72 Percent of Adults Support California Game Law - UPDATED

[Sixties Spidey]

Let's break this down here: 72 percent of Adults. Now let's think what age these kids are. Let's say... between 12 and 15 years old. At that age, kids would've known about sexual innuendo and would've seen more than their fair share of graphic and mature content through television, movies, or by talking to their peers in school.

I think we should stop thinking about what gaming will necessarily correlate to and start thinking about how we can better raise our children, because if we spend more time trying to blame something, we lose sight of the solution. My advice? Be parents for once, or -blam!- off.

 

[sageoftruth]

I was expecting this. I mean, the interviewees were adults and parents, while the law is meant to affect kids. The less idealistic among the parents were probably thinking, "Cool! Less work for me then." Sadly, self interest, rather than idealism, seems to be a major factor when people decide what laws to support, hence the large number of people in opposition to high taxes (excluding those who support low taxes for idealistic purposes).

 

[Callate]

Would you support or oppose a law that prohibits minors from purchasing videogames that depict killing, maiming or sexually assaulting an image of a human being?

"Would you support a law that prohibits children from actively participating in on-screen disembowelments? Or is there something deeply wrong with you? Also, have you stopped beating your wife?"

Oh, I suppose it could be worse. But the positioning of question 3, not to mention the use of the term "ulta-violent videogames" in question 2, can't help but be leading. Honestly I'm surprised the opposition rose as high as 28%, based off of those.

I wonder how those results would have differed if they'd asked, say, "Do you think video games should have a legally mandated level of regulation and restriction greater than that of movies such as 'Piranha 3D' and 'I Spit On Your Grave'" or "Do you think that video games as a media should be exempt from Constitutional protections applying to free speech".

 

[BoogieManFL]

Raise and guide your own kids, people.

The ESRB rating and 10 minutes of looking up a game online can give you an idea if you'd find it acceptable for your child. We don't need to waste time and tax money setting up a system to supplement substandard parenting.

 

[C95J]

wait, when most of the PARENTS say that the video games industry does a poor job at protecting kids from violent video games, they do know that if you are under age, you need to get your PARENTS to buy them for you, so really, it is the PARENTS fault, and the video games industry does a great job at protecting kids from violent video games.

Also, if PARENTS are worried about the impact of violent video games on their kids, then why do the PARENTS buy the video games for them in the first place?

Sometimes, to me, PARENTS seem to be a bit on the dim side. Of course no offence to all the parents who are not dim and/or don't mind their kids playing these types of video games. (I mean my parents do and they are completely okay with it).

 

[boholikeu]

standards like this would not even fly in a statistics class, much less in any legitimate scientific proof.

2100 out of 150,000,000 is less than actual number, y'know, rite? an exagerrated version of this would be saying that the 20k members that are members of the kkk somehow(and acurately) represent the general opinion of black ppl in america.

really. no really. i bet 50 escapist creds that nothing will actually happen. even if the law does get passesd, kids will still get their moms(the ones that were against the law/didn't care) to buy the games for them.

From what I understand, most statistics are based on comparable sample sizes, so if think 2100 is too small you have an issue with current polling practices, not this specific case.

 

[chstens]

I don't see the problem, it've been like that in most parts of Europe for years, and we're not complaining.

 

[Lizmichi]

*sigh* Great this just shows how much parents don't want to be parents. If they're so worried about it then they shouldn't even let their kid look at games like God of War or GTA. The fact is parents need to be better eradicated with the ESRB. As many have said here before I don't see game companies kicking in the doors of houses to force kids to play their games. I'm getting scared this will pass.

 

[SinisterGehe]

So it is now Goverments job to supervise what kids do when their parents don't care?
Logic anyone?

