It seems, regardless of buddying with the ESRB or not, that this particular politician is sending out the right message, rather than demonizing the games market and gaming in general, he is making sure that parents are properly informed. This has to be the primary task. Educate people on the ratings system. Maybe make the ratings simpler, and try and make some of these less than bright parents understand that just because its a game, doesn't mean its for children.

@Neebs

Oh...the possiblities...

Good reminder though, of something parents should be doing anyways...

A lawyer who doesn't use hyperboles, scare tactics, or ambulance-chasing to describe the ESRB...?

I need to lie down, this is not right...

about time someone got the right idea.

@neebs
oh yes. the possibilities unfold!

Yes Gweedo, thats the way it goes down over in the colonies... But thats their laws, and who are we to question it?
The idea of a constitution or bill of rights is fantastic, and something every country should have. The issue comes from how they are written and whether its content is appropriate some 320 years after it was originally authored.

Same piece of paper lets every adult own a gun, and then you get incidents like Omaha yesterday. Has that been blamed on video games yet?

@ Qweedo

Kid tries to buy Saw III - Legal and protected by the first amendment
Kid tries to buy Manhunt 2 - Legal and protected by the first amendment
Kid tries to buy Horny House Wife X - Illegal Was ruled constitutional to prevent the sale of pornographic material to children.

There are no laws preventing children from buying movies or games as long as they are not classified as pornographic.

If, after a certain age, I decide that my child can handle playing more "adult"-themed games, then I shouldn't be chastised or made to feel like so by our elected officials who seem to think that violent games are causing more problems than they actually are.

However, at least this guy isn't grandstanding. He's actually making a coherent suggestion, instead of endlessly babbling about how violent games are bad for our children.

@gweedo

It comes down to the concept of We the People. While the government can't, legally, prevent most pornography from being made because of the constituion, we can draft laws to prevent the sale of it to minors. This is largely because we, as a society, agree that kind of sexual material isn't healthy for them.

Gweedo,
Funny thing about the US's inconsistancy is it's lack of being able to tell the difference between fantasy and reality.

Most notably are the age limiting laws throughout the country, on every level of government.

Comparing the laws regarding what can and can't be bought (movies (including porn), magazines (including porn), chemical products (alcohol, tobacco, etc), etc) and what an individual can DO legally and at what age is most interesting.

For example, here is a list of Age of Consents from around the world, including the US. Compare that to what one is allowed to buy as far as porn goes and then compare that too to the constantly proposed age limiting laws regarding video games, where the age limit is determined by the ESRB or other rating system.

Seriously, where is the logic and intelligence in the legal system?

Nightwng2000
NW2K Software

For example, here is a list of Age of Consents from around the world, including the US.

Where? (>_>)

That photo was either clearly staged, or the this guy is a huge fan of Phoenix Wright

MP,
Nah, he was probably just pointing at a board display or something. :)

Somehow, I just can't imagine REAL courtroom battles being so dramatic as on TV. :)

Nightwng2000
NW2K Software

Gweedo i'd just like to add that there isn't a single thing on the Magna Carta that is now applicable in UK law. It has all been superceded by other laws. We need a modern Magna Carta in the UK now. To stop the erosion of our civil liberties that people seem all too willing to give up.

@ Nightwing:
"Somehow, I just can’t imagine REAL courtroom battles being so dramatic as on TV."

I was reading the testimony of the guys over the Facebook trial... if that's any indication of what a majority of cases are like, then I'd go there to catch up on my sleep.

http://www.02138mag.com/magazine/article/1724.html
http://www.02138mag.com/magazine/article/1764.html

Thomas,
"Night, you say “It shouldn’t be an issue of whether SOCIETY decides what is or is not appropriate for children”, but we do with porno… so which is it? Should it or should it not be an issue? I think this is gweedo’s point."

To be honest, I wasn't old enough to make the same argument back when laws were being considered to "protect the children" from any material deemed as "pornographic" or even laws regarding "community standards" or all the laws and policies arguming "moral majority" or "family values".

But, yes, I WOULD have made the same argument about violating the Rights, not only of individuals, but of Parents that I just used about video games.

Just as I would if someone argued that exposing children to bigotry and hate in the teaching of religion is harmful to them and that they need to be protected from such teachings. It is truly the Right of the individual, and even Parent, to decide what is or is not appropriate for themselves or their own children.

One might yank out a XXX movie and argue "Is this appropriate for children?". But I would come back with "No matter WHAT you pull out, that decision isn't mine to make in regards to children who are not mine. It should be the decision of the specific child's Parent as to what is or is not appropriate to expose their child to. It may not be the same things that you or I would choose for our own children, but that doesn't make the Parent a 'bad' Parent."

Note also that there is a difference between exposing a child to various media and allowing/forcing them to PARTICIPATE IN that media. Allowing them to watch an XXX movie isn't the same as making/allowing them to be in child porn. And showing them an educational video about sexual positions isn't the same as letting them have sexual relations. Actual participation has it's own sets of arguments (Age of Consent issues, Rights of a child, differences in laws regarding child incest versus adult incest, etc). Actual real participation (as opposed to fictional participation such as in video games) is entering an arena outside the Freedom of Speech issue. So when I argue here about the Rights of Individuals and Parents to make their own decisions for themselves and their own children, I'm arguing about issues that don't require a child's direct participation in the real world.

That sounds a little confusing, but I hope that comes close to explaining my views on what I see as different situations. I used the Age of Consent to compare the laws regarding "age limiting laws". I just find it odd, for example, if a teacher has sexual relations with a 15 year old boy in SC and she can't be charged with a sexual crime or labeled a sexual predator (though if you look up various news stories, you even see inconsistancy regarding various cases there in SC) but there are folks who would say that same 15 year old boy shouldn't be able to buy Halo 3 until he's 17 or 18, can't join the military and die for his country til he's 18, and can't get drunk legally til he's 21. As it applies to "age limiting", it seems... stupid.

Nightwng2000
NW2K Software

check the ESRB rateings....DUH morons

as a parent its sorta your job

I feel I can speak with some authority about this. I lived in Mississippi for a number of years. Whatever this guy is selling; don't buy into it. They should turn the state into our Australia.

My caption, which is obvious. OBJECTION!!!

To quote ATHF:

*ding* *ding* ACCEPTABLE!

See Jack, Lee, and Liberman(don't care if I mispelled his name) it isn't that hard to say what those letters are. You don't have to call for a dooms day for the ESRB.