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

[TallBill]

Originally posted by: BigJ

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.

Ok, so what happens when the single parent works round the clock? Heck, she grounded me from the playstation time and time again.. but when she didn't come home from work till like 1, it was easy to rummage the entire apartment, find the psx, play for 6 hours, and rehide it before she came home.

 

[AtlantaBob]

Nanny-coddling is bad. But this seems to be something akin to a rating system for movies. Once you're old enough, you do get to make your own decisions. But while you're still under a certain age, you don't get to. The penalties might be a little harsh, though. Perhaps they should be modeled on what happens to an empoyee of a movie theater who lets in an under-aged kid into an R-rated movie? (Nod to ElFenix, the state doesn't have anything to do with this, it's all industry self-imposed).

In some sense, though it seems a little weird to think these things would have no effect on kids. Once you concede that art/literature/cultural production can be uplifting and edifying, it seems self-evident that such products could also be harmful in some way.

(Edited 'cause ElFenix speaks truth).

 

[BigJ]

Originally posted by: TallBill

Originally posted by: BigJ

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.

Ok, so what happens when the single parent works round the clock? Heck, she grounded me from the playstation time and time again.. but when she didn't come home from work till like 1, it was easy to rummage the entire apartment, find the psx, play for 6 hours, and rehide it before she came home.

If she really wanted to ground you, it wouldn't take that much effort to actually take the PSX away from you. How about taking it to work and leaving it in the car, or leaving it in a neighbors apartment when she wasn't there?

I'm not faulting your mother for having to take on an extraordinary task in working full time+ as a single parent while raising children, but if a parent is really concerned, then they'll put forth the effort.

 

[eakers]

i see this as the equivalent of kids not being allowed to see rated r movies and theres nothing wrong with it.

 

[K1052]

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.

I'd make it abundantly clear that they are video games and nothing more before I ever gave them a system. Same with movies, books, etc..

I am not going to attempt sheltering my child from the entire world until they are 18.

 

[K1052]

Originally posted by: eakers
i see this as the equivalent of kids not being allowed to see rated r movies and theres nothing wrong with it.

There is no law that bars children form viewing an R rated movie. The MPAA ratings are self inforced by the film industry to prevent government censure/intervention.

 

[AtlantaBob]

Is it really that much of a stretch to say that violent video games are in the same category as tobacco/alcohol/porn? I mean, if you want your kid to have access to these things, then you can always buy it for them.

But, in general, such a law tries to prevent these things from being too readily-accessible to kids. Perhaps a law isn't the best way to do it--and some industry self-policing would certainly be preferable, I think. But, you're going to have a hard time convincing me that anything put together by the industry won't be a little self-serving. After all, who wants to hurt their own sales?

 

[TallBill]

Originally posted by: K1052

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.

I'd make it abundantly clear that they are video games and nothing more before I ever gave them a system. Same with movies, books, etc..

I am not going to attempt sheltering my child from the entire world until they are 18.

Oh, I'd be buying gta3 for my 8 year old. I'm all for kids being able to handle stuff at an early age. I'm just trying for an angle.

 

[BigJ]

Originally posted by: AtlantaBob
Is it really that much of a stretch to say that violent video games are in the same category as tobacco/alcohol/porn? I mean, if you want your kid to have access to these things, then you can always buy it for them.

Yes, it is. If you want to put video games into the same categories as stuff that contributes to millions of deaths every year in tobacco and alcohol, not to mention the destruction of lives and familes, and what is obviously an explicit subject in pornography, then yes it is a huge stretch.

The stuff you see in video games is no worse then what you see on the evening news or basic cable TV (not talking about HBO and those premium channels).

 

[dabuddha]

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.

But the state is NOT determining what is appropriate for your child. They are saying the child can NOT determine what is good for him. You can still buy the game for your child.

 

[Jzero]

Originally posted by: TallBill
Actually, this law enables good parenting.

"Good parenting" does not need to be legally enabled. Reminds me of those commercials I see that say "Be a parent!"

If you need a law or a TV commercial to teach you how to be a good parent, you probably shouldn't be a parent. I certainly won't need a law to enable me to monitor what games my children are playing!

