Georgia Guv Candidate Promises Video Game Legislation

September 27, 2006 -

In Georgia, Lieutenant Governor Mark Taylor is now making a bid for the top job. The Democrat is running TV spots promising to legislate video games.

It's the second ad we've seen in the last 24 hours that seems to equate the threat of violent video games with that posed by online predators. The other is from Ed Perlmutter (see following article) from Colorado.


Comments

Ok, as a Georgia Resident and formerly at the mercy of the Georgia Board of Education I have this to say:

Azarias: Take it with a SALT LICK. Yes Yes, he's trying to get elected, we all understand that here. But out there, in the real world, there are parents who never touched a keyboard before and dont know what the internet is, thus they fear it... Again most of them have also never touched a Video Game, PC or Console, and knowing little about it, they fear it.

Mark Taylor is playing on peoples fears and using scare tactics to boost his support. This advertisement is not uncommon on our television sets down here.

Now, Straight UP, what can Mark Taylor Do For You? (Keep In Mind, I have done little research on the topic so far)
He can give you something that will block bad websites, if you dont have to program it or input any information, then he's not fixing the problem. If you do have to input any information, chances are you are a responsible parent, which means there was no need for Mark Taylor to give you the software.
He can ban sale of M and R rated media to minors... Last I checked, and everyone else apparently, Most retail stores refuse to sell those items to minors anyways, yet parents and older siblings often buy the games for the 'minor' to play. THIS IS NOT ILLEGAL. For someone over the age of 21 to purchase alcohol for a minor, it is illegal, for someone over the age of 18 to purchase an M or R rated media, it is not illegal, and thus any law to restrict the sale of M or R rated Media to minors is redundant to many policies already in place, and no more effective.

Death penalty to Repeat child molesters... This is the only statement that has any plausability in having an effect, yet... The Death Penalty is still a big thing... The current jail system however is overflowing and there has even been a number of successful escapes, and I would rather pay for an execution than giving free room and board to someone who happened to play footsie across the lunchroom twice.

In Georgia, the parents who can afford Internet and videogames for their minors often have no time to spend with the child and purchase anything to appease the child, even alcohol and drugs... example, a 40,000$ new car at age 16... which kills at least one high school student per school a year (I made this up, but every year at my highschool, there was at least one fatality due to accedents.)

I understand he wants to be popular, but unfortunately, the truth is the hardest thing for a grown adult and parent to hear, unless they happen to be good parents. Untill parental quality improves, there is no saving the next generation...

Alot of people have critized me for this, but ads like this prove my point. The industry needs to start a concentrated Litigation campaign to get the media to stop lying about it. Sadly, waiting around for the BS to die down is clearly not working, and perhaps if it was suddenly coming to light the Politicans were lying openly to there voting base and threatening there first amendment rights, well, maybe they'd start backing off.

Regardless, getting the lies and bs to stop should take first priority, then once the media is to afraid to lie anymore, we can start having real discussion and debate, and not Thompson like fear mongering and bullshit.
"My name is Lenerd Church, and you will fear my LASER FACE"

Bigman-K: Take a step back. You berate me for comparing video games to cigarettes, and then go off on a tangent about Harry Potter. Think about that. But I see what you mean.

First off, there are several similarities between cigarettes and video games. One, they're both addicting. Two, cigarettes should not be given to young children, and neither should violent video games. There lies the crux of my argument: we have laws limiting the sale of cigarettes to minors because it damages them. It's the same idea with violent video games. We can both agree that a nine year old should not play God of War, nor should he be smoking. Just because kids are still getting cigarettes the same way kids are still getting violent video games doesn't mean that we should scrap the laws prohibiting the sale of cigarettes to children.

Second: Scientific studies concerning how video games affect children are notoriously untrustworthy, with different studies supporting either side of the argument. However, I'm sure we can agree that a young child should not be playing a violent video game.

Granted, there are different levels of violence (I would not prohibit a five year old from playing a game where the antagonist gets bopped on the nose, especially if the characters are fluffy, anthropomorphic teddy bears, but I would stop him from playing Grand Theft Auto), and I probably should have clarified this earlier: I am against giving games that have an excessive amount of violence to children; I think the ESRB ratings are spot on when it comes to determining whether or not a game is suitable for a certain age group. (As a side note: Damn, was that a long sentence! It should be in a Nabukof story...)

Quote: "Thirdly the whole parents can’t be around their kids 24/7 is not an excuse for government regulation in our lives." Here's a Canadian example: why should the government bother sending one hundred dollars a month to parents for childcare? Obviously, since parents can't look after their toddlers twenty-four seven, the government has no excuse to muck about their personal lives. The government should withdraw all assistance whatsoever! (For the ignorant, that was sarcasm)

Finally, there was never a call for banning these video games. I agree with the American First Amendment: these games should not be banned, that is a violation of free speech. I'd say something about Jack Thompson, but I'm afraid of getting sued. However, just because Mein Kampf can be protected by the First Amendment doesn't mean it should be on the summer reading lists of eleven and twelve year olds, does it now?

(As an aside note: If you acknowledge your poor spelling, why don't you correct it?)

"Terminator: Just because I omit something doesn’t mean I support it. For example, I didn’t mention the fact that I condone the Holocaust in that little diatribe, but that doesn’t mean I support it. I don’t think that an eight year old should be watching Sin City."

