I would request that if Mr. Fenty thinks this is Constitutional and right, he then make the politically suicidal step of drafting similar restrictions outlawing parents or other adults making R rated movies available for children.

The first time someone tries to arrest a church group for showing a group of kids "The Passion of the Christ" with parental consent, Fenty gets laughed out of office.

Okay Let's start at the top

@ Hank the Tank
Bullying is something that catches most kids by surprise. They really have no consept of bullies before they meet one. I say we empower the kids, let them know that there are mean rotten people out there, teach them self worth at an early age, and teach them there is nothing wrong with a butt-kicking, or kicking a butt that deserves it.

@SlyFox

Christianity is like Communism. It always sounds so good on paper, but put it in the hands of people and it becomes dangerous.

@Zatch
I'm not saying the govenment should play nanny, I'm saying the gonvernment should play reproductive police. Parent licenses. There are s lot of people out there that should not be reproducing. Christianity introduced before a child can tell right from wrong is brainwashing of the worst kind. If you wanna be born again when you are 18, more power to you. If it were illegal to expose a child under 18 to Christianity, we'd have a lot fewer Christians and a lot more logical thinkers. Just like the tobacco companies say "Hook em young"

Increasing the police force doesn't do jack, they tried that. The goal is now to cut off the issue at the source. Art imitates life, except with kids they immitate whatever they are shown/interact with, that's part of being a child.

There is also the "ounce of prevention is a pound of cure" logic to it as well.

Again I'm not for it. I'm a gamer, I think a 4 year old should be able to play GTA and to hell with it even if he did kill somebody because of it. As long as the games are fine I don't give a rats ass.

But I do understand why they want regulation on it, and why it's needed.

@Mister Gone

Do you honestly believe anything that you just said about Christianity? Young children are going to be good and bad regardless of religion; it's simply behavior. To put it in a very optimistic light, it's a learning experience for young children just like it is for young animals - bad behaviour results in action from the parents, thus the child learns what is socially acceptable.

As Hank said, your ideas on Christianity seems a bit off the mark. Please do a little research next time.

@Mister Gone

Your views on Christianity are a bit... skewed to say the least.
I believe God only forgives sins if a person is sorry for doing bad deeds. Also, not all Christians believe non-Christians are goin to hell. Christianity does not breed "insane irrational thinking", people do.

How far into the video do you have to go to hear them discuss violent video games?

"Intent to hurt doesn’t matter that much. Many people are hurt when there was no intention."

Kids can unintentionally hurt themsleves or other while biking, playing football and hockey, so therefore those are bad for kids to, right?

"As for the game. Yes if the game wasn’t there something else could serve as the catalyst. However that doesn’t mean much. If a child wanted to hurt somebody and didn’t have a gun he could use a bat. Obviously one is much worse, and in America children handle both guns and bats safely all the time, it’s rare that something goes wrong."

The point i was trying to make was that kids who are violent or aggressive to begin with will be violent or aggressive regardless or whether the games are there for them to play or not. So while a game Might be a catalyst for some fucked up kid the fact is it's not the games fault for causing it aa another catalyst out there would effect him anyways.

"The thing about games is since they are interactive they hold more influence then a book or a movie. Now maybe something else would set them off, but it might not be as bad."

Bullshit! This is pure speculation and nothing else. There is no study that shows that interactive media has more of an effect then non-interactive
media. It COULD actually be the opposite and interactive media has less of an effect on kids as it may allows a release of their pent up aggression, frustration and anger from blasting characters in the game, leaving less of it after they're done playing.

Since GTA3, National underage crime has gone down. (I read that a game revolution somewhere, they showed proof) Are they both connected, I dont know. But you can't say violent games is the cause of violence. I am a 15 yr old. I played MGS, and I love GTA san andreas. I make great grades, and I dont plan on killing people. It is the parents responsibility to know what their kids is doing. If they dont, then they PROBABLY aren't good parents. I think if their kid shoots or kills someone, then the parents should pay. Government reps are mostly idiots, and JT is an idiot.

Brer
It's not to far fetched look at itaily and franch they start teaching thier kids how to handle alcohol in their teens a glass or 2 with dinner once every other day or so is genaraly good for the body well whine is, beer and the like dont have the antioxidants in it,my point being parents have the right to teach thier kids what they want as long as its not harmfull to others within reason ,look at gun use and hunting its all the same thing,its within reason to keep M rated games out of the hands of "kids" however unlike guns and booze this is not a issue for the courts or for law makers the game industry is doing a good enough job at it.

