Personally, I think that movies and games should have the same rules. It's getting to the point where there's little difference anymore. Take your sickest, most grotesque movie clip you can find and place it next to your sickest, most grotesque FMV sequence from a videogame and place them in front of a roomfull of parents.

How many do you think would be able to tell the difference?
How many do you think will say that one is okay for little Timmy while the other is not?

One's made by Hollywood computers while the other's made by EA's computers. What's the difference? Would anyone care to argue how an FMV sequence in Final Fantasy 12 should be rated differently than Final Fantasy: The Spritis Within? The oranges are looking more and more like apples every day.

And still, none of that means squat.

The government should not be legislating morality. If I think my 12 year old is mature enough to see "The Grudge", the government should not be able to tell me he cannot see it int he theater.

Just as if I think my child is mature enough to play GTA. I personally think the game is lame beyond belief, but if I think he is able to discern the difference between fantasy and reality, the government should not be able to force me to go to the store instead of him, nor should they be able to hand retailers *my* right to decide if he's old enough or not.

Again: Video games and movies have not been proven in any legitimate realm of science to have *any* affect on people who can tell the difference between them and reality. There is *no* clear and present danger. The government has *zero* right to legislate this. Period.

That's great - but then you (and obviously I mean US parents, not you specifically) complain about the 'corruption of your children' and how it's everyone else's fault but your own.

In principle I agree with you PC Tool. But that fact remains that the majority (of parents) cannot accept any responsibility for the raising of their children: hell, they don't even accept responsibility for their own well-being. You just have to look at the ridiculous stream of civil lawsuits to see that the 'Not my fault, let's sue someone!' mentality is the reason behind all this protectionism.

Fix the attitudes of the general populace and you're right: this law is unnecessary and parents can actually be PARENTS and decide how to raise their kids.

/rant

So...

We give up on the parents, on trying to fix the *Actual* problem, and instead shelve our constitution and start hacking away at the rights of others?

It makes no sense...

Yes! Let's waste *more* taxpayer money on laws that have been proven several times to be 100% unconstitutional.

Arnold finally shows his true colors as a Liberal "Save the Children" politician.

Time for Cali to get rid of this idiot.

Except he makes valid points. If it went through for movies, and for music then I don't see how video games should be any different. I remember when parental advisory first started on music and you had to be a certain age to buy it (I think its 16 isn't it?).

No one can argue that a 12 year old shold be playing games like Grand Theft Auto or Godfather.

Now I'll admit, the honus should be on the parents to actually be parents, but history has shown repeatedly that people cannot be held responsible for their own actions (or inactions) and laws and regulations must be put into place as a result.

+1, Aaron

but history has shown repeatedly that people cannot be held responsible for their own actions (or inactions) and laws and regulations must be put into place as a result.

Then place the laws and regulations where they *should* be. On the parents, not the retailer.

But even beyond that, the government should not be making morality-based decisions for us unless such things present a clear and present danger. The "links" between violent games and violent tendencies are unproven at best.

i agree , id even say that the violent tendencies are more likely linked to bad parenting then video games, if parents dont pay attention to waht their kids are doing on video games or a pc, what else are they not paying attention to. i see alot of parent buy their kids a game just to shut em up and get em of their back. no law can stop that

the government should not be making morality-based decisions for us unless such things present a clear and present danger.

That is just laughable. Our government consistently makes morality-based decisions. Every time we send our tax dollars overseas to aid in a disaster that is a morality-based decision. When we ban abortion to protect the sanctity of life that is a morality-based decision. When we ban gay marriage because we don't believe in homosexuality that is a morality-based decision. When we create laws banning additional stem cell research funding that is a morality-based decision.

Hence the reason why all presidents should be athiests.

Religious faith is the absence of sound reason.

So you're saying people of faith can't possibly make decisions based on logic, common sense and the Constitution?

Nice generalization there...

Our government consistently makes morality-based decisions.

This is not a defense. This is an admission of fault.

Every time we send our tax dollars overseas to aid in a disaster that is a morality-based decision.

Nor is this. This is proof that it happens, not an argument against or for it.

When we ban abortion to protect the sanctity of life that is a morality-based decision.

Again, proof that it happens. Not proof that it *should*.

When we ban gay marriage because we don't believe in homosexuality that is a morality-based decision.

Same as above.

When we create laws banning additional stem cell research funding that is a morality-based decision.

Same again.

You succeeded at posting a lot of existing legislation that has been based on morality. Good for you. You did not once make an argument for it unless you are arguing that the fact that we've screwed up in the past means we should continue doing so.