The movie industry uses a self-policed rating system. Many stores already do not allow minors to buy "M" rated games. The movement is there; it's just going to take some time just like it did with movies. From there, it's up to parents to learn about and understand the ratings and take interest in what their kids are up to.

 

[MrChad]

Originally posted by: K1052

Originally posted by: eakers
i see this as the equivalent of kids not being allowed to see rated r movies and theres nothing wrong with it.

There is no law that bars children form viewing an R rated movie. The MPAA ratings are self inforced by the film industry to prevent government censure/intervention.

Yes, and it would be nice if the video game industry took similar precautions regarding M-rated video games. I know that many retailers have specific policies regarding the sale of M-rated video games to minors, but are those policies enforced as universally as the film/theater industry's R-rated movie policy? From what I've heard it's usually a mixed bag.

 

[torpid]

Originally posted by: AtlantaBob
Is it really that much of a stretch to say that violent video games are in the same category as tobacco/alcohol/porn? I mean, if you want your kid to have access to these things, then you can always buy it for them.

But, in general, such a law tries to prevent these things from being too readily-accessible to kids. Perhaps a law isn't the best way to do it--and some industry self-policing would certainly be preferable, I think. But, you're going to have a hard time convincing me that anything put together by the industry won't be a little self-serving. After all, who wants to hurt their own sales?

Good point about self-serving. Take a look at what qualifies as PG-13 these days and compare it to earlier movies that had an R rating. It's pretty ridiculous. PG-13 is basically the new R. Unless you use certain curse words, then you get an R. But not if it's grotesque and violent, unless it's grotesquely violent. Even then it may be ok as long as it is fantasy or science fiction violence and not real violence.

Even if it does get an R rating, R is really the new PG-13 in parents' minds these days. How many 12-18 year olds wouldn't be allowed to see the matrix films? Put 2 and 2 together there.. PG-13 is as bad as an R rating from before, and parents now take their kids to R movies... hmmm.

Still, the totally FUBAR PG-13 / R rating is still better than the ESRB system now, where no one reads them and the only way I personally ever know what rating was given is from watching the TV commercials for the game.

 

[BigJ]

Originally posted by: MrChad

Originally posted by: K1052

Originally posted by: eakers
i see this as the equivalent of kids not being allowed to see rated r movies and theres nothing wrong with it.

There is no law that bars children form viewing an R rated movie. The MPAA ratings are self inforced by the film industry to prevent government censure/intervention.

Yes, and it would be nice if the video game industry took similar precautions regarding M-rated video games. I know that many retailers have specific policies regarding the sale of M-rated video games to minors, but are those policies enforced as universally as the film/theater industry's R-rated movie policy? From what I've heard it's usually a mixed bag.

It's also a different situation when you can't physically be there with your 11-13year old on a Friday Night at a movie theatre for 3 hours as opposed to your 11-13year old bringing something into your house and using it in front of you for an extensive period of time. Why can't you be a parent and simply take the media away?

 

[AtlantaBob]

Originally posted by: BigJ

Originally posted by: AtlantaBob
Is it really that much of a stretch to say that violent video games are in the same category as tobacco/alcohol/porn? I mean, if you want your kid to have access to these things, then you can always buy it for them.

Yes, it is. If you want to put video games into the same categories as stuff that contributes to millions of deaths every year in tobacco and alcohol, not to mention the destruction of lives and familes, and what is obviously an explicit subject in pornography, then yes it is a huge stretch.

The stuff you see in video games is no worse then what you see on the evening news or basic cable TV (not talking about HBO and those premium channels).

BigJ -- curious as to your definition of "explicit." By that do you mean something like "overtly sexual, and liable to inflame a puriant interest in sex?" Just want to make sure we're on the same page.

I'll concede that the alcohol/tobacco comparison was probably a bad one 🙂 thanks for pointing that out. Instead, how about R-rated movies?

As for the evening news comparison--I tend to disagree--there, things may be presented that would be seen in video games (the mother with the baby cut out of her is one recent example) but the way it's presented is different. More of "this is something that happened in the world, and these people are sickos." At least in most video games, that same message isn't presented. As for movies, yeah, I tend to agree with you. Then again, I would tend to say that Hollywood is the downfall of Western Civilization, and I probably wouldn't let my kids watch too many movies. (Yeah, I know, I'm a freak 🙂)

Anyway, I tend to agree that government intervention is a bad thing, but just setting age limits on things isn't inherently evil, I think. If the parent truly has no problem with buying the software for the kid, then it shouldn't be too much of an inconvenience. It's kinda like showing your ID when you're ordering a glass of wine (if you're still young enough to be carded). An inconcenience, perhaps, but a minor one.

