"The IDSA is suing St. Louis over a new ordinance that bans the rental and sales of mature videogames to minors without parental consent. The IDSA�s suit argues that the law violates the First Amendment by limiting the expression of game creators. The law requires parental consent before children under 17 can get their paws on games containing violent material, and stores must separate violent games from other titles."

Should we require parental consent? A law like this, if allowed to stand, will dampen sales. I have no doubt that will happen. It's hard to argue against requiring parental consent though. The worst aspect of this ordinance is the requirement that games be segragated by their rating. That I don't agree with. R-rated videos are right there next to G-rated ones at these stores.

Comments?

This is sort of like the law passed in Indiana a while back. I don't remember it exactly, but I believe you have to be 18 to enter a game arcade. That's just idiotic.

As for the segregating, I wouldn't mind that. I can't count how many times I've had to wade through countless Deer Hunter and Barby Fashion Designer titles to get to the good stuff. :p

The problem with the ordinance and the segregation of the titles is that in a lot of cases I suspect it will result in the violent titles being put behind the counter, which will cut down on the sales quite a bit.

On some level, I can understand them wanting to make sure minors do not buy mature titles, kinda like not letting 12 year olds in to see R-rated movies.

However, I find this whole "violent games desensitize kids" argument a load of crap. Kids are not shooting other kids because a video game says so. They are doing it because they are already screwed in the head, be it from their family life, personal problems, whatever.

I grew up hunting. I have played computer and role playing games all my life. I was considered on of those "outcasts" in high school who did not have a lot of friends. But I never considered going into a public place and blowing everyone away, because my parents raised me right.

I think people hide behind the "desensitizing" issue to try and avoid the real issue: why don't these kids know the difference between right and wrong.

"I think people hide behind the "desensitizing" issue to try and avoid the real issue: why don't these kids know the difference between right and wrong."

That, and for politicians going after games and movies is a lot easier than proposing more constructive legislation that might cost money -- i.e., more money for schools, more aid for impoverished families, more money to provide affordable counseling, etc.

In my experience, it has always been an effective tactic to deny children that which we adults do not think they are mentally or physically capable of handling. Heck, look at how we have prevented teens from smoking, or have kept porn out from between the mattresses of our young men! Why, with our incredibly effective laws, we have prevented all children from seeing R rated films before the age of 17 (unless they are accompanied by a morally deviant guardian), kept our youth from experimenting with alcohol before the age of 18, stopped teenage pregnancy, and have abolished drug use in children and adults alike. Yep, these measures work consistently across the board, protecting our young from themselves. That's why I'm fully behind this law. Never mind that they can download the demo of Soldier of Fortune, or find a warez site, or get a burned copy from a friend. These laws WORK!

Not.

I don't think violence in games has anything to do with kids getting crazy (thinking of certain events in certain schools in US).

I grew up with violent movies, heavy metal, porn and violent games (RPG:s for instance).

Yet I haven't committed any violent acts (ok i was in fist fights now and then) but no crimes whatsoever.

The problem with those kids more often lies in their parents than themselves or what kind of media they consume. Certain movies/games/music might be a trigger but never(almost) the cause of the acts. The problem is rather that the parents doesn't care what their kids do or leaves them alone in front of those violent movies. It's much better to watch with them or at least explain the difference between fiction and real life. Rather than having age minimums there should be some parental responsibility requirement.

Make the parents responsible for their kids :). A bit like your new president says. More important, let kids be kids and have fun.


Marcus

While it's true that the "desensitization" argument is pretty ridiculous, and that passing this law isn't 100% effective, that doesn't make passing the law a bad idea. I'm not saying that games have a profound effect on kids. I'm certainly not saying that hours of Doom will make kids want to go out and shoot people. I grew up on RPGs, too. Nevertheless, the whole purpose of the ESRB rating is to allow some protection of the kids. Passing this law doesn't prevent kids from playing games. It just means that parents are going to have some idea of what their kids are playing. And, as we all know, some of the games out there do have similar content to R-rated movies. Parents still let their kids see those quite often. I support this law. I hope that the games don't end up behind the counter, but there's no harm in separating them a little bit. Maybe it will help to get parents attention, and let them know what their kids are doing. Because that's the real key to ending these problems.

