GameBanshee Forums

US Representative Joe Baca, D-California, introduced a bill in Congress last week that would make it a federal crime to sell or rent violent video games to minors. The Protect Children from Video Game Sex and Violence Act of 2002 would apply to games that feature decapitation, amputation, killing of humans with lethal weapons or through hand-to-hand combat, rape, carjackings, aggravated assault, and other violent felonies. Twenty-one other representatives cosponsored the bill, which was referred to the House Judiciary Committee.
That list would place a slew of popular titles out of the reach of teenagers, some of the biggest consumers of the games. The top-selling video game in 2001, according to research firm NPD Group, was Grand Theft Auto III, in which players steal and wreck cars, commit contract killings, and carry out other crimes. It has been banned in Australia.

"When kids play video games, they assume the identity of the characters in the game, and some of these characters are murderers, thieves, rapists, drug addicts, and prostitutes," Baca said in a press release. "Do you really want your kids assuming the role of a mass murderer or a carjacker while you are away at work?"

Violators of the act would be subject to fines of up to $1,000 for a first offense and up to $5,000, plus 90 days in jail, for multiple offenses.




OK, does this just sound wrong to anyone else out there? If I read this correctly, you have to be over 18 to be able to buy games like Doom, Mortal Kombat, pretty much anything that you wind up killing someone in. Shouldn't this be the responsibility of the parent's, and not the government to decide? Adn I really don't see the issue, I have been playing these types of games forever, and have never thought about living out my games in real life. Does this bother anyone else?

It bothers some, that have posted such here in SYM

But as a parent, I do believe that the Censor guide should be there as a guide, and that as a parent I should be given some opportunity to decide what I think my kids can handle, I think....

But what about those kids that buy/play without parental knowledge? Not exactly kids? Should we as parents then be expected to take full responsibility, even if we might have chosen ourselves not to let our kids play such games.

Ultimately, I do believe that society has some responsibility...

I don't think that should be allowed. It is up to the parent to deem what the child is mature enough to play, not the government. Though people can still bypass that by getting parents or older friends to buy the game, it is a hassle that you shouldn't have to go through. Just because the game contains some violence, or some sexual innuendo, that does not make it wrong for the child to play it. If they want to rag on something that contains violence and sex, I can name three more obvious targets.

I have long been a person to argue that one should not censor these type of games. I think it is parental responsibility to correctly raise their child and i think society also plays a part, it is one of a number of factors that can effect a child. However this opinion doesn't change anything and it is such a cliche of a 19 year old gamer so i say why not give it a go, what harm can it do?

Well BS, since not much has happened over the past couple of years in the US, I suppose Congress needs something to do and persecuting children usually rallies quick support from those looking to blame someone which incidentally, includes most of the US population.

That said, I still think its' a load of dung and should be the responsiblity of the parent although who's to stop little johnny from going over to little suzi's house and playing counterstrike for a few hours since suzi's parents think it's ok.

I'm sure many other factors will come out to drudge this moot issue through congress for a while.

With two working parents, it becomes more difficult to supervise the child.

TV and the media has glorified villains and crime in recent years with all the exposure, cover, and fox special after special.

The graphics and technique of the game has vastly improved in recent years giving a more 'real' feel to the game. This, of course, can be misconstrued by children who are completely unable to define boundaries of fantasy and reality.

And other reasons that currently escape me.

I grew up with two working parents in a fairly rough neighborhood in new england with it's own violence I got to see first hand. I started playing D&D at the age of nine where hack and slash was all we knew. Many times during my childhood my sister transformed into a kobold right before my very eyes. I always kept my blade sheathed and made her look into a mirror instead. Plus there were vids in my youth that involved killing and maiming. Through all that, I've always remained a non violent person...unless of course I wind up in a bar with a country western theme. During those times, I'm glad I always carry my broadsword with me.

Originally posted by Bloodstalker
The top-selling video game in 2001, according to research firm NPD Group, was Grand Theft Auto III, in which players steal and wreck cars, commit contract killings, and carry out other crimes. It has been banned in Australia.

It was held up whilst the Board Of Classification reviewed their policies. It was modified however to remove the part where you could sleep with the prostitutes.

Mind you the bill seems over excessive to say the least

In mattes like this, it has always been my strong belif that it is the partents that need to step up to the plate and make sure their kids don't play these games.
Banning things like this via society will only cause more attention towards the games as seen with Carmageddon (funny game though), GTA *, SoF etc.

I think it is fun (or rather tragic) when something happens that everybody starts pointing finger at the society instead of looking to themselves for answers.
People should wake up and take responcibility instead of letting others make the choices for them.

At least kids'll still be able to play Tetris...

