![]() |
The First Amendment continues to get raped
It is incredible just how far the Government is willing to go to intervene with censorship, products and consumers. It is no secret that many politicians, mothers and other “authoritative” figures are against violent video games. But, I ask you, the gamer, the thinker and the consumer: Who is to tell you what you can or cannot do? Is it the people that put the roof over your head, the people that shelter you till you are at least 18, or is it some ignorant politician that resides in an office elsewhere? It is riddle to me that politicians, who have probably never touched a violent video game, are attempting to pass laws prohibiting the wholesale of “violent” video games to minors.
I really began putting thought into this matter back when I was looking at Halo 2 news, and I saw the article about the violent video game list for the holiday season. As Gamespot so nicely puts it: Quote:
What I found slightly entertaining, at the time, was the fact that these parents and women had absolutely NO CLUE what the f*ck they where talking about. That is obviously apparent, due to the misspelled game names, and listing games that didn’t come out this year. However, the more I thought about it, the less funny it became to me, because people are taking these lists and these complaints against violent video games seriously. Just recently, in Illinois, Governor Blagojevich has been making an immense push to increase penalties for retailers that sell violent video games to minors. http://www.suntimes.com/output/news/cst-nws-vid17.html Quote:
Quote:
Now, I know it is not just Governor Blagojevich that is making this humongous push to somehow shelter our “poor and innocent” children from violent video games. But, as a resident in the state of Illinois, and as an avid gamer, I feel that my rights are being limited even more then they already have been. I have touched base on this many times, but I was playing Doom when it came out. I was 8 years old when I first started, and I remember it vividly. Doom scared the hell out of me back then, and it was intense watching my friends play it. In retrospect, Doom was a scary game when it came out. Doom was the first of its kind, and Doom was probably worth at least a “Teen” rating by the ESRB’s standards (It eventually got an M-rating) (I’ll indulge in the ESRB momentarily). Now, I have been playing violent video games, from Doom to Grand Theft Auto to Postal to Halo, since they have been coming out. I, a high school student now, 16 years old, with a 3.4 GPA, have never shot up my school, never hi-jacked a car and killed multiple police officers, and have never attempted to build a BFG9000 in my basement to blow up the Empire State Building. No, I keep my video gaming world separate from the world that I live in. Oh, and I was playing Doom back when I was 8. I have a really good family. There is no trauma in my family, no abuse, no drugs or illicit sex or anything like that, and my family has what I would consider to be “good morals.” And, like any student, I have undergone my fair share of abuse at school, but everyone gets made fun of at some point in life, so that should be of little importance. And I am fine. Indeed, if we made violent video games the only constant variable in my life so far, we could easily verify that violent video games have had no negative effect on my life. Thus suggesting that violent video games do not make people go out and buy guns to shoot up their school, they do not make kids do drive-byes, and they do not promote illicit sex. Yes, video games might have an influence on children, and yes, if you are coming from a traumatized environment (go do some actual research, outside of all the media bullsh*t, on the kids that shot up Columbine. They had really f*cked up parents, and they where definitely not living in a stable environment), video games might push you to some sort of edge, but video games in no way, shape or form drive children to taking that 9mm to school to put a bullet into their peer’s head. Interestingly enough, the cause and effect of video games is not the key point here. Although, the cause and effects of video games are the reason why politicians want stricter laws on vidoe games, it is not the problem at hand. The problem at hand is the rating system. The ESRB is total bullsh*t, and the only reason it is tolerated by anybody is because people know that it protects their rights to play violent video games – provided they are old enough to purchase them (17 in some states, 18 in others). There is no way that a rating system with 4 main categories can properly gauge who should be playing a video game. E – Everyone T – Teen (Ages 13 and up) M – Mature (Ages 17 and up) A – Adult (Ages 18 and up) Yes, there you have it folks - the simplest, and quite possibly weakest rating system ever conceived. By god, someone please tell the ESRB that they CANNOT properly set an age guideline with such broad and general categories. In fact, the more I gave thought on the subject of rating systems, the more I realized that assigning an ideal age number to a rating system simply will not cut it. Generalizing, which is what has been done with the age system is unfair. I was playing Doom at 8, I was playing Grand Theft Auto when I was 11, and I could handle it. Not everyone can handle violent video games at such an early age, if at any age at all, and that is where the rating system is flawed. The fact is, you have video games like Medal Of Honor, human vs. human