Parents sadly even have the right to teach thier kids to dislike and hate others based on the stupidest things as long as they and the kids behave themslefs.

This really is a black and white issue ,its quite obvious that guns and booze need to be controlled thus they are controlled,games/media on the other hand has not been proven by the "world" to be worth making laws over unless you are a dictatorship or have vague censorship laws that let you ban game on grounds of promoting vandalism and to let a game based on greek mythos with alot of bloody demon splitting,yet to ban another game set in a fictional world based on bloody demon splitting.

My point is its good to have retailers not sell M/R media to kids because kids need guidance ,however we don't need laws or courts took into the mattler until most of the world thinks violence is porn so until the day hell freezes over the industry just need to enforce its age rating rules,the game industry gets a A- on doing it the movie industy gets a whopping c- even a D.

My question do you do you think that kids don't need to be at least shielded from violent media when they are by themslefs?
How would have have the industry deal with trying to keep age rules in place?

It’s “force of law to the ESRB”, “fine the buyer”, and “games as porn” all in one! It’s like they’ve taken every bad idea and jammed them all into the same bill.

Ever feel like you know more about law than the people actually in office? I must say though, I like the tone The Hill article takes with this whole situation.

Besides the fact that similar laws have not worked in the past, the council has found a few things that aren’t true:

-depictions of rape and other violent sexual acts

Still haven’t seen one commercially available game in the US with this type of content.

-ESRB has determined that M and AO games aren’t appropriate for minors

Nope. They’re merely age recommendations. If you say it’s okay for your kids, it’s okay for your kids.

-The bill is dragging M and AO games into the Miller Test again.

We’ve seen that’s a no-no. Look at the name of the act for goodness sake. Youth Protection from Obscene Video Games. Sorry, but not all M and AO rated games are obscene. Not even a significant percentage.


Andrew Eisen

I think what Mr. Fenty meant to say was...

"I'm, ready, willing, and able to pass this legislation and let the courts spend thousands of dollars of taxpayers money to decide whether or not the video-game industry should be held to the same standard they’ve already agreed to."

I can't wait til these mid-term elections are over and people leave this issue the hell alone again. For another two years, at least.

Already loaded up the mp3. And the moment this law get's thrown out by the courts, I will play it. (Begins with "Another" and ends with "dust"

Heads up to Dennis; BBC News are covering the release of Bully, moderately fairly. They mention its subject matter in context and talk about it being controversial and that some stores aren't stocking it as a result, though fail to mention its rating. The interviews with 2 parents yield 2 answers one says "I wouldn't let my kids play that Bully game. I dont think it sends out the right message" whilst the other one says "I think my kids are mature enough that they can tell the difference between a computer game and real life", both are fair points of view I guess. It goes on to briefly mention the golden joystick awards but the piece itself is no more than 2 minutes long at most.

A fine for parents buying the games for their kids?

Ok big brother step down, I agree with the poster above me I am all for stores not being able to sell M rated games to minors, but to sit their and fine parents for getting something for their kids? The government has no right to step in there.

I seriously doubt this will get passed, all I can say is keep an eye out on the ballots and vote to keep crap like this from passing.

@Doggyspew

If you see Fenty, play Weird Al's "You're Pitiful" to him when this law is defeated.

Here it is on Youtube, in case you're not familiar with it.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2jNBlC4UMC8

I really think that this law is INTENDED to be unconstitutional. It ends up being a win-win situation for Adrian Fenty. First, supporting this laws makes him look good, he cares about family values, the children. Second, due to the fact that this will never become a law (the way it is drafted has made sure of that) he doesn't have to worry about enforcing it. Fining parents 1000 dollars for giving them a Mature video game? What if my nephew comes over to my house? Will I have to lock it in a cabinet. It's impractical and Draconian.

This is a lot like amending the constitution to make it illegal to burn the American flag. It will never happen, but everyone looks more patriotic trying.

Adam Fenty could try to draft a bill that would actually benefit parents and still be constitutional. Like telling retailers that they must post information about ratings, to educate parents. But Adrian Fenty won't do that, because "the children" aren't what he's thinking about.

Further more Fenty should have to pay for this bill all himself it's it's so important to him. When it losses in court he should have to pay the attorney fees for the city for defending the bill and the plantiffs lawyer's costs.

