December 6, 2007 -
Unlike some of his colleagues around the United States, Mississippi Attorney General Jim Hood (D) hasn't opted for the Full Monty ESRB partnership (which includes a televised public service announcement).However Hood has officially urged parents in the Magnolia State to pay attention to video game ratings. As reported by the Hattiesburg American, the A.G. said:
As a parent, I appreciate that caregivers want to purchase their children these exciting games. I understand that it’s easy just to grab whatever’s on the shelf, but I encourage all parents to check a game’s rating to make sure that what they’re giving as a gift is okay to play.
Comments
Works for me.
Nightwng2000
NW2K Software
Oh...the possiblities...
Good reminder though, of something parents should be doing anyways...
I know you have prats like JT campaigning for this, which doesn't help.
But it seems to me that America would save a lot of hassle if they just outlawed the sale of M rated games to minors etc. Is it the same for buying R rated films on DVD in America or can any child buy some hardcore porn?
I need to lie down, this is not right...
@neebs
oh yes. the possibilities unfold!
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?
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.
E. Zachary Knight
Divine Knight Gaming
OK Game Devs
Random Tower
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.
Still seems to me that America is shooting itself in the foot for the sake of not updating a very old document.
And as for a bill of rights that all countries should have, yes i agree, us britons have the Magna Carta which was made in the 1200s but i do believe it was updated as time went by
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.
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
It shouldn't be an issue of whether SOCIETY decides what is or is not appropriate for children.
It should totally be left up to the individual Parent to decide what is or is not appropriate for their own children.
There are a great many things I don't find appropriate for my own child. But as much as I dislike them, that doesn't mean that someone else doesn't have the Right to expose their own child to it.
Note how the BBFC decided not to rate certain games, therefore denying the sale of those products to ANYONE. The ESRB AO rating is the same, and it isn't government enforced. So, not only are the products unavailable to children, but they are unavailable to adults.
HOWEVER, in the case of the US, it isn't the GOVERNMENT that says "you can't sell it, no matter what", it's the retailers who decide whether to carry AO rated games. Not only are consumer Rights violated by the BBFC's bannings, but so are Retailer Rights. And those consumers are both individuals AND Parents.
Also note, I started off a couple of years ago thinking that such laws sounded reasonable, simply because all I heard were the laws themselves. When I started hearing the arguments BEHIND the laws, that's when I realized True Agendas had nothing whatsoever to do with "protecting the children" and more along the lines of creating dictatorships, small or large, based on personal, religious, and/or political beliefs that were to be FORCED on other individuals and Parents.
Nightwng2000
NW2K Software
Where? (>_>)
I'm astounded - an intelligent politician???
http://www.avert.org/aofconsent.htm
For the age of consent link I mentioned above.
Thanks x(wai)x. :)
Nightwng2000
NW2K Software
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
I think gweedo has it right on in that he's just showing we have a bit of hypocracy with what we feel the government is obligated to regulate. His point is that feel that certain material should be regulated at the point of sale with consequences to age appropriate audiences. We do as well, but only with pornographic (and also the FCC on national broadcast) material. He finds it odd (and it is) that we stop there and don't logically extend that thought into ultra-violence.
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 truly answer gweedo's question... the Constitution is a wonderful thing, but people's interpretation and application of the document after all these years takes away from it's intended purpose often. Overall though, it's fantastic.
Besides, America hates to think that any other country in the world gets anything better than we do... AMIRITE?
"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
Captain Obvious. Third Commander of the Obscenely Ignorant Fleet.
"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
as a parent its sorta your job
Manhunt 2 is an interactive literary work, so it can't be regulated due to the 1st amendment.
*ding* *ding* ACCEPTABLE!