Granted, people should raise their kids right, and be involved with them, and all of that... but sometimes an extra measure of prevention -- as long as the cost is not too high -- isn't a bad thing.

Anyway, I think that the main concern of making these things legal issues is the possibility that they might be selectively enforced, or use to close down stores that local/state authrities didn't like for some other reason.

 

[purbeast0]

Originally posted by: BigJ

Originally posted by: AtlantaBob
Is it really that much of a stretch to say that violent video games are in the same category as tobacco/alcohol/porn? I mean, if you want your kid to have access to these things, then you can always buy it for them.

Yes, it is. If you want to put video games into the same categories as stuff that contributes to millions of deaths every year in tobacco and alcohol, not to mention the destruction of lives and familes, and what is obviously an explicit subject in pornography, then yes it is a huge stretch.

The stuff you see in video games is no worse then what you see on the evening news or basic cable TV (not talking about HBO and those premium channels).

while i don't agree with the law at all, i do not agree with your last statment there either. there are MUCH worse things in these games than what you see on evening news and basic cable. go play mortal kombat deception where it shows one person ripping the leg off of the other person, then continue to knock his head off with his limb as if it were a baseball bat and ball.

aside from that, if the parent cannot tell their child what is real and what is a game, and the children cannot make out the difference, then the kid should not be playing these games in the first place. my GF's little brother is like 9 years old and he plays GTA:SA all day, as well as MK. he has no urge to go outside and perform a fatality on someone, nor go carjack someone.

 

[BigJ]

Originally posted by: AtlantaBob

Originally posted by: BigJ

Originally posted by: AtlantaBob
Is it really that much of a stretch to say that violent video games are in the same category as tobacco/alcohol/porn? I mean, if you want your kid to have access to these things, then you can always buy it for them.

Yes, it is. If you want to put video games into the same categories as stuff that contributes to millions of deaths every year in tobacco and alcohol, not to mention the destruction of lives and familes, and what is obviously an explicit subject in pornography, then yes it is a huge stretch.

The stuff you see in video games is no worse then what you see on the evening news or basic cable TV (not talking about HBO and those premium channels).

BigJ -- curious as to your definition of "explicit." By that do you mean something like "overtly sexual, and liable to inflame a puriant interest in sex?" Just want to make sure we're on the same page.

Porn these days isn't simply just your normal definition of sex. I actually have no problem with nudity on TV, art, etc. If it's represented in a tasteful manner, kids should be exposed to the beauty of the human body, and not be sheltered by what I consider is the strict Puritanical view that America in general has towards sexuality.

But, I'd without a doubt rather have an 11-13year old play Manhunt, Halo2, or any other of these games out there then have him watch a dVdA, A2M ganbang porn.

 

[BigJ]

Originally posted by: purbeast0

Originally posted by: BigJ

Originally posted by: AtlantaBob
Is it really that much of a stretch to say that violent video games are in the same category as tobacco/alcohol/porn? I mean, if you want your kid to have access to these things, then you can always buy it for them.

Yes, it is. If you want to put video games into the same categories as stuff that contributes to millions of deaths every year in tobacco and alcohol, not to mention the destruction of lives and familes, and what is obviously an explicit subject in pornography, then yes it is a huge stretch.

The stuff you see in video games is no worse then what you see on the evening news or basic cable TV (not talking about HBO and those premium channels).

while i don't agree with the law at all, i do not agree with your last statment there either. there are MUCH worse things in these games than what you see on evening news and basic cable. go play mortal kombat deception where it shows one person ripping the leg off of the other person, then continue to knock his head off with his limb as if it were a baseball bat and ball.

aside from that, if the parent cannot tell their child what is real and what is a game, and the children cannot make out the difference, then the kid should not be playing these games in the first place. my GF's little brother is like 9 years old and he plays GTA:SA all day, as well as MK. he has no urge to go outside and perform a fatality on someone, nor go carjack someone.