"While it's true that the "desensitization" argument is pretty ridiculous, and that passing this law isn't 100% effective, that doesn't make passing the law a bad idea."

It's not a bad idea. I'm just worried about the implementation of it. Just about everything is scanned right now, so there's no need to separate the games from another. Just have a reminder flash to the cashier whenever a "Mature" rated game is checked out.

And they need to really think about the ratings system. Mech 4 has a teen rating, meaning you're supposed to 13 or older to play it. C'mon, that game is harmless as far as violence goes. They need to lighten up the ratings a bit. A game that gets the equivalent of an NC-17 really needs to be pretty hardcore. Heck, Sacrifice got a "Mature" rating. Those games are not in any way harmful.

Touche, Mark. I agree. The ratings are far less than perfect. And, yes, the implementation of the law would be the real problem. And, I also agree that these games are not harmful. The main reason I support a law like this is to make sure the parents are paying attention. If a kid goes nuts and does something ridiculously stupid (i.e. Columbine), the parent can't very well blame a game that they gave the kid permission to play, now, can they? I just think it would be wise to get the parents to be a little more aware. Personally, when I have kids, I plan on playing as many of their games with them as I can. Ya know, I think those commercials they run are true. Parents are the anti-drug.

"Personally, when I have kids, I plan on playing as many of their games with them as I can. Ya know, I think those commercials they run are true. Parents are the anti-drug."

I play some, but there's only so much console stuff I can take. I think the last platformer I played through to the end was Crash Bandicoot.

Good policy Mark and Murph. The basic idea is to do stuff with your kids. I think parents can handle one or two "offtopic" actions from kids :).

Marcus

I'm just dreading when the idea to spreads to California. My job often requires me to write new ordinances for cities, especially on technological issues, which means I will probably end up writing the damned thing.

I'm completely cynical about these ordinances. There are lots of councilmembers in the world that are using that job as a rung in their climb up the political ladder. Ideas like a restriction on video games would get them get lots of press, makes them appear to care about kids & family values, doesn't cost the city much to enforce, and focuses on a group that has little or no organization or representation. I think the idea is without merit, but that doesn't stop it from being a politician's wet dream.

It will be interesting to see how the suit actually goes. Movie ratings have always been industry-imposed partially to avoid government regulation, and partially because nobody is sure if the government could impose/enforce them without a First Amendment violation. The courts in California already recognize a strong governmental interest in protecting children from non-obscene sexual materials (which are fully protected and viewable by adults), and despite the inconvenience to adults, permit greater regulation to keep those materials out of the hands of minors.

Set aside the policy issue for a minute (i.e. is this regulation a good or bad idea) and read California Penal Code section 313. 313(a) is just the Supreme Court's definition of obscenity with "for minors" tacked onto the end. 313 was upheld when it was challenged by the distributors of those weekly stripper magazines you see in newsracks on the street. The newsrack distributors all had to change the covers of their papers to avoid a violation (they switched from pictures of topless women with dots or stars on their nipples to pictures of women in bikinis). I presume the interior content changed too, I haven't checked (yet).

Now, simply change the focus from sexual materials to violent materials. There is a body of law that supports First Amendment protection for nude dancing and sexually explicit materials, but I am not aware of any similar cases for violent materials. Even if there were, gratuitous violence might fall outside that protection just like obscene acts do. My guess is that a properly constructed video game ordinance would survive legal challenge. It would also be a huge pain in the neck to enforce.

Enough late night legal pontification for now.

"I'm completely cynical about these ordinances. There are lots of councilmembers in the world that are using that job as a rung in their climb up the political ladder. Ideas like a restriction on video games would get them get lots of press, makes them appear to care about kids & family values, doesn't cost the city much to enforce, and focuses on a group that has little or no organization or representation. I think the idea is without merit, but that doesn't stop it from being a politician's wet dream."

Yeah, I agree. It's also an example of how reckless politicians can be. There aren't really any studies that show a correlation.

I hope the measure gets tossed, and then I hope the game industry steps up and tries to police itself a little better. I just wonder how willing the retail outlets will be in enforcing voluntary bans if that's what the game industry decides is needed. The movie theatres tend to look the other way when kids want to go to R movies.