Also: Please note that the abortion issue *does* present a clear and present danger to the fetus. I won't argue against the existing legislation on this, but I *will* argue against any further restrictions. This one boils down to the definition of a person. If a fetus qualifies, it's murder, plain and simple. If not, it's purely a morality based opinion *and should be treated as such* by the government.

Except he makes valid points.

Which would those be?

That violent games are bad? According to whom? How violent can they be before getting the axe (Pun intended)?

That children shouldn't play violent games? According to whom? How violent? Why is this the retailers responsibility (and punishment for not abiding) and not the parents?

No one can argue that a 12 year old shold be playing games like Grand Theft Auto or Godfather.

Like hell I can't. I can argue that all I want. If I as a parent believe my 12 year old is capable of discerning fantasy from reality, it should be *my* decision, not the governments.

Now I'll admit, the honus should be on the parents to actually be parents,

At least we agree on one thing...

Good Point you make there PC_Tool. You said that it should be your "decision" if you want your kid to play and violent game or not. Well thats not the case here. I agree with you to some point. From what I see everyday when I go out with my wife to the mall, store, or anywhere parents are not parenting. I was in GameStop the other day buying a game and there was this little kid trying to buy a game that his mom gave him money for. It was rated for violence in it. I really don't remember the name of the game off the top of my head but anyways the clerk told the little boy that he has to be 18 to buy the game. So the little boy walks out and gets his mom and his mom buys him the game asking no questions whats so ever. Now I know that is only one person but because of people being so negligent towards this kids and not actually being a "parent" the government is stepping in to help stop this. I personally think that violent video games doesn't cause a kid or teenager to go out and commit crimes. I think that every kid that does something like is sick in the head and need mental help. I play violent video games all my life and I still do till this day. You don't seem me going out and killing people because of a video game.

because of people being so negligent towards this kids and not actually being a "parent" the government is stepping in to help stop this.

No. The government is stepping in and taking away my right to parent as I see fit.

The problem with this whole issue is that since there *is* no clear and present danger, the "dangers" we've imagined have no clear point of blame so the Gov. steps in and blames the retailers to make it look like they're doing "something".

They need to stop. This is not a government issue. This is a parenting issue. Let parents decide, and if the negligence of a few harms others, let *them* take the blame, not the retailers.

Matrix,

That's an excellent point and I see that story a lot, though I don't see which side your story is arguing for. There's no law preventing a parent from buying violent videogames for their kid, and this law would do nothing to change that.

If parents are not going to parent then there's little the government can do to make them. If you look at it another way, this law could actually HELP the videogame industry. Think about it. Whenever a kid goes on a shooting spree the media always goes "videogames made them do it!", and the game makers have no defense. If there were a LAW that kids couldn't buy those games, game makers could use that to defend themselves saying "It was illegal for those kids to buy the game, so how did they get it?" Hmmmmm? Wouldn't it be nice to blame the parents for a change?

No law will force parents to parent, but what they can do is protect the videogame industry from liability. This law would not prevent kids from playing violent games any more than it prevented me from seeing R rated movies before I was 17, but it would finally give the videogame industry a (small) legal defense next time a nut job gets suicidal or a self-righteous lawyer tries to squash the first amendment.

I'm a gamer, I'm over 18, and I'm for this law.

Think about it. Whenever a kid goes on a shooting spree the media always goes "videogames made them do it!", and the game makers have no defense.

If logic, common sense and a mental health screening of the perp certifying they are nuts don't count as a defense, then I suppose you'd be right...

No law will force parents to parent, but what they can do is protect the videogame industry from liability.

Let me get this straight: To protect the video game industry from something they shouldn't be liable for, we'll push that liability onto the retailers (who also shouldn't be liable for it)? ...and that makes sense to you?

I'm a gamer, I'm over 18, and I'm for this law.

I'm a parent, and I'll defend my right to parent as *I* see fit until the day I die. You want to give the Gov that right, you can rip it from my cold, dead hands.

I agree with this, however how are the parents being educated? I have 2 children and I pride myself on my ability to stay educated with todays affairs but not all parents can do this.

I for one agree it is the parents responsibility but we do need a way to help educate those parents. This is not only related to video games but many other factors of life. It is amazing what my son and daughter know about life just from hearing things at school. I cannot know from day to day what my children are taught. I have an open relationship with them and I know they do not tell me everything. At their age I didn't know about "Life" until I was around 12-13 they are now finding out as young as 7. So one parent can do there best, but when you have other parents not doing the same you end out losing the battle.

I may stop my son or daughter from buying a violent video game that I feel they should not play, but yet find out that a friend has such video game and my children played it when visiting. I can't control everything.

It's not the government, it's not the parents... It comes down to society not working together with everyone wanting to do his or her own thing. When you find a solution to that problem then you might just be able to find the solution to issues like this.