Apparently you've never seen some of the movies on USA (such as The Cell) in which a character is partially cut open, has their intestines partially taken out, where it is then slowly wrapped around a pole as the person lies there bleeding and screaming.

 

[ElFenix]

Originally posted by: AtlantaBob
Nanny-coddling is bad. But this seems to be something akin to a rating system for movies. Once you're old enough, you do get to make your own decisions. But while you're still under a certain age, you don't get to. The penalties might be a little harsh, though. Perhaps they should be modeled on what happens to a movie theater who lets in an under-aged kid into an R-rated movie?

they state doesn't do anything when an underaged kid is let into a rated R movie. the rating system is an industry-promulgated and enforced scheme.

 

[purbeast0]

Originally posted by: BigJ

Originally posted by: purbeast0

Originally posted by: BigJ

Originally posted by: AtlantaBob
Is it really that much of a stretch to say that violent video games are in the same category as tobacco/alcohol/porn? I mean, if you want your kid to have access to these things, then you can always buy it for them.

Yes, it is. If you want to put video games into the same categories as stuff that contributes to millions of deaths every year in tobacco and alcohol, not to mention the destruction of lives and familes, and what is obviously an explicit subject in pornography, then yes it is a huge stretch.

The stuff you see in video games is no worse then what you see on the evening news or basic cable TV (not talking about HBO and those premium channels).

while i don't agree with the law at all, i do not agree with your last statment there either. there are MUCH worse things in these games than what you see on evening news and basic cable. go play mortal kombat deception where it shows one person ripping the leg off of the other person, then continue to knock his head off with his limb as if it were a baseball bat and ball.

aside from that, if the parent cannot tell their child what is real and what is a game, and the children cannot make out the difference, then the kid should not be playing these games in the first place. my GF's little brother is like 9 years old and he plays GTA:SA all day, as well as MK. he has no urge to go outside and perform a fatality on someone, nor go carjack someone.

Apparently you've never seen some of the movies on USA (such as The Cell) in which a character is partially cut open, has their intestines partially taken out, where it is then slowly wrapped around a pole as the person lies there bleeding and screaming.

they will not show that scene from the cell on basic tv nor basic cable. and yes, im very familar with movies on USA, and i am positive they don't show that scene without doing major editing.

 

[AtlantaBob]

Originally posted by: purbeast0

Originally posted by: BigJ

Originally posted by: AtlantaBob
Is it really that much of a stretch to say that violent video games are in the same category as tobacco/alcohol/porn? I mean, if you want your kid to have access to these things, then you can always buy it for them.

Yes, it is. If you want to put video games into the same categories as stuff that contributes to millions of deaths every year in tobacco and alcohol, not to mention the destruction of lives and familes, and what is obviously an explicit subject in pornography, then yes it is a huge stretch.

The stuff you see in video games is no worse then what you see on the evening news or basic cable TV (not talking about HBO and those premium channels).

while i don't agree with the law at all, i do not agree with your last statment there either. there are MUCH worse things in these games than what you see on evening news and basic cable. go play mortal kombat deception where it shows one person ripping the leg off of the other person, then continue to knock his head off with his limb as if it were a baseball bat and ball.

aside from that, if the parent cannot tell their child what is real and what is a game, and the children cannot make out the difference, then the kid should not be playing these games in the first place. my GF's little brother is like 9 years old and he plays GTA:SA all day, as well as MK. he has no urge to go outside and perform a fatality on someone, nor go carjack someone.

Yeah, for the most part, people can be exposed to things and come out allright. Probably the result of decent parenting and all of that.

The more I think about it, the more I'm tempted to agree with the proposition that this won't help the kids who are most "at risk," and it won't really matter to the suburban (I'm assuming here) kid with normal parents who do their job. Maybe the real danger in this is showing that the (sometimes) excessive violence and sex displayed in these games is culturally acceptable -- even if it is just in a "game." If we keep winding down this road, it seems like we're going to get into issues of catharsis, and outlets for emotion, and whether or not the gladiatorial games were actually good for the Romans. And that may just be a philisophical point on which people have completely different basic positions.

But still -- $5,000 and a YEAR IN JAIL?! (Who exactly gets to go to jail in this law? an exec of the company, or the cashier that sold the game to the kid?) Granted, no one would probably do the time, but that amount of time for that action is just freaking scary. Anyone happen to know what the corresponding punishments are for alcohol/tobacco/porn in IL? Or in any state for that matter. Somehow, I have a hard time seeing jail time for someone who sells a kid a Playboy.

