I am against anything that expands the government's role. They have too much power already, I have no desire to see them get more.
If politicians want to protect our kids from hurtful messages, they should stop making public speeches.
I am against anything that expands the government's role. They have too much power already, I have no desire to see them get more.
If politicians want to protect our kids from hurtful messages, they should stop making public speeches.
My friend Delzethin is currently running a GoFundMe account to pay for some extended medical troubles he's had. He's had chronic issues and lifetime troubles that have really crippled his career opportunities, and he's trying to get enough funding to get back to a stable medical situation. If you like his content, please support his GoFundMe, or even just contribute to his Patreon.
He can really use a hand with this, and any support you can offer is appreciated.
GamesRadar just posted a fairly great article on the subject.
Kids should be able to buy violent games. Americans need to get off their high horses of hypocrisy. The government should keep it's nose out of people's business.
etc etc
This twenty-year-old boy was distinguished from childhood by strange qualities, a dreamer and an eccentric. A girl fell in love with him, and he went and sold her to a brothel...
One of these statements is not like the othersOriginally Posted by kotora
I'm sorry guys but what the hell is the fuss about really?
I've worked retail in the UK for 10 years now, in all those 10 years I have dealt with Games, Movies, Knives, Solvents, Alcohol, Cigarettes and other age restricted products. Age restriction in the UK is legally enforced I am expected and can quote the exact punitive measures that can be enforced upon a company and an individual who sells the products to underage people, these are for the individual who is responsible for the sale in question:
- £5000 fine
- 6 months in prison
- a criminal record
- dismissal for gross misconduct
For the company the employee works for they will also be prosecuted which in turn means the individual gets sued by their bosses for damages in 99% of cases the damages amount to the legal fees of the company and the fines imposed upon them for the transgression also be aware a company can lose it's liscence to sell age restricted goods for a period of 3 - 12 months though this is an unlikely measure generally dependent on there being a lot of transgressions consistently taking place meaning many companies especially HMV where I currently work would probably close down due to this unlikely occurence happening. A criminal record is there for 10 years minimum and can and will stop most people from getting a job because even though the criminal record can be there for an honest mistake it doesn't matter what it is for you're a criminal. Also to note, I often see children turned down for games try and get a passer by to buy the game for them. Most people would turn a blind eye to this kind of practice however it's actually still breaking the law, except not only you are up for the jump the person who is purchasing the game is also breaking the law and faces the fine, criminal record and 6 months in prison as well as you. So if someone in the UK asks you to purchase a game or other age restricted products for them in a store because they don't have ID consider it first. The only exception to the rule is their parents can buy them the products.
You also have to bear in mind that the BBFC and PEGI ratings systems are both legally enforced these days since around 2 years ago and the VSC training video that is often available is not up to date to include this at least the HMV one is not I often have to inform staff that start new or don't often sell games. In total theres something like 11 different age ratings and enforcing all of them isn't always easy after all valid proof of age for children is hard to find in the UK mostly it's a passport what parents don't often like to give to their children to go shopping with. Not to mention that parents can buy their children whatever games they like, we're expected to inform them that the game is not suitable and so on but often they just don't care.
So if America is considering legally enforcing it's age restriction systems then I don't feel theres anything wrong with it. It's certainly not the end of the world is it now? After all since 1984 the British public has had the legal enforcement of an age restriction system and in the 90s there was ELSPA (later became PEGI) a advisory not legally enforced system and now we have PEGI what controls only games.
imo ratings would be a good thing if the heaviest rating (like R18 or whatever) meant anything goes
and kids can’t buy it but if their parents think it’s all right for them then go for it
buy this for your kids if you want but that’s your problem we really suggest against it
if you’re smurfed in the head we suggest against it and aren’t liable
:bou::bou::bou::bou: like that
Funny you should mention that because that's exactly what the UK sounds like to me from your story. The fact there's cameras on the streets everywhere nowadays and the new internet freedom removal act aren't helping things either.