Things are going out of control. The government has no right to fine a parent for letting their child play an M-rated game. Hell, if this passes they buy their 16-year-old a Grand Theft Auto game, they have to pay $1,000 bucks. That's just plain and simple bullshit, as is the $10,000 against retailers.

@GoodRobotUs

Holy shit! That guy is a sick fucker!

Lol, Censorcrat

Wha? Ok, first off, no court's gunna fine a kid 10 thousand bucks for buying a video game. Hell, I'd put good money that the fine for stealing a video game from a store and getting caught would be less than 10 thousand bucks. And 1 thousand bucks for a parent buying the game for a kid? How in the heck do they plan on enforcing that? Random house searches of kids' video game collections? The Cashier having to get a signed statement that the game isn't for a kid?

Gah, why do these politicians make such really stupid laws? Is it November 7th yet? My voting pen is getting itchy...

I don't want to sound like an ass here but what exactly is wrong with this law? I don't think kids should be playing M rated games. It would sure make Halo 2 a more pleasent experience online. If parents decide to buy M rated games for their kids, I guess it's there own business, but they should be made to sign a "I can't complain" waiver. I honestly think the ERSB has the system down pat, now it's just up to the law makers to enforce it. We live on a planet just brimming with idiots and you think anyone will self police? HA don't make me laugh. Banning M- Rated games is an asinine and pointless endevor *cough* Jack Thompson*cough*, but what's wrong with keeping kids away from them? The most avid opponents to these kinds of laws are kids themselves. Yeah it sucks you can watch some digital boob or watch a guy get ripped in half or hear naughty words. That's what cable is for. I for one think we do need something (cause parents are obviously to stupid to do so) to keep the really really good games.....I mean M rated games away from kids.

Get the hell out of my house and my life government. I pay your taxes, what games I choose to play and what games I will one day allow my children to play are entirely up to me. You have no fucking say in how I raise my children as long as i provide for them their basic needs and an education.

If I want my children to live in a very spartan fashion then I can make them. If I think they can play a T rated game when they are 10 or a M rated game when they are 16, that is my choice. Take your fine and shove it.






The future me is a very very annoyed person.

@Mister Gone

The ESRB is mearly a tool for parents to use to see if a game is proper for their kid. If they beleive that their, say, 15-year old is mature enough for GTA, then what the gov. thinks is suitable for her child should not supercede theirs.

I smell a million dollars in legal fees being pissed down the drainhole for the District of Columbia. Adrian Fenty can add this to his resume: "Personally made the city liable for the usual the costs associated with striking down an ill-concieved law that I knew or should have known not only violated the first amendment to the constitution, but had been repreatedly struck down for similar reasons in multiple court districts around the United States." In fact, I give permission to whomever runs against him in his next election to use that quote.

non-retailers (such as, say, parents) who provide M-rated games to a child under 17 could be hit with a $1,000 fine.

Congrats for not only pretending you care about the children, but stating you know a child better than their parents! What's next, fining parents for letting their kids stay up late?

Mister Gone said:
"You approve of someone forcing christian ideals onto a child and warping their litle minds into thinking that empty threats and pompous posturing are effective ways to persuade people?"

Wow, way to stereotype.

Hey, that's great.

So not only is unconstitutional to MAKE these games, it would be unconstitutional to BUY them as well?

Do they understand how this would drive piracy downloads in the States through the roof? How it would effectively KILL as sizeable portion of the industry?

Apparently not...

@psychotix

Where does is say "except parents"?

@ Hank The Tank

I wasn't implying that those were Christian attributes, just that anyone who thinks it's okay for parents to do anyhthing they want to their kids is dead wrong.

Eceryone knows you catch Christianity from toilet seats and not washing your hands enough anyway :D

As far as I have seen it seems like "Think of the childeren" is used wrong its closer to "Think for the childeren".

I could give a tinker's cuss about the parent reputations. I am worried about the kids lives. How many idiotic redneck kids do we need before it is realised that stupid people raise stupid kids. Chemical castration! God, it's always oh where were the parents oh so sad. The truth is the idiot parents were there with a lighter, sharing a beer with their 14 year old screaming "Get er lit Kletus Jr. the police is cummin!" Stupid hill billys.