I'm not implying that you should list EVERYTHING you don't want in the hands of a small child. All I'm saying is that if violent video games are so harmful to kids of that age that we need to legislate them, why not do the same for violent movies? It's worked for the U.K. and Canada, because the politicians there are GENUINELY CONCERNED about the harm of media, not just exploiting the current generation's "boogeyman." When these politicians condemn violent games but don't say a peep about violent movies, it just sends me the message that they are focusing more on the medium, not the content. I heart hypocrisy.

Parents need to learn to take responsibility for their own damned children. If your child is playing violent video games or going on pronographic websites then it's your own fault for not supervising their child. I mean seriously, because people are too stupid to pay attention to what they're children are playing they have to bring politics into it? It's a damned video game. I mean if you have a problem with your child playing a video game where they can rip a person in half, don't buy them the game!

Yukimura: I agree with you totaly about the media. I honestly believe that further restrictions should be put in place on Political Campaigning.

Azarias: Dont even start with rudeness concerning spelling and grammer Mr. "...Lucky you. Know, what should we do for those who..." Notice the Know, where the Now should be. Why didn't you correct it?

Ok, I'm not trying to be mean about it, but you threw the first stone, and I would appreciate it if this debate can be held in a mature fashion.

The similarities between Cigerettes and Videogames stop at 'Purchase'. But If I recall my laws correctly, it is not actually illegal for minor to smoke cigerettes, just to sell them to minors. If you want a good comparison, use my Alcohol comparison. Alcohol has linked to Violent Behavior more times than history can recall. It is also illegal to purchase FOR minors, not just for minors to purchase. Videogames are not illegal for minors to purchase, but many retail stores have policies that prohibit them from selling M rated games to Minor, but an adult who purchases a Video Game for their child is not blocked by those policies.

"parents can’t be around their kids 24/7 is not an excuse for government regulation in our lives.” Correct, parenting is still left to the adult in the end. Should the government REGULATE (key word there, remember it Azarias.) lives of children? no. Should government support the raising of children by sending one hundred dollars a month to parents for childcare? I would like to see it in America! A regulation tells a parent how to parent, or just flat out says children cannot be outside after 6PM. A 100$ supplement to income for child support allows that parent to buy the child 2 extra violent video games that the single digit year child should not be playing in the first place, but the parent is too busy working/sleeping/living to spend any quality time with the child...

Its not what the government does that effects a child, no matter how they try, its the parents... but no politician is going to be elected into office using a policy of 'Responsible Parenting'. But reguardless, Mark Taylor has flat out stated near imposibilities and bill of rights infringing laws.

Oh, and The fact of the matter is, He IS associating internet Pornography, Video Games and Child Molesters as his bill "Child Protection Act of 2007. " Has all three inside. Either All three pass, or all three (and god knows what other minor details he leaves out) fail. He's using scare tactics to advance his own agenda, which has little corelation to his stated goals (Education and Crime reduction), which a simple association with the education system would have been much more effective and appropriate.

Bigman-K: Take a step back. You berate me for comparing video games to cigarettes, and then go off on a tangent about Harry Potter. Think about that. But I see what you mean.

I wasn't comparing Harry Potter to violent games. What i was saying was that Harry Potter like Violent Games can be found unsuitable and inappropriate in the eyes of some parents. SO ,if we were going to restrict access to violent games to minors SOLELY because they were offensive in the eyes of some parents, we'd have to do it with Harry Potter books to, because some parents find Harry Potter novels offensive for their children.

First off, there are several similarities between cigarettes and video games. One, they’re both addicting. Two, cigarettes should not be given to young children, and neither should violent video games. There lies the crux of my argument: we have laws limiting the sale of cigarettes to minors because it damages them. It’s the same idea with violent video games. We can both agree that a nine year old should not play God of War, nor should he be smoking. Just because kids are still getting cigarettes the same way kids are still getting violent video games doesn’t mean that we should scrap the laws prohibiting the sale of cigarettes to children.

Yet unlike cigerettes there is no evidence that violent games actually damage children as i mentioned in my first post. As for addicition, all video games can be addicting to kids, not just the violent ones.

"Second: Scientific studies concerning how video games affect children are notoriously untrustworthy, with different studies supporting either side of the argument. However, I’m sure we can agree that a young child should not be playing a violent video game."

I agree that an 8 year old should be playing GOW, but like i mentioned in my first post, 8 year olds don't go out on thier very own to the local video game shop with $50 in hand to buy the latest GTA. With that said though by the time someone is in teen years or close to it i believe they should be able to play any game, watch any movie, read any book, or listen to any song they want. By the time they're that age they have the full capability to understand the difference between right and wrong, reality and fantasy and the difference between right and wrong. and if they don't, something is seriously psychologically wrong with them and they should be locked in a four room padded cell.

"Quote: “Thirdly the whole parents can’t be around their kids 24/7 is not an excuse for government regulation in our lives.” Here’s a Canadian example: why should the government bother sending one hundred dollars a month to parents for childcare? Obviously, since parents can’t look after their toddlers twenty-four seven, the government has no excuse to muck about their personal lives. The government should withdraw all assistance whatsoever! (For the ignorant, that was sarcasm)"

Read my post again and you'll see what i was talking about. Actually read my first post in this reply and you'll see what i meant by that. I was talking about government regulation in regards to helping parents keep their kids away from things they (as in the parents) find inappropriate or unsuitable for their children. Barring any sort of proven harm (of which there is none), this should be the sole responsibility of the parents.

