Jack Thompson's bill approved

[martyrdrebel27]

hell, i don't care. utah is a wasteland anyways. anyone ever actually BEEN there? the place has a very noticable stench to it... like sewage, salt, dead fish, and oppression.

i don't understand america sometimes... if you want to enforce a law, truly enforce it. if you're SOOO concerned about kids getting games that they shouldn't be, make the penalty HARSH. automatic execution for anyone who sells to minors. NOT A SINGLE SALE would go down...

 

[Jodah]

The problem I have with this law as a Lawyer to be is this : The ESRB is a private organization. It has no legal standing it was only made as a suggestion to parents. Now they have the power to make it so people cannot buy certain games. This gives them legal power over the gaming industry (at least in Utah). While this is indirect it won't be long before they figure out a way to exploit this power.

 

[Cliff_m85]

Censorship is evil and unAmerican.

Nobody is censoring anything, they are just making sure that people don't sell M or 18+ rated games to minors, and i see nothing wrong with that.

Not the government's job. That's the parent's job.

Are you saying that because you think it's true, or because you are upset because you are a minor and can no longer buy M rated games you are not suppose to play in the first place?

I'm a 23 year old Libertarian. Setting an age range is ridiculous because some children are more mature than others. I also think that most kids understand the difference between video games and real life. I was brought up with a mixture of Rogue, Sonic the Hedgehog, Doom, and Leisure Suit Larry. I had understanding parents who explained everything to me when I asked, and that's why I turned out just fine I suppose.

But blah, too much talk. Government has no right to say what we can or can't do to our bodies or minds as long as it doesn't hurt anyone else.

 

[zdogg1222]

i dont think this is all bad but dam it when the make a good game like CoD and GoW it just isnt fair to bar thoes too just cus some gore and gunfire

 

[AgentNein]

I honestly don't see a problem with this. Unless I read it wrong, all they are doing is fining places that sell tickets to R-rated movies or M-rated games to minors. Isn't this just stopping the influx of children in games like Halo or Gears or CoD? Don't people always complain about how kids are the most annoying part of online play? With this law, the kid actually has to have their parent with them, and even then the store clerk will have to let the parent know exactly what it is they are buying. I see this as a good thing.

That's how it's always been here...

IMO, this is bullshit, what ever happened to freedom? We should be able to buy what we want, when we want, unless it is illegal.

So let me get this straight....you're saying that you should have the complete freedom to buy whatever you want, whenever you want, as long as the government okay's it as legal.

You freedom fighter, you.

 

[spyrewolf]

as much as I despise Thompson, if the US had a better rating system, similar to what was in place in new zealand this issue would go away, if your not 18 you cant buy the game, its that simple, this oh you need you parent with you when you buy the game nonsense is ridiculous, mature rated games are like that for a reason, this will still end up with the same bollocks, the parents will moan when they see the content EVEN if the retailer explains what the game entails. soccer mum's I look at you here, parents will brush this over as no-one will tell me what to buy until they see the sex mini games in GTA, saints row, god of war.

 

[Lonan]

I agree entirely with the anti-GTA stance. That stuff really does put bad values in you, and I play games solely for the violence. Frankly, I hate everything from Rockstar.

I'm having a hard time wrapping my little mind around this. I would think that the violence would be the first thing people would get hung up on. For you, is it the hookers and profanity? I guess that I'm first confused by which bad values you think people are taking from GTA, since you're ok with and play games solely for violence.

Snip!

My values are unaffected by gameplay, and I'm not an exception. Those who act out what they do in a game are the exception, and should be treated as such.

Snip!

When you're encouraged to shoot police on streets which look quite a bit like your own, there's a problem. When you're encouraged to drive over people and into light posts,(well, that's what everyone does even if you aren't encouraged too) there's a problem.

Snip!

Some people who were already inclined to that way of thinking would be more likely to join the mob because of GTA. If things were up to me, there would be a nice law which would keep the stupid in line, and prevent them from leaving their stupid cells until they were smart, thus preventing them from playing GTA. Unfortunately, everyone is equal under the law, so that would never happen.

There's alot to that response, so I'm cutting it down to just a couple things, more because I'm about to sign off and wanted to respond than due to any lack of merit.