Not every Christian is an ass like jack. Some of us are just as intelligent as the rest of the world, some of us do not like how Jack abuses our religion and twists it to his own ends.

@mistergone

I said provide an education.

That would imply they would be able to function as intelligent members of society. What you suggested in response to my post would not allow them to be intelligent members of society.

Just an FYI for those wondering if this applies to parents. It does according to the definition. It says (slightly paraphrased) "A person not licensed under subsection (a) (which deals with business licenses) shall not sell, rent, or furnish a video game or computer game rated M or RP under the ESRB Ratings to a person under 17 years old, or a video game or computer game rated AO to a person under 18 years old. A person found in violation of this section shall be subject to a fine of up to $1,000 (a hearing is allowed)."

So a parent/relative might be exempt after they get to the hearing, and argue their case, but they still could be fined. And plus they need to be dragged into the hearing first.

The act barely even bothers to address why a restriction is needed vs education. Just a quick "it appeals to the morbid interest of minors".

I'm one of those "crazy" Christians who don't take every word in the bible literally. I don't think that the world was created in 6 24 hours periods and then a 24 hour period of resting.

I also have never seen how evolution and god are these 2 mutually exclusive ideas.

I also have nothing but contempt for sin now ask for forgiveness on my deathbed Christians. I know that is unchristian like and i feel that is one of my personal failings as a Christian is that i have trouble forgiving people.

My family is baptist. I am not. I was asked to leave my church when i questioned the pastors literal interpretation of Genesis and then Revelations.


Also, praying every night would not get you into heaven.

@ Brokenscope

Then why bother calling youself a Christian. If you deviate so far from the typical Christian, why even bother with the label. Just call yourself a person that has a hard time forgiving people. Why do you have to be in conflict with the label. We all need to become a society of people. If there is a God I'm sure he doesn't have a problem with it. Odds are he's not even paying attention.

If there is a God I’m sure he doesn’t have a problem with it.

That's what I tell people who tell my I'm not going to be saved. I reply "Well, as long as I live my life as a good person, why should my motivation matter? If there truly is a God as forgiving as you say, she'll understand." (that last part makes some of them twitch, and my day is just that much happier ;))

@ Jaberwock

I have a feeling YOUR kids would do just fine. Beleive the values, have faith in the world around you.

Arrgh. That is the most, despicable thing I have ever heard of.

It's like our own government wants to ban fun altogether, not to mention they want to take the place of parents raising the kids. Soon, the days of being children will forever be banned.

I am a christian, and I do agree there are some extremeists out there who take some of the things in the bible way too far, but does my faith in god make me a stupid person?

@Mister Gone

I do agree with your points on teaching children about the world, and I do believe in free choice, I will not force my children to go to church, but I will encourge them. There are alot of things to understand about the world before one can function in it, but I do not have faith in the world alot of things have gotten way outta hand, but understanding that their are some intelligent people out there is always nice to know :).

Im not here to question your beliefs, nor how you view the world, but please understand there are some intelligent christians who were not "brainwashed" :).

@psychotix

I don't know about Washington, but in my city, some crimes have gone down thanks to the presence of more police officers on patrol. Any kids out roaming after dark are picked up/questioned before they can get around to causing mischief.

Also, DC ST § 22-2201 provides excemptions for "furnishing" a minor with pornographic material. Includes scientific, educational, or other special justification for possession. This video game bill provides no such excemptions.

This is just another issue for politicains to jump on the bandwagon with.

Instead of spending all of that time and money on a law that wouldn't work why not spend some money to educate parents on the games, but I still think if a parent wants to get the game for their children let them.

All of this contorversy about games casuing violence is a classic example of causation vs correlation which means there is no way to prove that video games alone contributed to the behavior, anyone who says otherwise is more than likely biased and falsifying data.

...damn enter key...

While there are some Christian families who prefer to force their beliefs on their children, they are by far the minority. Please don't group all the millions of them into one and then say they're ALL wrong.

Yes, religion has been a source of many problems all throughout history, but that's because humans are very protective of their beliefs and many will do whatever it takes to follow through with them, especially in the earlier centuries. The thing is, people are still like that today, like it or not and religion will still be seen as the source for many problems in the future. That's the way the world is and, reagardless of what you may think, that isn't going to change any time soon. Ironically, saying that Christianity is just like Communism and then saying that people should not know about religion until adulthood sounds pretty Communist-like in itself. I'm glad you have your opinions; it shows that you're not one to follow just anyone who comes along. In that sense we are very much alike- while I am religious, I am not because I was raised as such but because I choose to be (and compared to many, I'm not very devout at all) ;)

A Porng, eh? No, no I do not consider myself to be a Porng by the definiton that you have put forth, as I value life in all of it's forms (with few exceptions). Therefore, I could not stomp on puppies. Sorry but thank you for asking. Are you a Porng?