"Finally, there was never a call for banning these video games. I agree with the American First Amendment: these games should not be banned, that is a violation of free speech.

The First Amendment also protects a Minors access to Free Speech materials. Minors like Adults have the ability to form there own viewpoints based on unrestricted and uncensored access to information, messages, opinions and viewpoints brought forth through Free Speech materials. The only material that can contitutionally be barred to minors is material that is obscene to minors as Obsenity isn't protected by Free Speech. The obscene to minors laws are the same as the obscenity laws to adults as brought forth through Miller vs. California except all three prongs of the test are in regards to minors rather then adults. Violent games or even Mein Kampf shouldn't be banned either to minors or adults.

"(As an aside note: If you acknowledge your poor spelling, why don’t you correct it?)"

Sorry, I didn't bother to have a spellchecker on me.

Wtf? Death penalty for repeat child molesters? You don't deserve to die just because you've repeatedly molested children. the death penalty should be used only for those who have killed another. If they keep doing it just keep them in prison.

I think Azarias is missing the point.

I posted this in the forums and in the LJ:

Children(and everyone else, for that matter) are already being protected. Rights are never taken away or kept from people. They're just being "protected" from something else thanks to our buddy, the First Amendment.

Amendment I:
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

Now, we all know the old "you can't yell 'FIRE' in a crowded theater" rule, which is always given as an example of how freedom of speech is not an absolute, as you can't use it to put others in harm's way. However, if you are going to infringe on a Constitutional right such as freedom of speech, you had better damn well show the people absolute proof that the speech in question(in this case, "violent" video games) is in fact dangerous. Guess what? It's NEVER been done. There is no absolute proof that any harm will come of anyone who plays a violent video game.

If there's a danger so clear and so threatening to the American people that Congress feels the need to step on the First Amendment and pretty much say "We're changing this Amendment and making laws abridging your freedom of speech," wouldn't any rational thinking person believe that the danger would have to be so obvious and so clear that there's no argument about it? You're directly contradicting a Constitutional amendment, so you should have a damn good reason to look at a Constitutional amendment and say "We're changing this"

Bottom line is, we have not given any reason to believe this abridging of our freedom of speech is necessary, as there just isn't any evidence whatsoever of any danger from "violent" video games. Thanks for the offer, but we really don't need this protection. Please feel free to use my tax dollars for protection against things like 767 cockpits entering the workplace or 20-foot hurricane storm surge entering the home.

Most of this is culled from a comment Anthony Cumia(of the Opie & Anthony radio team, who also did voice work for GTA:San Andreas and GTA:Liberty City Stories) about the Congressional hearings into the Janet Jackson Super Bowl incident a couple of years ago.



Anyway, this politician in Georgia is just trying to boost his chances of winning, but will ultimately fail.

First off, you're right, Bigman-K, I shouldn't have stooped to the level of commenting on another's grammar when that isn't the point of the argument.

Last post: I don't have the time, nor the energy to defend myself in this forum.

Let me summarize my position.

I believe that violent video games (violent in the sense that God of War is violent), along with violent movies, and other mature content, should not be in the hands of children. This is because, the younger you are, the more susceptable you are to different ideas (that was the theory behind Hitler Youth, not that I'm comparing video games to nazism), thus a child of eleven of twelve should not read mein kampf, nor should he play God of War.

However, the older one gets, the more fluid the rules. For example, I played Diablo II at the age of fifteen, despite the fact that it's rated mature. Why? Because my parents trusted me. However, not everyone is so fortunate. Not every child has good parents. Thus, when parenting fails, the government steps in (the same principle applies in Child Welfare, though I'm not saying that the same severity that comes with Child Welfare should come with violent video games).

While I acknowledge the fact that this politician is probably saying these things to get votes, I believe in the original idea —of regulating violent video games, and other mature media— not its proponent. However, I'm not calling for a total ban of video games; that is in violation of the first amendment.

That is my opinion. I'm sorry that it came out in such a convoluted manner, mixed in with rebuttals and the like, but there it is, nice and neat. Read it, comment on it, whatever. I'm done. Good night everybody.

I like how it's already illegal for children to purchase games outside of their age group/parent's consent. It's this little thing called the "ESRB."

The problem isn't the videogames *cough1stamendmentcough* it's the parents not doing a good enough job of watching what their children buy. If the box says M for mature, don't get it for your 6 year old. It's not that hard.

If I knew, was 100% positive and could not be wrong, that an individual was a child molester, I would condone their elimination. However the justice system is not 100% perfect, it's lucky if it's 51% correct on a good day. Evidence can be wrong, lawyers can be incompetent or exceptionally competent on either side, witnesses can lie or (in the case of children) be made to believe things that are actually untrue.

I've heard of people who were falsely made out to be accomplices to child molestation, while they themselves were young minors and lacked the vocabulary (or legal representation) to defend themselves, and these people are now considered sex criminals for life. That's right, it doesn't disappear when they turn eighteen. Propensity for child molestation is considered a lifelong afflicton and therefore the law will give them scrutiny until their dying day.. so let's extend that a bit, say this unlucky bastard goes out in their underwear to get the newspaper or get a UPS package and somebody's kid sees them. Charges get filed, and that unlucky bastard now faces the death penalty if convicted.