Originally posted by Ode to a Grasshopper
At least kids'll still be able to play Tetris...

are you sure??? they may ban it because you blast poor innocent blocks into oblivion-->kill them

but i too think that bull$hit

I think it's a lot of posturing that our American tax dollars are paying for. The courts are consistently striking down restrictions on access to the internet, blocking pornography and other First Amendment issues and I suspect that even if this passes, the courts will declare it unconstitutional as well. What this does for our esteemed elected officals in Washington is to put them on the record as pro-family. Even if the matter dies in committee or on the floor, or if it becomes law and is struck down by the courts, they can still go back to their districts and say, "I supported the Protect Children from Video Game Sex and Violence Act of 2002."

I have yet to see any credible evidence that video games and TV shows are more influential in child development than parental and community influence. That said, I think that too much exposure to violence and sex does lead to desensitisation, but that is the parents's responsibility to regulate, not the government's.

I also believe that by the time kids are about 13 or 14 (earlier sometimes), you can generally tell who the basically good kids are and who the basically bad kids are. By the time they're 15-17, it's too late for a game like Grand Theft Auto to have an effect on their morality (for better or for worse). If a kid is 16 and doesn't know that stealing cars and shooting cops is wrong, society has bigger problems than video games. In fact, maybe we're better off that those kids are playing the game than out on the streets.

Originally posted by HighLordDave
If a kid is 16 and doesn't know that stealing cars and shooting cops is wrong, society has bigger problems than video games. In fact, maybe we're better off that those kids are playing the game than out on the streets.

That brings about the issue of whether one considers games to be a release of some kind, rather than going out and commiting the acts portrayed in GTA3 one can instead do them as a character in a game and not effect anyone.

Your point about disensitation is also a good one, i can say that i am desensitised to moderm violence in movies, howevern not in real life, there is a wide difference between the two and violence in real life is greatly different to the movies...

Your point about disensitation is also a good one, i can say that i am desensitised to moderm violence in movies, howevern not in real life, there is a wide difference between the two and violence in real life is greatly different to the movies...

damn good point. if you think about the films/games/other media that are accused of glorifying violence, they are perfectly watchable for almost anyone. compared to the films that have more 'realistic' portrayals of violence (reservoir dogs torture scene, anyone?) they are far more shocking and do not glorify it. the films that are treated as if they are glamourising violence treat violence in an almost cartoon-like manner. if realistic violence is portrayed, it will be done for sheer shock value and impact.

if a child is equating standard computer game violence with real life, or getting enjoyment out of the more realistic stuff in films etc., then the parents have messed up badly, or there is something seriously wrong with that child.

I have a friend who will quite happily smite, grind and bash anything in a computer game. The bloodier the better. IRL he will faint like a girl at the first sight of blood. (Sorry girls, it is just an expression )

I am of the opinion that even if this law is passed, it will not effect sales too much. Kids will just get their parents to buy the games for them anyway. Selling cigarettes and alcohol to under age persons is illegal in most countries. How many 16 year olds do you know that can't get a drink and a smoke if they want? (Not suggesting that parents buy, just that these things are easy to get).

If you come down to it some of the most violent TV shows are considered 'classics' and no-one points to them as causing violence. Tom and Jerry, anyone?

I think the Simpson's Itchy and Scratchy Show sums it up best.

Originally posted by Robnark
compared to the films that have more 'realistic' portrayals of violence (reservoir dogs torture scene, anyone?) they are far more shocking and do not glorify it. the films that are treated as if they are glamourising violence treat violence in an almost cartoon-like manner. if realistic violence is portrayed, it will be done for sheer shock value and impact.

Movie studios know that violence and sex sells. However, people (studios and audiences alike) generally don't like too much violence or sex in mainstream movies. Take the recent Scorpion King; the body count was fairly high, especially for a PG-13 movie, but for all of the impaling and swordplay, you'd think that nobody in ancient Egypt had any blood in them.

Contrast that with Saving Private Ryan, which had not only a high body count but was rife with gore and all of the other little things many movie makers leave out (like the sounds of men dying and calling out for their mothers while bleeding to death; everything but the smell). Nobody ever accused Speilberg of glorifying violence or corrupting youth, and more people died in the opening 20 minutes of Saving Private Ryan than died in all of the Friday the 13th movies, combined.

Slasher movies especially try to come up with new and inventive ways of killing people. They have to, or no one will go to see them anymore. However, I don't think that anyone takes those movies, or action movies (Die Hard, Lethal Weapon et al) seriously. People got to see them because they want to suspend their disbelief for a couple of hours and escape from their lives. I don't think anyone patterns their life after John McClain or Sergeant Riggs.