My point is that your argument is true, but thats just not how our government works. I couldn't agree with you more that they should leave morality out of it and use logic instead. Its just too bad that we have so much religious pandering.

As for the clear and present danger with abortion, while I agree that it is a danger to the fetus (obviously) there can also be a danger to the mother during pregnancy. All I want in an abortion law is to say it is not allowed unless the life of the mother is at stake, or rape, or incest. I think that is a fair statement.

Ultimately, the definition of a person is obviously based on faith and religion for some people. It is too complicated to please everyone I think.

Yea, but with our litigous society, any company can be liable for anything. That is the problem in itself. At least if this law existed then those parents that actually give a rip about their kids may walk into the store to buy the game for them, see the violence sticker and rethink it. For the others, there is nothing we can do.

Right, so you can go out and buy the video game for him. Its not preventing your kid from getting the game, its just making sure you are aware of what is going on. It is not telling you how to parent, its just making sure the parents are in the loop.

By your argument a 12 year old should be able to go out and buy an oozie. Regardless of what leads to what, its the same principle that by banning gun buying for certain ages, the government is interferring in your ability to parent.

The folks pouring money into these laws could more wisely spend their money on parental edumafication. ;)

..just a thought.

I am not heartless. I know there are idiots out there, and I feel deep remorse for their children.

But stomping on someone else's toes to protect them without the permission of those who's toes you are stomping on is *not* the way to go about this.

Education is one way (put the money going into funding these stupid laws into parental education).

Incentive is another (Provide a fund offering sales-tax relief to retailers who *choose* to take a stance).

LAws and regulations don't work. The movie ratings system has proven this. Hell, cigarette sales to minors have proven this. And yet they keep trying...

but thats just not how our government works.

Read the Constitution. The government is not allowed to limit our rights in any way shape or form unless the purpose of the law is to prevent clear and present danger to the lives or rights of others.

This is, in fact, *exactly* the way our government works. The law above is a prime example of how it *doesn't* work...


Ultimately, the definition of a person is obviously based on faith and religion for some people. It is too complicated to please everyone I think.

Congress shall make no law... Do you remember the rest? ;)

Right, so you can go out and buy the video game for him.

Its not preventing your kid from getting the game,

Sure it is. By forcing me to do it for him.

It is not telling you how to parent, its just making sure the parents are in the loop.

It's assuming I am *not* in the loop. It also seeks to punish retailers if they violate this law. This is cute, eh? Punish the retailer for not accepting the responsibility of the parent...


By your argument a 12 year old should be able to go out and buy an oozie.

Then you grossly misread my argument. Clear and Present danger. Read that again. Uzi's kill. Games don't. Capiche?

We actually agree on this, except I am saying that the reality of our government just isn't that way. I am trying to be realistic here. We could wipe out half the laws on the books probably if we actually followed the constitution.

While you have apparently given up the fight, I have not. ;)

Just because we've lost a few does by no means signal that the fight is over. They'll keep trying to appease the sheep at the expense of my rights and the rights of others in direct violation of our Constitution. I won't stand for it. No matter how many times they do it.

No, but if a religious faith is the basis of your decisions and not sound logic, then yes, your decisions sometimes will be the wrong ones, dictated by the morals of that particular religion.

An example of this would be a Scientologist politician proposing a law to ban psychiatrists because his beliefs dictate that psychiatrists are evil. This decision is based on the moral code of his "religion" (if you can call Scientology that).

Another example would be a Jehova's Witness politician putting forth a law to ban blood transfusions because of their interpretation of the bible's "do not partake of blood" reference, even though the reference they keep spouting is erroneous, since it's supposed to mean "don't consume raw blood products from pigs, stupid, you'll get trichinosis and possibly die".

Basing your decisions PURELY on your religious moral codes ("gays can't marry because our god says marriage is between a man and a woman" is a good example) can violate the tenets of others beliefs. Thus, laws based on religious beliefs are flawed to begin with.

Common sense dictates things like "it's wrong to kill". Well Of COURSE it's wrong, and the "golden rule" is more than just a Christian idea, they borrowed it from other religions (Bhuddism if I'm not mistaken). The truth and common sense are pretty universal, you don't need a religion to be good, and religion shouldn't be a system of government.

Okay...

Hence the reason why all presidents should be athiests.

...pretty much contradicts everything you've just said, hence why I asked the question.

As for murder:

It is illegal to murder someone not due to it's being morally unjust, or the "golden rule". It is illegal because it violates another's right to life. It has *nothing* to do with morality or religion.

As for laws being based on faith, I believe, if you read my comments, you'll notice we are in agreement on that. However, your apparent assumption that people of faith cannot separate their beliefs from the intent of the Constitution in making legislation or leading a country is highly offensive to me.