Protecting kids is one thing, passing pointless laws especially when it involves invoking a very hasty and irreversible penalty on someone who may actually be totally innocent, is quite another. That's sponsoring random murder by lottery. Hell, I'd castrate a sumbitch just for choosing to look at child porn, I'd chemically castrate anyone who gets a little too into child beauty pageants for that manner (I mean WTF, just go to the petstore and look at puppies they're a thousand times cuter, you're just a perv if you want to see a 3 year old girl tarted up like a french whore). But, I still don't support killing someone who might actually be innocent-- and anyone, and everyone, accused by the justice system of any crime MAY IN FACT BE INNOCENT.


And about the violent videogames-- I actually feel quite passionately on this issue, I have turned against Leiberman and Hillary Clinton because they've taken this same 'facts last, soccermom voters first' attitude. They're following the democratic party's current policy, pleasing no one and pissing people off, very frustrating to me as I'm a person who believes the Republican Agenda equates to pure evil.

Violent videogames are not bad for anyone, anymore than violent films, violent comics, violent lyrics are. Furthermore, violent media cannot harm a person who has a healthy environment and healthy brain chemistry. The killers at Columbine had everything wrong going on with their life, there was violence, I'm pretty sure they were molested, they had access to weapons and bombmaking materials with no parental supervision whatsoever. Being able to take out their aggressions on Cacodemons and Imps did them more good than harm, it just wasn't enough to stop them from killing people. They were sociopaths, videogames cannot make you a sociopath.

Real-life hurts kids, entertainment doesn't hurt kids. Being over-prescribed on various meds before they hit their 14th birthday is hurting kids, but this blowhard isn't talking about that. Poor funding for schools, and the 'No Child Left Behind Act' which will make our education system on par philosophically and truly with that of Communist China, is harming kids.. but I guess nobody's able to compress that down to a nice tasty soundbyte.

I have seen this for the last week on tv actually. "The Big Guy" may get the votes of the various ignorant folks that live around here but he sure as heck isn't getting mine. Sure it may be silly to vote on just some potential video game law but I like Sonny better anyways. May not be the greatest but I can't say he has done a bad job.

Wow, makes me even happier to be Canadian. We aren't so anal about our media.. We do have violence, just last week an emo douche killed a young girl in Montreal and wonded 19 other people with an AK before Montreal police blew his brains out (or he killed himself, one or the other is true), and yeah, we did become more anal. But here the general focus of elections isn't "protect our children" bullshit. We have other bullshit, but gamers generally are safe.
By the way, if they have a porn problem in their video games in Atlanta, well, I suppose I should be making a trip down south very soon.

Thanks to Hot Coffee, videogames are now compared to pornography. Nevermind you needed a special cheat module or a special code, or a mod off the internet(for the PC version), just to see silly, clothed f'ing minigames.

I also wanted to clarify my point above about people who are accused possibly being innocent; that's pretty obvious, it's kind a core ideal of the U.S justice system. What has to be pointed out is that people who are =determined to be guilty= at some time are constantly being found completely and 100% innocent after years or decades of imprisonment. The thing is they're still alive and able to be freed, if they're lucky. If it takes ten years for an alleged victim to say, develop the vocabulary to determine right and wrong, feel guilty about lying to put some Jew or black guy in jail just because their parents told them to, and reverse their testimony... well too bad, because this political candidate championed a bill that KILLED the person they accused.

Actually, the games they picked up were pornographic. Sorta.

There's whores in GUN, although you don't see anything. Meh.

In the Directors Cut edition of Indigo Prophecy there's a sex scene as well.

But that's just about it.

He fails anyway. They're already illegal to sell to minors anyway.

Video games, and the internet are hardly in the same catagory as child molestors. But if you believed this ignorant canadites ad, you would think playing a video game molests a child.

It has nearly destroyed the Lawyer in Florida's carreer speaking this mind control Nazi like speach on stopping people from making choices of their own. I hope it has the same effect for you... Georgia's already messed up enough with out someone going after idiotic things.

Dang, nobody commented on my first post, though I seem to have set the stage for some impressive tirades. I'm rather pleased with the comments from everyone so far, and I must commend most of you for remaining civil even on a *gasp* internet forum. now if you excuse me, i'm off in search of a 9/10 year-old with $50 on their person for the express purpose of purchasing a pornographic video game, i may not return for a while becuase neither damned well exists beyond a quantity of absurd minutiae. Sure, there are some (and I do mean some, I've encountered perhaps one or two in my 13 years gaming, both were obscure items featured in gaming magazines) games with a pornographic emphasis, but the odds of a child encountering and purchasing one are about the same as that child wandering into a sex store and purchasing a dvd. I can't believe the man who approved this ad is being allowed to wield a pencil. The ignorance is staggering.

I agree with the fact that the Hot Coffee Mod should not be able to be used as a weapon. Regardless of the fact that the content was encrypted on the disc, the requirement of a mod pretty much nullifies the developers responsibility. If we can blame them for that, then I guess next we need to call in The Sims, or World of Warcraft, or Half Life 2, or Rome:Total War (all of which I have seen nudity mods for).