So, while I still would argue that the idea of making certain items age-restricted is a bad thing, this does seem to be typical government overreaction. (Along with not selling spraypaint and lighters to kids.)

 

[BigJ]

Originally posted by: purbeast0

Originally posted by: BigJ

Originally posted by: purbeast0

Originally posted by: BigJ

Originally posted by: AtlantaBob
Is it really that much of a stretch to say that violent video games are in the same category as tobacco/alcohol/porn? I mean, if you want your kid to have access to these things, then you can always buy it for them.

Yes, it is. If you want to put video games into the same categories as stuff that contributes to millions of deaths every year in tobacco and alcohol, not to mention the destruction of lives and familes, and what is obviously an explicit subject in pornography, then yes it is a huge stretch.

The stuff you see in video games is no worse then what you see on the evening news or basic cable TV (not talking about HBO and those premium channels).

while i don't agree with the law at all, i do not agree with your last statment there either. there are MUCH worse things in these games than what you see on evening news and basic cable. go play mortal kombat deception where it shows one person ripping the leg off of the other person, then continue to knock his head off with his limb as if it were a baseball bat and ball.

aside from that, if the parent cannot tell their child what is real and what is a game, and the children cannot make out the difference, then the kid should not be playing these games in the first place. my GF's little brother is like 9 years old and he plays GTA:SA all day, as well as MK. he has no urge to go outside and perform a fatality on someone, nor go carjack someone.

Apparently you've never seen some of the movies on USA (such as The Cell) in which a character is partially cut open, has their intestines partially taken out, where it is then slowly wrapped around a pole as the person lies there bleeding and screaming.

they will not show that scene from the cell on basic tv nor basic cable. and yes, im very familar with movies on USA, and i am positive they don't show that scene without doing major editing.

They did show that scene and you saw the rope of intestines coming out of the guy. I've only seen this movie on USA, so that's how I know this scene was there.

 

[purbeast0]

Originally posted by: BigJ

Originally posted by: purbeast0

Originally posted by: BigJ

Originally posted by: purbeast0

Originally posted by: BigJ

Originally posted by: AtlantaBob
Is it really that much of a stretch to say that violent video games are in the same category as tobacco/alcohol/porn? I mean, if you want your kid to have access to these things, then you can always buy it for them.

Yes, it is. If you want to put video games into the same categories as stuff that contributes to millions of deaths every year in tobacco and alcohol, not to mention the destruction of lives and familes, and what is obviously an explicit subject in pornography, then yes it is a huge stretch.

The stuff you see in video games is no worse then what you see on the evening news or basic cable TV (not talking about HBO and those premium channels).

while i don't agree with the law at all, i do not agree with your last statment there either. there are MUCH worse things in these games than what you see on evening news and basic cable. go play mortal kombat deception where it shows one person ripping the leg off of the other person, then continue to knock his head off with his limb as if it were a baseball bat and ball.

aside from that, if the parent cannot tell their child what is real and what is a game, and the children cannot make out the difference, then the kid should not be playing these games in the first place. my GF's little brother is like 9 years old and he plays GTA:SA all day, as well as MK. he has no urge to go outside and perform a fatality on someone, nor go carjack someone.

Apparently you've never seen some of the movies on USA (such as The Cell) in which a character is partially cut open, has their intestines partially taken out, where it is then slowly wrapped around a pole as the person lies there bleeding and screaming.

they will not show that scene from the cell on basic tv nor basic cable. and yes, im very familar with movies on USA, and i am positive they don't show that scene without doing major editing.

They did show that scene and you saw the rope of intestines coming out of the guy. I've only seen this movie on USA, so that's how I know this scene was there.

well then you got me. i have seen plenty of movies on FX or USA or TBS and they are always cut to hell that the movie is almost unwatchable. i still find it hard to believe they showed that scene on USA.

 

[BigToque]

Originally posted by: Citrix

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.

Well in response to your seatbelt comment... I don't think they really care if you die or not. They want to make sure that in the event of a crash you dont come flying out of your car and kill someone else.

 

[Shawn]

:|