violence, that receive “Teen” ratings, ages 13 and up. And then you get games like Halo 2, which consist of Human vs. Covenant (Covenant – nonexistent life-form, fantasy, made up, NOT REAL) that gets an “M for Mature” rating, ages 17 and up. It is not so much a question of blood and violence as it is concept. Yes, Halo 2 has blood, and yes, the combat might be slightly, and I almost dare not say slightly because I hardly mean it, more intense then that of Medal Of Honor. However, the core principle of Medal Of Honor is humans killing humans, opposed to humans killing a non-real thing. Of course, you could be a philosopher, and you could tell me, “Covenants are living, therefore it still is a game that focuses on Living Things vs. Living Things.” But let us face it, politicians have their heads so far up their own asses they probably would not use that piece of philosophy, that technicality if you will, and even if they did, the rating system still remains flawed. If we did fix this problem, if we dropped Halo 2 down to a Teen Rating, or raised Medal Of Honor to a Mature rating, we would still have the same dirty problem on our hands. The problem is simply this: A rating system based on an age is flawed because everyone perceives life slightly differently at similar ages. I sure as well was not thinking what you where thinking when you where 8 years old, but even then I knew Doom was not real, and I knew that what was in front of me was nothing more then a contraption of technology. That was, of course, me, not you. That is to say, somewhere out there, when I was playing Doom, the kids that shot up Columbine where playing Doom. Whether or not Doom had any effect on them shooting up Columbine is beyond me, although I highly doubt it, but something pulled their trigger. Let us just say that Doom was the determining factor in the faith of the poor students that lost their lives on the tragic day that Columbine was shot up. That means that Doom was not suited for them, but other students, same age as them, might have been able to handle the game. What needs to be taken into consideration, is that age is a very narrow approach to setting guidelines. A fine example is school. Everyone in the 8th grade is the same age, but not everyone gets the same grades. So, how is it possible to properly set guidelines for video games by age? The answer is simple: it is not. The solution would be to create a new system, a system that does not use age, but rather lists suspect content. For instance, Grand Theft Auto might be rated: “This game contains vulgar language, explicit sexual references, indirect sexual activities, violence involving human on human murders, drug use and gang warfare.” That would be the ideal rating system. Now, this is where the government and people like Governor Blagojevich step in. The first amendment gives people the freedom. It is not the government’s job to intervene with people and their lives. It is the parent’s job to make sure their child is not playing violent video games. With a rating system like the one I just suggested, a parent could go out, pick up the game, and read a brief breakdown of what the game contains. The review is not age specific, so this way the parents can make an intelligent decision on whether or not their child can or cannot handle the video game. This is a much more logical idea, opposed to “Little Johnny can play Medal Of Honor because he is 13, but he cannot play Halo 2 because he is not 17.” However, what continues to puzzle me is the way the politicians approach the subject. They have absolutely no intent on fixing the flawed rating system, and they continue to make uneducated claims, and laws based off their lack of knowledge. Increasing fines and jail time, and imposing stricter rules are not going to solve this problem. Instead, the government is creating groups of uneducated women, (and please, if you are a female, don’t be to offended by this) and when you put a large group of women together, especially if they are over the age of 35, you are asking for trouble. There are groups against violent video games altogether, there are groups against the wholesale of violent video games to minors, there are groups that think you need to be 18 to purchase a game that is not rated E for Everyone, and there are groups against those 3 groups. And, in the end, everyone gets hurt. The gamers get hurt, because they cannot play the games they want. The industry gets hurt, because it looses possible consumers, some of whom can handle the violent video games, and even the mothers loose – because I sure as hell didn’t obey my mom when she told me not to play Grand Theft Auto at my friends house back when I was 11 years old. At any rate, Blagojevich needs to get kicked in the nuts. He is continuing to soil the first amendment, and he obviously has no knowledge of video games. And the whole subject of violent video games, and the ESRB needs to be carefully examined by someone other then me. I am just a gamer that cares, and I occasionally like to express my opinion on the subject. And finally, I’d like to give a shout out to this mom, wherever she is, because she is one of the few intelligent mothers that has voiced her opinion on the subject so far: Quote:
If you read all that, and you disagree with me, that is fine. However, knowing that you are all gamers, I hope that you might be able to at least meet me halfway on the issue. |
Re: The First Amendment continues to get raped
I have no problem with the ESRB, and never had.