If I understand, you're ok with warlike violence then, and not with random violence against regular civilians. That's really not that uncommon, and I can see why Rockstar would irritate the everloving crap out of you. I'm one of those who think real life violence of any type is bad, but pretend violence (within my own arbitrary limits, of course) is all fine and dandy. Yes, both fine and dandy. I think that boils down to our opinions, which we're both entitled to.

What we do agree on is that bit up in the quote about people already inclined to that way of thinking. I think the approach of banning games like GTA is flawed because I believe that those people would just find another image (from a game/TV show/movie) to model their behavior after, and that banning a game based on those types doesn't really accomplish anything. I'm sure studies can be found that prove that it does or does not help, but I tend to think that an approach of letting the game fly and holding criminals accountable for their actions is the way to go.

For your first paragraph, you said that our differences were a matter of opinion, which we are both entitled too. No. What matters is what is correct, and if we just say that either side has an opinion which is to be respected, we simply walk away from the question. Some people think that global warming or the age of the earth is a matter of opinion, but it is not. The earth is 4.57 billion years old and global warming is happening because of greenhouse gas emissions. If you think otherwise, I'm not going to respect your opinion, I'm going to just smile and nod. That being said, we must do battle as to which is worse, war violence or random violence. En Garde. I insist that war violence is far less harmful to the masses then random violence, because if your in a warzone, it's your job to kill, and that is what the game is based on. If you are in a city shooter, and most people live in cities, the objective of the game is too have fun and do whatever you want. Without police control, who shoot at you and make you angry at them, the only true fun is acheived at the expense of others. Therefore, an easily influenced goes outside into a city which looks just like the one they just shot police and vandalised things in, they are more likely to commit crimes than someone who played a war shooter, who would see no similarity between real life and a game. As for banning GTA, I do not think it should be banned. As I said before, I think the dumb and easily influenced should be tagged and have an eye kept on them. Many people, such as yourself, can have fun doing some of their great desires in a harmless way, which is the very essence of civilised fun.

 

[Hunde Des Krieg]

Actually this doesn't seem that bad, just keeps dumb ass minor's from getting violent games. That and what Max said, Utah really doesn't count as a state.

Not really no...

 

[pieeater911]

I guess Mormons weren't enough to fill Utah's crazy quota for the year.

 

[Graustein]

I'm a 23 year old Libertarian. Setting an age range is ridiculous because some children are more mature than others. I also think that most kids understand the difference between video games and real life. I was brought up with a mixture of Rogue, Sonic the Hedgehog, Doom, and Leisure Suit Larry. I had understanding parents who explained everything to me when I asked, and that's why I turned out just fine I suppose.

But blah, too much talk. Government has no right to say what we can or can't do to our bodies or minds as long as it doesn't hurt anyone else.

If the kid can handle an M-rated game, then the parents should be aware of this. Just because a kid wants an M-rated game doesn't mean they can handle it, and since the clerk at your local EB Games store won't know whether or not a given kid can handle it, I'm all in favour of implementing an age limit for purchase. If a kid wants the game and is mature enough to handle the content, there's nothing preventing the parents from buying it for them.

The obvious problem is that parents are too lazy nowadays to pay sufficient attention to this. Therefore they don't know whether their kids can handle it, or don't care, or don't care enough to know that there's even an issue with giving Silent Hill to the average twelve-year-old. Or, on the flip-side, they don't know their kids well enough to know what they can handle, and ban everything that might be damaging to their little snowflake.

 

[Lonan]

Setting an age range is ridiculous because some children are more mature than others. I also think that most kids understand the difference between video games and real life.

It is true of course that the maturity of children is not the same, and so setting an age range is ridiculous. However, if you are anti-government, how do you plan on stopping the immature from buying GTA?
The government would have to keep records of students maturity and maybe issue them cards to show to retailers in order to buy games. It makes sense to me, but if you are anti-government, how do you propose that games like Manhunt and GTA be kept away from the easily influenced? Or do you simply think that any child should be allowed to have a game which involves very personal ways of killing people?

 

[Cliff_m85]

Setting an age range is ridiculous because some children are more mature than others. I also think that most kids understand the difference between video games and real life.