:P

Do you think that a person who would use religion as a pretext to further an agenda is likely to be the kind of person to easily accept viewpoints other than his/her own? I'd wager that if there was no religion people would still find some other pretext and try to dictate how others ought to act. Religion is not the reason people are extremists; it's just how extremism is marketed these days. But people who practice religion, and those who don't, can still be normal, productive members of society, so don't be condemning religion - condemn the people that use it to further their personal goals.
What we need is to teach tolerance - we're all stuck on this rock we call Earth together, and things would be much better for all of us if we tried to understand and work with one another instead of always trying to argue that one viewpoint is superior to another. Sure, it's wishful thinking to a degree, but I think things in the world could be considerably better for all of us if once in a while people acted in the best interests of society as a whole and not just themselves.
Not to insult those who work to improve the world - I know you're out there, but unfortunately much of that goodness is overshadowed by extremism and intolerance.

As for the law - blah, blah, more of the same, though being able to fine parents for supplying games to their children is distressing. Yes, there are similar laws for alcohol and porn, but games are neither abusable substances or obscenity (except for porn games, which existing statutes tend to cover quite nicely.) And I imagine according to the letter of the law a parent giving a drink to his/her child is 'contributing to the delinquency of a minor' or something to that effect. But if the parent is responsible then no harm is done, and I think the police have better things to do than bust into our homes at dinnertime to make sure the kids aren't drinking. It's a crime, but no one really cares. Unless the kid, while drinking with the parent manages to get very drunk (because the parents are irresponsible) and commit some other crime - then an inquiry into where the alcohol came from would turn up the parents and they'd likely be charged with something.

@Benji

Couldn't have said it better myself. I am the type of person to get along with everyone and accept people for who they are not what they believe.

This law is completely bogus and I think like I said before it is another way to get voters to so "Oh look at him, he cares about the children and wants to protect them." You know alot we be easliy swayed because he wants to fine parents too, that screams out to some folks... "Hey this guy is serious."

This is one reason I can't stand to turn on the news in the morning, all you see is ad campaigns vote for this, and next one is vote against it.... it's so annoying.

"And I think games do cause violence in children. I’ve seen my friends kid act out after playing a fighting game and start a fight and hurt somebody, with the same moves he saw."

There is a big difference between real life aggression and violence with intent to harm and aggressive and violent play.
Many kids after watching a wrestling match or an ultra-violent R-rated schwarzanegger movie will wrestle one another and pretend to shoot one another with their fingers or toy guns, BUT, they don't intent to actually hurt or harm one another. It just play and it's perfectly natural.
Of course some kids do get carried away with aggressive/violent play and do hurt one another but they don't really intent to. Accidents can happen and the kids are usually very appolegetic if they do hurt someone while playing aggressively.
Of course there are also kids who are violent and aggressive to being with and playing a violent game may set them off, BUT if the game wasn't there it would just be something else that would set them off instead.

There is a big difference between real life aggression and violence with intent to harm and aggressive and violent play.
Many kids after watching a wrestling match or an ultra-violent R-rated schwarzanegger movie will wrestle one another and pretend to shoot one another with their fingers or toy guns, BUT, they don’t intent to actually hurt or harm one another. It just play and it’s perfectly natural.
Of course some kids do get carried away with aggressive/violent play and do hurt one another but they don’t really intent to. Accidents can happen and the kids are usually very appolegetic if they do hurt someone while playing aggressively.
Of course there are also kids who are violent and aggressive to being with and playing a violent game may set them off, BUT if the game wasn’t there it would just be something else that would set them off instead.

Intent to hurt doesn't matter that much. Many people are hurt when there was no intention.

As for the game. Yes if the game wasn't there something else could serve as the catalyst. However that doesn't mean much. If a child wanted to hurt somebody and didn't have a gun he could use a bat. Obviously one is much worse, and in America children handle both guns and bats safely all the time, it's rare that something goes wrong.