The major problem for gamers is that there are so few vocal gamers. Once the media realizes how strong of an opposition they receive just beneath the surface they would likely immediately search for a way to affirm our beliefs that games are not evil and move on to find other ways to shock/scare us. When the Hot Coffee issue arose the media used cheap tactics such as misinformation or just plain omitting the fact that the game was Mature to unify a front of angry and uninformed parents behind them. I remember they had an interview with a mother of an 11 and an 8 year old. They showed her the mod on a laptop they brought with. She said, and I quote,"I would've never bought this for my kids if I knew this is what was in it."...... So carjacking, murder by chainsaw, prostitution, drug use, gang wars and the like are okay but the second it hits fully-clothed consentual sex it breaks the barrier. Throughout the entire story they failed to mention the restrictions and warnings posted in the store or on the game itself.

To move on. Legislation is completely useless. #1. The odds of any regulating actions making it through to laws is slim to none. They can call them evil all they want but it doens't help if they have no proof. #2. Any legislation put in place would be bypassed the same way any other age restriction is. They'll just buy it anyways...

I do believe video games can affect children. As TheDude said, large amounts of violent media at young ages can desensitize children. As well as the fact that large quantities of fast-paced activities, mostly media, often lead to Attention Deficit Disorder ( I think I have this. I fall asleep almost immediately after becoming bored with something). So now we have parents plopping their 'burdenous' children in front of TVs so they can suffer social, learning, and medical disorders later in life. Boom, now you have generations of kids who are dependent on meds to operate even semi-normally. Okay, back to topic.... sorry, I tend to rant a lot.

Finally, to touch on the death penalty. I myself am scared to death of sentencing anyone, even convicted murderers, to death. Just the fact that the ad so casually lops that in with protecting children scares me. So he's opposed to violence and pornography for children but now that they're safe, let's start a mass execution. I wish we could just send them away to an island or something but even thought that's not possible (Madagascar isn't greatly inhabited is it?) we can't solve the prison problem by killing some of the lesser evil criminals. Although I detest them, sex offenders don't deserve the axe. Besides, it's not put out as a way to solve prison problems. It's just put out there. lol, as a final message, who is more violent? The 15 year old who enjoys playing Halo 2 or God of War or Resident Evil with some friends or the man who wants to mass murder criminals?

Er... It's hard enough coming into an EB games for a mature person and saying "Uh... can i get a copy of Leasure Suit Larry 55?" Or "What porn game would you recommend?", let alone children buying them... There already ARE ways to block pornographic websites but most people find too much of a hassle... I mean do you wanna type 2million web-domains into a little program? Child molesters... er... no comment... they're just creepy...

"I think that it is somewhat natural for a young person to be scared of extreme instances of violence as someone being gunned down or torn to bits. With my adult(ish) intellect, i am capable of drawing a line between reality and fiction, but a younger, more impressionable person may not. I remember such an age when the screams of dying marines in Starcraft made me shudder."

This is perhaps the only solid defending point for the grubby politicians against violent videogames. I also find it a somewhat disturbing point. While very young children are unlikely to go out with Mommy's purse and buy Grand Theft Auto games, it says nothing about exposure. Older brothers likely don't care, regardless of parenting quality, if their younger simbling watches them blow up cars and mindlessly gun down civilians.

Children do not enter the world with life experience to compare everything to. They see the world through very impressionable, very litteral eyes. They take things at face value, and while a character's dying scream is only fictional, it can be so much more real to a child hearing it the first time. Children know the difference between pretend and real, but that doesn't dismiss the possability of an impression.

This has nothing to do with violence; I believe (purely speculation) that it dulls the human sense that violence isn't an acceptable answer to problems, but it certainly does not instill violent compulsions. Ah, well, someone should tell the poloticians that... preferably with a politically sharpened stick.

Going back to how this is somewhat of a disturbing issue; has anyone noticed a trend in videogames? We've come from abstract ideas like Pong; aka virtual table tennis, to Mario Brothers; jumping on goombas and turtles, to Doom; killing pixilated demons, to Half-Life, to Grand Theft Auto, and so on... all the while graphics are getting better and better. Has anyone posed the question: "What happens when it becomes real enough?"

Back on topic, though, this add is a mockery of a very serious argument. Just because ignorant poloticians like this pepper the media with empty promises does not make the caution towards violent videogames invalid. Keep a keen eye on how senseless the games become in decades to come... and maybe it will become a problem... until then, keep the trend alive.

Ok few comments on all of this, and YES i work at a video game store and have for 4 years, this is fact as i have seen in that time.

1)Bigman-KI agree that an 8 year old should be playing GOW, but like i mentioned in my first post, 8 year olds don’t go out on thier very own to the local video game shop with $50 in hand to buy the latest GTA.

Ill start with this, you'd be supprised Id say about 4 or 5 a week come in with 50 bucks to buy games under the age of 10, most of the time, parents just sit in the car, OR go to the other nearby store to shop, useing us as babysitters and giving the kids money to keep them happy

2) It is not illegal to sell M or AO games to minors, but it is against most company policies to do so and many companies will plunish workers who sell those games to a minor knowingly. That being said, many places do still sell M rated games without parental consent which is the issue.