It is true of course that the maturity of children is not the same, and so setting an age range is ridiculous. However, if you are anti-government, how do you plan on stopping the immature from buying GTA?
The government would have to keep records of students maturity and maybe issue them cards to show to retailers in order to buy games. It makes sense to me, but if you are anti-government, how do you propose that games like Manhunt and GTA be kept away from the easily influenced? Or do you simply think that any child should be allowed to have a game which involves very personal ways of killing people?

It's not up to me or the government to stop the immature from buying GTA, that's the parent's job.

 

[CaptainQuark]

I honestly don't see what is the problem with that bill - Heck, I don't see why that bill shouldn't be enforced everywhere. I really don't see why M-rated games should be handed down to kids.
And I agree with the fact that kids playing M-rated games online are ruining the experience for the rest of us.

For all I care, ban these kids from Xbox Live until proven old enough to play the damn game.

With this bill, Jack Thompson is doing something right, but for the wrong reasons.

i would think microsoft would be furious with this. if immature 12 year olds who like to use words they don't even know the meanings of can't buy halo, 99% of its sales are lost!

 

[Lonan]

Setting an age range is ridiculous because some children are more mature than others. I also think that most kids understand the difference between video games and real life.

It is true of course that the maturity of children is not the same, and so setting an age range is ridiculous. However, if you are anti-government, how do you plan on stopping the immature from buying GTA?
The government would have to keep records of students maturity and maybe issue them cards to show to retailers in order to buy games. It makes sense to me, but if you are anti-government, how do you propose that games like Manhunt and GTA be kept away from the easily influenced? Or do you simply think that any child should be allowed to have a game which involves very personal ways of killing people?

It's not up to me or the government to stop the immature from buying GTA, that's the parent's job.

True, but what if the parents don't care? If they are neglectful? It could be pretty bad to have a really immature child playing Manhunt or GTA.

 

[Cliff_m85]

Setting an age range is ridiculous because some children are more mature than others. I also think that most kids understand the difference between video games and real life.

It is true of course that the maturity of children is not the same, and so setting an age range is ridiculous. However, if you are anti-government, how do you plan on stopping the immature from buying GTA?
The government would have to keep records of students maturity and maybe issue them cards to show to retailers in order to buy games. It makes sense to me, but if you are anti-government, how do you propose that games like Manhunt and GTA be kept away from the easily influenced? Or do you simply think that any child should be allowed to have a game which involves very personal ways of killing people?

It's not up to me or the government to stop the immature from buying GTA, that's the parent's job.

True, but what if the parents don't care? If they are neglectful? It could be pretty bad to have a really immature child playing Manhunt or GTA.

Not my nor the government's problem nor fault. The government shouldn't be used for alternative parenting.

 

[Lonan]

Setting an age range is ridiculous because some children are more mature than others. I also think that most kids understand the difference between video games and real life.

It is true of course that the maturity of children is not the same, and so setting an age range is ridiculous. However, if you are anti-government, how do you plan on stopping the immature from buying GTA?
The government would have to keep records of students maturity and maybe issue them cards to show to retailers in order to buy games. It makes sense to me, but if you are anti-government, how do you propose that games like Manhunt and GTA be kept away from the easily influenced? Or do you simply think that any child should be allowed to have a game which involves very personal ways of killing people?

It's not up to me or the government to stop the immature from buying GTA, that's the parent's job.

True, but what if the parents don't care? If they are neglectful? It could be pretty bad to have a really immature child playing Manhunt or GTA.

Not my nor the government's problem nor fault. The government shouldn't be used for alternative parenting.

Don't give me this crap about blaming everything on parenting, once your over twelve, you aren't a kid anymore,(I certainly wasn't) 18 has no biological significance. Biologically, you're still a kid. What if you are influenced into shooting police or driving recklessly? (Someone your age) Mental strength does not come from parenting, it comes from oneself. Good lord, do you blame every persons stupidity on parenting? They are their own person, and they are idiots.

 

[whaleswiththumbs]

Jack Thompson is a douche...

Anyone who can get off to a scene from GTA 4 needs a life. And apparently Mr Thompson does. If you spend your time going to get something that exist on a CD or in the magical box of entertainment and color, they should find a new cause, like drunk driving, oh wait GTA has that too. maybe we should ban it...

 

[maddawg IAJI]

its times like this that im glad i live on the east coast