The thing about games is since they are interactive they hold more influence then a book or a movie. Now maybe something else would set them off, but it might not be as bad.

Again I'm for violent games even though they are bad for minors. As long as companies make money, and I stay enterained it's not my problem.

As being in MD near DC, I can tell you that the violence in DC is attributed to one socioeconomic class. Trouble there is obvious when you watch the news about the latest shooting, the parents don't care. They treat the police and law system as their family's parental control. You can say its because they are poor or whatever reason you want, the fact is they don't care. One thing you will find in DC is a liquor or beer store every few blocks that is doing good business (provided they aren't being robbed that night).

As for the law. I applaud the attempt, though I think it will fail. Retailers should require ID for unsupervised kids purchasing M and AO games. They should also receive a fine if they sell to them. If your parents have a problem with you buying a game, then they are doing their job. If they don't and purchase it WITH you (or give as a gift) then its their choice.

I do not support JT and his crusade that games make people violent. Ultimately, the parents should be held responsible and should share jail time with their wayward criminal children for the acts they commit. Maybe it will make parents care about how they raise their children if they can get jail time for being a pitiful parent.

BTW..younger the kid, the less capability they have to distinguish "moral" and "immoral" acts. This is well documented. Hollywood needs to come under equal fire as game makers for their responsbility. Add to that MTV music videos and music artists that glorify violence.

@ psychotix

Kind of funny since crime rate has been going down in DC each year as games get more violent. DC is still a dangerous place but I'd say that the state of our economy is more of a direct impact on crime than games will ever be. People don't steel a TV or jack a car because they saw it in a game. They do it because they don't have the money to buy what they want. Perhaps its the fault of modern media expressing a societal need to live beyond one's means. People who barely make a living buy 40k SUVs and go into their steady financial ruin. This has more of an effect on violence and crime than games could ever hope for.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crime_in_Washington,_D.C.

http://mpdc.dc.gov/mpdc/cwp/view,a,1239,q,547256,mpdcNav_GID,1556.asp

So next before you go on and about supporting an unconstitutional bill do a little bit of research first.

... I'll have the roast duck with mango salsa.

Fines proposed under the bill could be up to $10,000 for those who sell M-rated titles to underage buyers. In addition, non-retailers (such as, say, parents) who provide M-rated games to a child under 17 could be hit with a $1,000 fine.

Unless they rewrite this part of the law to exclude parents (or at least provide some sort of exception) then the law is unconsitutional since it would make it illegal for a child to get M rated games and that would be obvious censorship.

@konrad

"Also, note the title of the bill. Now, what is the case law concerning violence and obscenity again? "

The former isn't the latter. EVER. Obsenity applies -only- to sexual material under the Miller test, and as Andrew pointed out there aren't any M or AO games that fall under that classification. The closest you could get would be importing Japanese H-Games which -aren't- rated by the ESRB.

@Mr. Gone

Read the ENTIRETY of the First Amendment before you post again, please. Also, the entire point of our constitution and the structure of our democracy is to -limit- the power of the federal government, and you want to empower it for the purposes of an ideological/eugenic purge of the population? I amend my first sentence: read the entirety of the First Amendment and then read a basic history of modern western Civilization starting from the 30 Years' War and the Peace of Westphalia onward before posting again.


@Psychotix
"The thing about games is since they are interactive they hold more influence then a book or a movie. Now maybe something else would set them off, but it might not be as bad."

Actually, that has yet to be demonstrated in any study. That a lot of people think it makes -sense- that this would be the case doesn't make it true.

@kickassgamer

The overall violent crime rate and the crime rates for individual violent crimes have all been dropping steadily since 1991-93 (depending on the data set you look at). The graphs that the various game magazines used came from the Bureau of Justice Statistics' National Criminal Victimization Survey (NCVS) which is one of the two rubrics used to gauge national trends. The other is the FBI's Uniform Crime Reports (UCR).

http://www.fbi.gov/ucr/cius_04/
http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/

@The People who support legally empowering the ESRB ratings system

http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/data/constitution/amendment14/

Reference Section 1 as it applies to the First Amendment (No citizen can be denied their rights without due process of law. ESRB Rating doesn't satisfy "due process")

@The People who just think making a government rating system is a good idea in general

http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/data/constitution/amendment01/

The commentary provides a good grounding on the legal context. It is ILLEGAL to create -any- system restricting distribution of -any- form of speech in America unless the State or Federal government can prove that there is some overriding concern for the welfare of the public.