This twenty-year-old boy was distinguished from childhood by strange qualities, a dreamer and an eccentric. A girl fell in love with him, and he went and sold her to a brothel...
I'm forced to correct myself. This bill apparently isn't like all the others that have been attempted, and doesn't use ESRB ratings.No, that's exactly WHY it's a problem. If the government wants to legally enforce age ratings, well, I'm not going to blow anything up; I don't really agree with it but it's not exactly unprecedented, and most jurisdictions allow either de jure or de facto parental override, which I find satisfactory enough to tolerate*. The problem, and something which to my understanding has been at the core of every single court review of such a bill that has led to them all, every last one, being struck down, is that the government cannot make a third-party ratings system a legal guideline.
@ Steve - they have all this enforcement, but guess what? Kids up and down the country are still playing this stuff. Even if it's not a problem (Though reading all the commentary on this bill I'm increasingly convinced that it is despite it being govt. not ESRB ratings) it's pretty much a waste of resources. Frankly I would rather our legal system stop wasting time on this crap and make room for burglers and muggers and such.
No it's not the end of the world. Unless a legal rating and enforcement agency starts to abuse it's power and ban whatever they see fit. As an example, take a look at a small list of games banned or censored in some way in Australia:
Censorship in Australia - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
In fact, because they refuse to have a rating higher than their MA15+, anything that exceeds the standards for that rating either gets censored or banned. Now I'd like to ask you how the government has any business banning any games; essentially telling grown adults such as myself that what we should or shouldn't play. When I'm a grown adult, I should be able to play whatever the hell I want, and developers should get to make the game they want so long as it gets slapped with the appropriate rating in the end.
It's easy to ask what the big deal is when the ratings enforcement doesn't infringe on our ability to play the games we want. But just ask Australians how awesome it is when the government starts using it as an excuse to censor and ban things.
You know that theres a lot of hyperbole over the amount of CCTV in the UK, sure in London it's really hard to leave any building including your home without being picked up on CCTV somewhere within 20 seconds however you need to realize over 90% of this CCTV will be privately owned by shops or even by homeowners who have received harrassment in the past by people/yobs. Orwell's 1984 is still a far cry from the Britain of today and I do note the coincidental irony of the Video Standards Act being introduced in 1984. As for the new act combating internet piracy, that law is a badly made law what is very hard to enforce and seriously needs to be re-thought imho.
I agree age restriction doesn't stop children nationwide from getting their hands on such games, as I said in my post whilst I am legally obliged to refuse sales to underage persons and actually any person who doesn't appear to be around 3 years older than the age restriction (think 21 it's amazing [/ sarcasm]) I'm also legally obliged to inform parents when they're purchasing items with an age restriction for those under the age I cannot really stop them from doing so. Most parents simply don't care enough to actually listen to the advice we give having exposed their kids to films and such rated 18 since a very young age. I also agree that the imposition of a fine, a criminal record and a prison term is over kill for this kind of thing, the criminal record and prison term do nothing but create someone who is suddenly a dependent of the state since they prevent people from getting a new job when they do get out of the prison. The fine alone suffices and not to mention the loss of job in my opinion both of these are problems enough for someone who makes an honest mistake though they're justified if the person has deliberately and knowingly done so. The problem is determining if an action was an innocent mistake or a knowing and deliberate action.
Austrailia is a special case (SPOILER)because let's face it, they're a country decended from convicts and run by morons and idiots ;P love ya really you damn convicts xD, however I do see your point on how government restrictions is a bad thing, I'm not exactly sure how it worked back prior to 1984 but as far as I know the BBFC (British Broadcast and Film Commission) is independent from the government even though it's ratings are legally binding. Same goes for PEGI, PEGI is a european thing and in most countries it is still considered advisory rather than legally binding.
The major difference is that tobacco and alcohol are physically and objectively harmful; in this case, the government is determining what content should or should not be legally available to kids, which is not something the government should be doing.
