Dr_Horrible said:
...
If games are an art form (which they are), then it is illegal and morally unjustifiable to regulate, because of the first amendment's freedom of expression. You may not agree with Mein Kampf (I don't agree with it), but to prevent its publication is both illegal and wrong. That's exactly what would happen, is that any game someone objected to, on any grounds, could be banned
Also, if this is a serious post, you may want to edit for clarity. It's a bit disjointed.
Yes, this is why cinemas don't allow kids into NC-17 movies. It may be illegal due to your constitution (although having untouchable tenants of law is a ridiculous system), but it isn't morally unjustifiable. Any reasonable person (reasonable person being the test applied by courts of law) would consider Mein Kampf to be a form of hate speech, and making hate speech illegal isn't morally unjustifiable.
Not only that, but children probably shouldn't get their hands on more mature games (ignoring that most game shops in America, as far as I have heard, self regulate anyway) and can legally go in and buy GTA 4 without parents ever knowing. People at this point usually say "Oh, well parents should know what their kids are up to!" Well that's clearly bollocks. There is no way a parent can, nor should they, constantly watch their child. Unless the parents have a real case of wrapping up their kids in cotton wool, they will not always know where there kid is. Especially if they actually go out and work.
Here in Europe we have a system that is legally enforceable. Pretty much every game that comes out here is uncensored in every way, same as the American editions. We're not suddenly banning games left, right and centre.
The-Epicly-Named-Man said:
Can you spell or are you just lazy?
OT: You clearly don't understand what you're talking about. You seem to think the regulations proposed in America won't let minors buy games rated unsuitable for them unless consent is by a parent (or you misunderstand the law in your own country, but we'll assume the best case scenario).
Firstly, this would be no misunderstanding. Here in England, I can not (legally) buy a 16 rated game unless I am 16. I could, however, get someone else to buy it for me. Case in point: I once went to a game shop, tried to buy Hitman Revolution, a 15 or 16+ game. I was refused service (I was around 14 at the time), but the guy behind the desk said he can sell me it if someone else buys it for me, so I asked a random older guy to buy it for me. He did, and I got my game. For some reason, unlike with say, alcohol or fags, that was completely legal.
America and pretty much every Western nation already has these regulations (not that they're ever given any notice in most places). The proposed regulations would outright ban the sale of M rated (the equivalent of 16+ and over here, probably the same with you) to anyone underage, classing something as harmless as Call of Duty as if it were as dangerous as alcohol, cigarettes and guns. If such a law were to pass it would result in numerous other states and nations introducing such nonsense and would probably lead to even more radical regulations being brought in. So yeah, it's not a great idea.
As for this point, this may be the case for that legislation in California, which was badly worded. In a more general way, if a law was written up in such a way that it wouldn't lead to games being banned, but purely for them being sold only to those who carry ID or are obviously of age, much like alcohol and other restricted substances/items, then I see no problem with it.
RoonMian said:
I think this is mainly a cultural thing why some (mostly Europeans) just don't get why Americans rejoiced like that over the decision of the supreme court on games regulations for example.
"Freiheit ist die Freiheit des anderen."
That is in my opinion the big cultural and sociologic difference between the USA and most of western Europe.
How does that relate to regulating videogames? I hope everyone agrees that children do not need to play games with violent content and watch violent movies and (still hoping) most of us agree that exposing young children to running over hookers and zombies eating your brains isn't healthy for their development no matter if it's in game form or movie form and I'd even include literature in that. Same goes for sexually explicit content.
I pretty much agree with you on the difference in our ways of thinking, between American and Europeans (although some countries like France and the Netherlands seem to be going away from that, with some of their new legislations), and I also really like the quote you put up.
One thing in regards to the exposing children to graphic content. You suggest that we should keep children away from these games and films. I agree to an extent, and I also feel that the parents should have the say, hence me agreeing with these sort of regulations, however, I'm not so sure as to how much it would damage their development, especially in the hands of responsible parents. I'm not suggesting it's good for, say, 5 year olds to play GTA, but I have played GTA games from the age of around 10/11, but I knew enough to realise that the sort of actions I saw in those games were not acceptable in real life.
Which leads me on to my final point, which is your reference to literature: You said that you'd even include it, which suggests you think it may have a lesser effect. I disagree. I think literature may have a stronger effect. To bring up Mein Kampf again, I think that would have a much more damaging effect than, say killing zombies or hookers. The way literature can promote a meaningful message is still more powerful than games or films.