3)As for parents, they do need to do something. I think if anything, the government should take some time to teach the parents about the ESRB ratings rather then make laws. Many parents are unfamiliar with the rateing system, and are interested in learning when you start to inform them. Many parents think that the rating has nothing to do with content but difficulty of the game itself. If there was a mass information about it going out, it would be much more effecient from what I have seen. Sure you can find info in the game mags. but not many parents read them, ill stop this rant.

4) Many parents DONT CARE, I have seen parents run the gauntlet from buying the Guy game, GTA(all version) playboy, halo, to everything else you can think of for kids of everyage. Do i think all are bad, no, but when i have a kids in the store who drops the F-bomb every other word, and telling me to mind my own F-in bussiness when i tell his grandfather about GTA being rather bad, it shows something is wrong, and BTW the grandfathers response, "He is a good kid, he knows the differece between right and wrong right little Jimmy." Biggest responce when you inform parents of GTA's health regen by hooker, " O they are to young to understand all that stuff" If the child is to young to understand it, dont give it to them.

Long rant short, its not the developers, its not all the parents, its not all the games, its not the goverment, and its not all the retailers. Its a majority of lack of informantion, misinformation/misrepresentation, and that handfull of parents who dont care, untill it is to late.

Heh, I live in the UK so this doesn't affect me, but I just thought I'd say that if I saw that last scene (the one with him walking with all the kids) in my town, I'd call the police.

i live in europe and we have pegi laws they always say on the boxes PARENTAL ADVISORY ADVISED now thats a system,and believe it or not IT WORKS !!!

Ok child molesters must get death penalty's but leave the games out of it i have played doom in my youth i have played half life 2 ,i live in europe im 13 and i get good grades and i live on dorm...


and yes i have played violent games and no i am NOT a bad person

if anyone gives bad comment on this...fine

if anyone understands what i mean thanks for the sympathy

ok sorry about the child molester stuff that must get death penalty that i said but cant we just put them in rehab that mostely helps i guess

SCREW CHUCK TAYLOR IF I LIVED IN AMERICA I WOULD KICK HIS SORRY ASS!!!

ok sorry about that but i think he's a consumer/attention whore :p

When videogame-related violence happens in America and the media/parents/politicians get all uppity about it, this is what I all BANAL.

When videogame-related violence happens here in New Zealand (which I have yet to see, noting that GTA and other crime/gang-related games as well as copious amounts of violent games that would be put in the same category as GTA and its ilk are very VERY common), I call it ANAL.

It's so unheard of here in New Zealand to kill someone because of videogames. Like some of you guys, I grew up playing violent videogames since I was 3, the most notable of which was DOOM and DOOM II (btw I turn 18 next month if you're wondering about my age).

Here's how videogames may have affected me:

1 - I'm so socially inept it's not funny... and I mean REALLY socially inept. I believe this to be good, however, because unlike in the U.S. where there is more videogame-related violence than any other country (at least I think so anyway), most if not all violence in NZ stems from gang-related issues that in turn stem from the fact that our country's gangs are following the gangs in the U.S., going so far as to label themselves red (Mongrel Mob) and blue (Black Power).

2 - I'm somehow very good at aiming and shooting with guns in real life. However, to this day I still don't know how to reload a gun, nor how to turn the safety on/off. This applies to ANY gun.

3 - I think the GTA series is pathetic. However, this is just my opinion, and anyone is welcome to have their own.

4 - I would rather play videogames than go out and party at some random teen's place. At these parties, there is ALWAYS drinking, drugs, and sex going on. I would much rather sacrifice any social standing I have should I have a choice between partying and World of Warcraft, and I know that time would be better spent and harmless leveling up my Undead Mage/Rogue and completing quests that I have on standby, rather than going out and drinking and subsequently discovering the "joy" of drugs or f***ing some really fugly chick (or tranny) while drunk.

5 - PC gaming is my life, however I'm not going to skip sleep or fall dead when my comp gets taken away for a week. Goodness knows I think those lind of people who ARE like that actually do need to go out and get some fresh air. I mean, just look at PHWonline forums. They openly admit to getting the shakes or skipping sleep without their comps with them.

6 - Unlike a lot of the general internet culture I've met in online games and stuff, I'm not going to swear and spew incoherent bile in BIG CAPSLOCKED TEXT just because someone said he doesn't like a certain band or seems to be having a serious bout of bad luck while playing against other people.

Umm... what I talking about again? :P

Oh yeah... Mark Taylor, just another one of the uber-conservative hypocrites who probably doesn't seem to remember that his particular choice of music when he was a teenager or even just a kid was thought of by parents everywhere to be evil and demonic among other things.

Such as Elvis Presley... back in his day, strict fathers would apparently forbid their daughters from watching him or even listening to his songs.

There is but one solution to this plague of stupidity: INFORM THE BLOODY PARENTS OF WHAT THEY NEED TO KNOW in an effort to counter the obviously biased and one-sided arguments offered by these moronic politicians and overbearing parental organizations.

Okay ranting over.

Ark

I'm confused by this ad...I thought Chris Farley died. "She's a maaaniac, maaaaniac..."

you know what? now i'm ashamed to live in georgia.
and honesty the current system works if the parent is any good.

Oh yes... this guy already lost.