Kids will still get the games, anyway. This is just another massive waste of resources to make it look like the government is doing something, because "it's for the children!" wins votes.
If the punishment is too severe some stores may find it better to just stop stocking such games altogether, I imagine.
I know how people say the UK and USA are vastly different to each other on these things but look at the UK, for the past 25 - 26 years this has been the way of things I've never once had trouble finding retailers willing to stock the games. As I point out in my initial post most of the responsibility and punitive measures are extolled on the individual responsible for the transaction not the company the fine they get is generally only big when the company doesn't bother to or has inadequate training for staff in regards to the law. Anyone who sells games won't refuse to stock an 18+ rated title such as MW2 or GTA IV because "it's too risky that it could be sold on to someone under the age of 18" Lets say one customer was under the age of 18 and brought the game and the company got sued, they claim the staff member was responsible and put it all on him, the staff member cannot unless specifically ordered to do so (in which scenario he/she should refuse and say "if you're happy to do the sale go ahead yourself" which is well within the rights of the employee) claim the same. It is their judgement that counts. The company is fined perhaps £5000 for that error same as the employee. The employee would be sued for the £5000 + legal fees by the company meaning the company would really lose nothing. Also the benefits of stocking such titles far outstrips the risks and hazzards. A big game release such as MW2 or GTA IV will make a company thousands of pounds per week for a good couple of months. The only businesses truly affected by the risk of this is independent computer game stores on a small scale because for them the fines may be more than the company takes on a weekly basis and they can be forced to shut down because of it.
If this proposed bill was passed and if the government didn't do an Aussie on the United States public (personally my opinion is that they ought to utilize the ERSB ratings myself but hey I'm british what does my opinion count for?) Since most people here talk about getting games from Wal-mart, Gamestop or the like I doubt anyone from the USA here will really be affected by this law except that some might need to show a drivers liscence to buy a game or two and some will have to rely on their parents getting it for them which is no real big deal is it now? Well unless your parents say no which to be fair if they were happy with you buying such games prior to the law changes that have been proposed it won't make much sense for them to not be ok with buying the game for you now.
I can get behind and understand this sentiment at least. I guess it is potentially a waste and a slow incremental robbing of potential rights that isn't noticed if done slowly.This is just another massive waste of resources to make it look like the government is doing something, because "it's for the children!" wins votes.
I'm having trouble finding a spot that I feel comfortable about things like this. I have a knee-jerk reaction against the extreme-Libertarian philosophy that nothing should be regulated. I think there is room for and need for regulation (FDA being one of the better examples for me personally).
I think perhaps I'm (incorrectly) thinking that if there were a little more regulation of what can be sold to whom there would at least be a better argument against those who hate violent games. As it is, when the argument arises that children shouldn't be playing them, it's just swept off the table. Perhaps if the argument was that "you as a parent made a point to circumvent the law to allow your kids to play a game that was regulated and rated to be inappropriate" then perhaps they could stop buck passing. I know that's not reality and it's frustrating.
This is where I'm at. An AO rating means the death of a game. M ratings are handed out almost with the predication that children might see them so certain things are to be avoided. This shouldn't be the case. Maybe it's just in my head, but I feel like often developers have to be more careful with a game to temper it against the ESRB AO rating. AO insinuates that it's a sex game, but that doesn't have to be true.imo ratings would be a good thing if the heaviest rating (like R18 or whatever) meant anything goes
There's already a plenty good argument to rebut the claim that violent video games result in violent children: it's bull.
Just because X may be better off with some regulation, doesn't mean Y is too. Some things, especially when it's related to the content of speech, are certainly better off with minimal regulation as possible. There's a difference between dangerous drugs and video games.I have a knee-jerk reaction against the extreme-Libertarian philosophy that nothing should be regulated. I think there is room for and need for regulation (FDA being one of the better examples for me personally).
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
