whats so bad about this.

It doesn't enable good parenting. It simply takes away responsibility from the parents. If a kid wants to purchase GTA3 and bad cds, they're going to do it regardless of what laws in place. How many of you guys were able to buy beer and liquor underage? It's the job of the parent to take these things away when the kid plays/listens to the media if they see fit. Or do parents never check up on their kids these days?
 
Originally posted by: K1052
Originally posted by: TallBill
Actually, this law enables good parenting. Its like the law for explicit music. Ok, if I'm 14 years old, I can probably buy gta3 and some explicit cd's, and own them with my parents never knowing. Its really not all that tough, hence the law. But with these laws, my parents have to buy it for me. I really dont get whats so bad about this.

These laws are not required for good parenting. I don't want the state determining what is appropriate for my child.

:beer:

Nor do i want the government telling me that i HAVE to wear a seatbelt or a helment. I do both for my own safety and common sense but it IS NOT the governments responsibility to tell an ADULT to do so.
 
Originally posted by: TallBill
Ok, so your fine if you had a 12 year old child that just went and bought uber violent video games, and hid them in his room when not playing. ?? And dont say that its not possible for him to buy the game, cuz thats the point of the law.

What if an 8 year old somehow bought gta3 and hid it? Maybe a 5 year old picked it up.

The kid has to play the game sometime. When they do, parenting works in two ways. The parent takes responsibility and takes the game away, and also teaches the kid a lesson in that they just blew $40-50 on something that they're not going to be able to use.
 
Oh, come on. I grew up with just my mother. You think she ever had a clue what playstation games I had? Heck, she didn't even know for like 6 months that I had a ps2. So shes a bad parent because she had to work like 80 hours a week and couldn't keep track of what video games I had?
 
Originally posted by: K1052
Originally posted by: TallBill
Actually, this law enables good parenting. Its like the law for explicit music. Ok, if I'm 14 years old, I can probably buy gta3 and some explicit cd's, and own them with my parents never knowing. Its really not all that tough, hence the law. But with these laws, my parents have to buy it for me. I really dont get whats so bad about this.

These laws are not required for good parenting. I don't want the state determining what is appropriate for my child.

I agree with the sentiment of the proposal. But I don't think it's the government's place to do it directly. I think they should exert pressure on the video game industry and retailers to enforce this rule. Right now I'd be surprised if more than 20% of parents even read the ESRB of their kids games. Something definitely needs to be done to put video games in line with everything else.

But a law is the wrong way to do it.
 
Back
Top