You know what that sad sad thing is. Other than running for death penalty for repeated child molesters, everything he is running for is already illigal. If your 12 years old and you walk into walmart. You go to electronics and go buy any mature rated games and your sale will be refused. I know im 22 years old and i still get carded at the register for game. ok....so its already illigal for kids to buy violent game AND most parents already have prental controls. So other than the death penalty (which is odd for a democrat) what is this guy running on? ....

Oh won't someone please think of the children?!

At at least that's what I'm getting. As I can see it, children are a nice weakness to play on. Promising to generically "protect our children" tends to go over well with that scared, almost technophobic soccer mom crowd.

Bah!

lol to Broken Scope

You know, I agree with all the bs about them jacking with games, parents should take notice of what their children do. We need ratings systems, sure.

But I have to admit, I LIKE the part about Death Penalty for Repeat Child Molesters.
That damn near made me over look the video game stuff.

Okay

1- good thing punish repeated molester (bastard like this should be on prison for life or better kill 'em).
2-Game ratin is to much already c'mon is just a lil bit of a blood bath so what? (irony aplies here) EX: GTA on PS2 you cant have the hot coffe stuff soo rate better the computer one.
3- guys will search for what girls have and so do girls we might be humans but we still animals.(yeah its true blame me at my mail if you want to do soo).
4-just about blockbuster: burn it to the groound it will shred haunt tension as soon as it goes to public this sucks the monkey hairy butt.
wanna spam my mail prynydood@hotmail.com

They are just freaking video games! Get off our freaking backs! Hey if you dont want your ten year old kid playing God of war just dont let him! Get off your butt and actually be a parent dont just blame everyone else! Oh and why the freck are they comparing violent sex offenders and the creeps online with videogames?!

Don't most video game stores and rental places like blockbuster set an age limit to who can buy and rent M and, if they have it, AO games anyways. Like everyone else has been saying, the parents should be the ones keeping tabs on the kids. There are so many programs out there that let them do that, and if they wanted, they could, you know, NOT GIVE THE KID A COMPUTER! Or not even be so harsh as that. Just don't put it in their room.

What the F**k did video games do to him?
R*pe his dog and kick his Cat, while Murdering his parents, and touching his britches?

Holy fucking shit, its a fucking douche; holy shiiiiiit, what thee fuckkkkk....

Great. Another politician looking to convince idiotic, irresponsible parents in order to gain publicity. This guy is falling into my list of people who are against gaming for stupid reasons.

List So Far:

1. Jack Thompson
2. Mark Taylor

Wow, am I glad i don't live in georgia.

well, another Jack Thompson wanna-be enters the fray...

how can violent videogames be equated to porn and child molesters? and doesnt the death penalty border on cruel and unusual punishment? im not in any ways supporting repeat childmolesters or child molesters of any kind, but the death penalty is extreme.

interesting fact for the canadian guy who tells eveyone how candians are


my girlfreind knew that emo douche bag as you put it she says he was a gun nut when she met him in london (dont quite know how) she told me when she foundout he killed those people

Ok, so I just read through some of these posts... and some of you are right on and the others are a bit off, like Mr. Thompson, or Mr. Tyler. First things first, I quote "Azarias are you seriously comparing cigarettes to violent video games. That’s like comparing drinking a coke to snorting cocaine.
First off Cigarettes aren’t Free Speech. They don’t express ideas, information, messages, opinions and viewpoints.
Second of all there is strong, consistent, undisputable evidence proving that cigarettes are harmful. There is no such evidence when it comes to violent video games and harm to minors. At best all the evidence shows is a weak correlation and the use of dubious and ridiculous proxies"
Uhhh well I've been smoking for quite some time, back when it was cool. Now if you'll notice, in the last 10 years, Billboards and TV commercials for tobacco have ceased to exist, why? Someone (political) found a way to get elected, and also someone (greedy) found a way to make an ass load of money. Cigarettes do have harmful properties, but so does TV, and PC's and the games from them, everyone always Says, "Cigarettes cause Cancer," well here's a news flash for you, CRT monitors and TV's produce so much radiation, that they have to be shielded, and still it can get out, and I don't mean small harmless amounts either. (I've tested them with all kinds of Radiacs and TLD's) Plus the flickering lights can cause serious visual problems to under developed eyes (like those of people under the age of 20...) Also, remember back when Masturbation could kill you? And POT was more addictive than Crack and Heroine? The government and media use Fear and miss interpreted Research to sway us on a daily basis. Also the prohibition, you know "No alcohol at all" that lasted a good fifteen minutes before people started making it themselves, or bootlegging it.
Two. It is not in fact illegal for a minor to consume Alcohol if it is provided by there parent/ legal Guardian, same with cigarettes. It is however illegal for a minor to posses alcohol without the consent of there parent/legal guardian. But this isn't the case with Smokes and video games. Also statistically, booze kills more people a year than masturbation, video games, Cigarettes, Pot, and Paintball/Airsoft combined. And Doctors kill more people a year than guns. (Completely off topic, but true.)
Three, when I was a young'n I bought Cigarettes and beer, by simply saying it was for my father, and I always had around $25 on me. (But then again I had a job when I was 11...