 

[Jinxzy]

I think this is a good thing. I worked at a gamestop and parents just dont care. I tell them everything that happens in GTA to warm them thats it not good for timmy who is 6. They still buy it because a) dad wants to play or b) to shut him up. Then we get stupid returns because when Timmy is swearing and it's to violent, they finally want to take it back. Parents need to take more responsibility then to just blow it off.
Heck it also stops the 10-13 year olds at midnight releases that cut in line because one friend was holding there spot. Then when they go to buy the game they need to call there mommy or daddy to drive to the store and show there ID. While everyone else is waiting in line.

 

[Lonan]

The games are so unrealistic I don't see how anything could come from it. Also, people who want these games are going to be violent anyway, and are naturally attracted to them. Not letting them play it is just cutting people off from what fits their personality.

And here's a great take on the accuracy of surveys.

http://vids.myspace.com/index.cfm?fuseaction=vids.individual&videoid=2024295711

Unfortunately, the person conducting the "survey" recently passed away.

I thought I would add this for that reason only:

 

[Nero_Requiem]

You know, as the fine fellows at "Extra Credits" pointed out, everyone seems to be thinking that minors have no ability to think for themselves. Apparently , people under the age of 18 have absolutely now way of cognitively thinking about what kind of games they *should* be playing. Having been there myself less than two years ago, I find that idea abhorrently stupid and short-sighted.

C'est la vie, I suppose.

I have a feeling that even if the Supreme Court rules in favor of California's agenda, that it won't be the end. However, I do hope that this whole nasty affair goes the way of the Prohibition.

 

[cefm]

Lemme get this straight - in order to prove their point, Common Sense paid someone to do the most sadistic fucked up shit possible in these games? Way to corrupt souls, you bastards.

 

[superbatranger]

I think those people never heard of the ESRB oh fuck

Something tells me they've never noticed the labels that practically scream, "Hey! This game is violent, so you probably shouldn't buy it for your kid!"

Seriously, what more do they want the ESRB to do? Hold their hands when they walk into the store and make every purchasing choice for them?

 

[Lionsfan]

Oh jeez. It's not the governments job or the video games job to be a parent. The Rating System is very very clear, it's the parents job for screwing it up. Fighting video games is just something a cheap politician does, whenever they want to try and get some support for something they'll try to attack video games

 

[wolfister]

I always hate when it comes out about parents not thinking gaming companies don't do enough, I consider it just as much their responsibility to occasionally walk into their sons/daughters room and casually glance at what age rating his games are. If their over his age, then take them away.

Though I'm not a parent, maybe I don't understand the complexities of the issue.

I wonder what the long term effects of this ban would do to the gaming industry if put into force.

EDIT: I decided this seemed quite relevant when we are talking about surveys.

Ah Yes Prime Minister such a great show and so true for so many governments.
OT: This is absolute shite I mean for the love of Logic and Common Sense it is the job of the parent to decide what a child should and should not play. I mean it is truly amazing that after all this time games are still not completely considered protected under the 1st amendment, I mean come on it is an art form, yes sometimes it is a tad mindless but that is a small percentage of all the games that are out there.

Well we can really only hope that the supreme court will once and for all without any doubt conclude that games are a protected art form, and not something to be regulated by the government.

 

[beddo]

I'm sooo glad I don't live in America. Ah The UK. We're so great at the whole freedom thing.

We already have an age rating system, two in fact. And, unlike America we have actually banned games those they've all been overturned at some point a lot have had to modify their content.

 

[beddo]

So it is now Goverments job to supervise what kids do when their parents don't care?
Logic anyone?

That is logical. The state is required to ensure a minimum standard of living for its citizens generally based on its laws.

If a parent is neglecting their children it is the responsibility of the state to step in. this is why we have the education system. This is why children are taken into care.

 

[MadCapMunchkin]

Wow...once again "concerned parents" want to ruin everything for everyone...what a surprise...

 

[Marowit]

I guess protecting your children from morally ambiguous things is too difficult for parents these days, and so they ask politicians to do it instead....does that not strike people as supremely ironic?