What I dont understand, is that parents will buy their kid a game like "Grand theft auto" or "Manhunt" then realize its severely violent, and complain about it. But the games have labeled ratings on the front. 18A, or M. Would this same mother buy the movie "Saw" for her child? No. Why not? Whats the difference? I think its stupidity and ignorance. You dont buy your child a violent movie, then complain because its violent. Yet they get away with htis sh*t with games. If anything, they should be more lienient with games, becfause its all VR, meaning its not real. No real people, no real violence, no real killing, no real explosions. Yet in movies, its all real people, in some educational movies they show decapitation, severed limbs, etc. It boggles the mind. |
Re: The First Amendment continues to get raped
Those people complaining have probably never played or bought a video game in their life.
They are just people who have no purpose in life, no ambitions or dreams. So to keep themselves occupied they do stuff like this. It's pathetic, really, and I wouldn't be suprised if ESRB and the Government put up with them because they are amusing. I'll be 18 in half a year anyway...so I'll never have a problem buying a video game. I don't really care about the rating system, it doesnt mean anything to me. |
Re: The First Amendment continues to get raped
There's a simple solution. Make parental/adult consent a requirement for all articles of media unsuitable for children 16 and under.
|
Re: The First Amendment continues to get raped
You can't dictate what material is suitable for children 16 or under though. You can only set guidelines. The reason I suggested an age-free rating system is because everyone differs. And if you have a parent that thinks their kid can handle an M rated game, but doesn't buy it for them because the game is rated M, then they have been a victim of the current rating system. The ESRB is a horrible rating system, and the only reason people put up with it is because they are either too old to care anymore, or because they want their right to play mature video games protected. Regardless, it probably won't change, it's nice to think hypothetically.
|
Re: The First Amendment continues to get raped
I honestly dont think its that big of a deal if this passes. It probably wont, but even if it does, its not a big deal to me. Maybe if I was 14 or something Id think otherwise, but I'll be 18 in a month. But really, if parents still want their kids to have these games, they can simply buy them for them. And if they dont, this helps to prevent them from getting the game without their parents permission.
|
Re: The First Amendment continues to get raped
Why don't you want ESRB ratings enforced? If they were stringently enforced we wouldn't have this bull**** about trying to ban violent video games and the evangelical moms bitching. An enforced rating system takes the heat off the industry and puts it on the parents for not being aware of what their little kids are playing.
|
Re: The First Amendment continues to get raped
I think the rating system similar to the TV and movie systems should be adopted for games so that these parents will shut the hell up.
G for everyone 7+ for mildly violent 13+ for teen 17+ for mature I think this is something that these parents would find easier to understand. |
Re: The First Amendment continues to get raped
Quote:
|
Re: The First Amendment continues to get raped
Buying porn? What century are you living in. People don't buy porn anymore......unless they are like sex addicts or something......
|
Re: The First Amendment continues to get raped
I'll have you know I'm no sex addict, however I do have a pr0n.. so explain that one..
"You think this is an awkward moment, once during sex I called lois frank, the balls in your court sherlock." |
Re: The First Amendment continues to get raped
While there should definetely be a rating system, it definetely shouldn't be set in stone, because every family and every kid is different.
I hate the media for sensationalizing everything about this video game hate going on. It's the same with all these enviromental nutballs sensationalizing everything we do to the environment which is actually very little. The role of deciding what is appropriate for their kids is up to the parents, plain and simple. |
Re: The First Amendment continues to get raped
Quote:
Wait...Thats suppoused to magically shut everyone up? Dont we allready have the ESRB, which is remarkably similar to that? Would adding one little category really make it easier to understand/ shut everyone up? Honestly, there's nothing wrong with the esrb as it is. |
Re: The First Amendment continues to get raped
Quote:
I think what he's saying is that instead of having "T" or "M," which some parents may not immediately understand (and God forbid that do research), the ESRB should have their rating system with categories separated by the age. So rather than a parent seeing "M" and thinking, "Oh, that must mean 'for Most everybody'" he/she would see "17+" and realize, "Oh, that must be for people 17 years of age and older." Or something. *shrugs and walks away* |
Re: The First Amendment continues to get raped
Now what does the First Amendment have to do with all this? The First Amendment prohibits the government from abridging freedom of speech or the free exercise thereof. Where in all this would this be happening?
The proposed law would prevent minors from buying games with a certain rating. That's not censorship. Censorship would be if the game was banned outright so that nobody could buy it. And if parents can still buy the game for their kids if they think it's appropriate...then what exactly is the problem? Quibble with the particular ratings all you want (I myself have issues with how the MPAA rates certain movies), but the First Amendment and the freedom of speech it protects has nothing to do with it. |
All times are GMT -4. The time now is 01:58 AM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
GameTavern