Last, I think Rapist and Child molesters (I mean child molesters, not Jim, 19, who nailed Sally, 16) should be killed, I'd go a step further, and allow the victim, or there family, the pleasure of doing it. So if some dude rapes my Wife or little sister, you better believe I'll kill him, in a very slow and painful way. So I'm all for it, if it's properly restricted, and he's not killing some guy for having sex with someone two to three years younger then him (I mean once there over 15...)
So there, long winded and old, but that's what happens, btw I am an avid fan of the GTA series, and FPS, and anything with violence, also, Mortal combat was a bit more explicit than Zelda.... and that was on the Sega.

Actually you can pick up all the pornographic video games you want in JAPAN! For the most part I think that country really didn't care much when that kind of stuff came out.

Could the makers of "Gun" sue him for using their game in a political ad without their consent?

Funny, maybe it's the violent video games, but I have the uncanny urge to kill him...

Response to Garbage Pail Kid,

Unfortunately, no, they really can't. Well, they could. Technically, you can sue anyone for anything. But they couldn't do it successfully.

Besides, if anything I want to see why it got sepcial attention. Probably just because of the title, but still. I actually have more interest in the game than I did before.

@Nillaz! interesting isnt it? our video games teach us how to operate any automatic weapon, and gives us the know how and strategy to use em...

I somewhat agree with this guy, as some have pointed out. He's only banning the kid that's 12 from buying the games like leisure suit larry. He's not banning them PLAYING it, just that if they are to play it, their parents are going to have to buy it for them. Though he does kinda group us gamers in the same boat as molesters and stuff, and while I understand SOME might think they are the same, I'm pretty sure he sees them as three seperate issues. Hell, If I don't have to worry about some 15 year old walking down to the store to buy the new Deadrising game so that there's probably an extra copy for me... I'm all for it ;P

Course, I could be wrong, and then my whole opinion switches over of course >_> But as is right now? I'm sketchy because he's not making it honestly truthfull about what exactly he's doing or his plans or anything... but you can't say much in a commercial *shrugs*
 
Forgot your password?
Username :
Password :

Poll

Who's responsible for crappy Netflix performance on Verizon?:

Shout box

You're not permitted to post shouts.
MaskedPixelanteThis whole Twitch thing just reeks of Google saying "You thought you could get away from us and our policies. That's adorable."07/25/2014 - 2:52pm
Sleaker@james_fudge - hopefully that's the case, but I wont hold my breath for it to happen.07/25/2014 - 1:08pm
SleakerUpdate on crytek situation is a bit ambiguous, but I'm glad they finally said something: http://www.gamesindustry.biz/articles/2014-07-25-crytek-addresses-financial-situation07/25/2014 - 1:07pm
E. Zachary KnightMan Atlas, Why do you not want me to have any money? Why? http://www.atlus.com/tears2/07/25/2014 - 12:06pm
Matthew WilsonI agree with that07/25/2014 - 10:45am
james_fudgeI think Twitch will have more of an impact on how YouTube/Google Plus work than the other way around.07/25/2014 - 10:22am
IanCWelp, twitch is going to suck now. Thanks google.07/25/2014 - 6:30am
Sleaker@MP - Looked up hitbox, thanks.07/24/2014 - 9:40pm
Matthew WilsonI agree, but to me given other known alternatives google seems to the the best option.07/24/2014 - 6:30pm
Andrew EisenTo be clear, I have no problem with Google buying it, I'm just concerned it will make a slew of objectively, quantifiably bad changes to Twitch just as it's done with YouTube over the years.07/24/2014 - 6:28pm
Matthew WilsonI doubt yahoo has the resources to pull it off, and I not just talking about money.07/24/2014 - 6:15pm
SleakerI wouldn't have minded a Yahoo purchase, probably would have been a better deal than Tumblr seeing as they paid the same for it...07/24/2014 - 6:13pm
MaskedPixelanteIt's the golden age of Hitbox, I guess.07/24/2014 - 6:08pm
Matthew Wilsonagain twitch was going to get bought. It was just who was going to buy it . Twitch was not even being able to handle the demand, so hey needed a company with allot of infrastructure to help them. I can understand why you would not want Google to buy it .07/24/2014 - 5:49pm
Andrew Eisen"Google is better than MS or Amazon" Wow. Google, as I mentioned earlier, progressively makes almost everything worse and yet there are still two lesser options. Again, wow!07/24/2014 - 5:43pm
Andrew EisenI don't know. MS, in my experience, is about 50/50 on its products. It's either fine or it's unusable crap. Amazon, well... I've never had a problem buying anything from them but I don't use any of their products or services so I couldn't really say.07/24/2014 - 5:42pm
Matthew WilsonGoogle is better than MS or Amazon.07/24/2014 - 5:33pm
Sleaker@AE - I've never seen youtube as a great portal to interact with people from a comment perspective. like ever. The whole interface doesn't really promote that.07/24/2014 - 5:28pm
Andrew EisenNor I. From a content producer's perspective, almost every change Google implements makes the service more cumbersome to use. It's why I set up a Facebook fan page in the first place; it was becoming too difficult to connect with my viewers on YouTube.07/24/2014 - 4:50pm
Sleakerwonder if anyone is going to try and compete with google, I'm not a huge fan of the way they manage their video services.07/24/2014 - 4:41pm
 

Be Heard - Contact Your Politician