Read the last few judicial decisions and you'll see that the states have consistently failed to prove that overriding concern.

@ Warren Lewis

To much trouble. Just let the parent buy a Grand Theft Auto game for their kids. If they are to stupid to figure out that a game called "Grand Theft Auto" shouldn't be played by younger kids, then they probably shouldn't be a parent anyway. ^_^

How did this go from "douchebag tries to write retarded law" to a rant about christianity and its good/evils?

@sly not all christians are bad people a very good chunk pick christianity not becuase of the bible but becuase they need somewhere to belong and perhaps the commnadments somewhat fit thier morals stance.Sometimes its folks Executeing what they read(ie gay hating)without learning something called tolerence,those are the ones you should generaly avoid(ie whacko jacko).

As for my own opinion on the subject personaly I have no qualms about whatever religion you are in as long as they dont shove it down my throat or start spewing "hate this person,hate that person" garbage.I myself dont have a religion to call my own as im a outright jackass when it comes to fact checking and have found that being part of one tends to do more harm than good(and if thiers a sudden change im sapposed to "go with the crowd" wtf ima individual not a puppet). I am not dissing christianity as a whole but thiers always a group that has a tendacy to cuase random wars/hate and such.

Next on the list is this retarded law apparently our elected officials cannot read or want to read it but interpert it ina twisted way.I mean comon what part of the first and 14th amendment is hard to understand?
*gets out darwin award*here DC you deserve this!

ps-as for my own beliefs i tend to hold science as a ligitimate "sub religion"
if i must be labeled to belonging to a group i also take a few pointers from buddism as well if anyone cares.

"His legislation has the support of several community groups."

Big surprise, these are the same peckerheads who kept Marion Barry in office for twelve years. Remember this gem?

"Outside of the killings, DC has one of the lowest crime rates in the country."

I'm gonna be offtopic, but I'm not entering the hornets nest above my posts (that will likely continue below this as well).

I just have to ask:

Jabrwock, what do you do for a living? You are smart and studious as hell. You catch so many things I look over that I'm hoping you're currently researching cancer, acting as a wartime diplomat, building a starship, and/or fighting crime as a caped crusader.

I will have to address some of the things Mister Gone said. I think your focus when it comes to religion is a little off. I don't think that it is fair of you to take aim at religion. As I believe with everything, it isn't the concept that is messed up, it's the people who believe in it that is messed up. It's not really the religion that should be blamed, it's some of the religious people. I can't believe you'd think religion is bad based off of how some people use it.

Anyways...

"I really think that this law is INTENDED to be unconstitutional. It ends up being a win-win situation for Adrian Fenty. First, supporting this laws makes him look good, he cares about family values, the children. Second, due to the fact that this will never become a law (the way it is drafted has made sure of that) he doesn’t have to worry about enforcing it. Fining parents 1000 dollars for giving them a Mature video game? What if my nephew comes over to my house? Will I have to lock it in a cabinet. It’s impractical and Draconian."

Dustin1986 has nailed it on the head. I think any sane person would realize that it is unconstitutional and that the politicians know that these laws will be struck down but only do it to gain support from the "please somebody think of the children" type of crowd.

Even if this Act were for real, it would be (if I got the right term) fascist. I don't even think parents in DC should vote for this being as it helps to take away the rights of parents. This is just a hardcore example of letting the government do our thinking or parenting for us (not that I'm a parent) instead of us taking responsibility for ourselves.

@ people that want the law to pass

im going on 16 and im mature enough to play gta all i want...ive never stolen a car, killed anybody, never even hit anybody. the game does not affect behavior unless ur a very young age like 1-8 yrs. hitler never had gta and look what he did, just because people are under 18 and play violent games does not mean we're going to shoot everybody and go rape people. besides its all up to if the parents think that there kids are mature enough. everybody at my school has played gta (over 2000 kids at my HS) and never really done anything bad, sure a lot of them do drugs but thats not really in many games, moreso on tv. what about the news, they have more violence on there than most games ex.) war in iraq (car bombs, killings, nuclear weopens, guns, terrorists), if there going to fine parents $1000 for buying there kids a game they might as well fine them a $1000 for watching the news or even watching tv altogether. no way in hell will this pass in court, if they do have them read this post

Horny cam girls, free live video chat...

...