Clinton, Lieberman - Proposed Video Game Bill

[Lord Nepenthean]

In the netherlands, france they show nudity (real, not pretend cartoon nudity) on public television.  There are fewer sex related crimes there, so the evidence would sort of point to the contrary.

The conclusion you just drew there is just as logical as saying that high rates of violence in this country are due to violent video games.  I'm sure you're smart enough to realize that there are just a few more variables that affect sex crimes than whether or not nudity is shown on television.

As for the laws pertaining to pornography - good point.  Still, I never really said I support this bill - just that I don't think it would do anything horribly wrong, because it wouldn't change ANYTHING in terms of what adults can and cannot purchase for themselves.

EDIT: Fixed a verb-subject agreement.

[yap]

That's where you're wrong.  It can easily change what an adult buys.  I'll paint a simple example, but there are many others.

Let's say legislation passes requiring videogame stores to do part of the job parents should be doing and deciding what children are not allowed to purchase.  Let's say the law reads: "if you sell hot coffee enabled games to minors, you will be fined $25,000".  Videogame stores will stop selling these games.  Then you won't be able to get the game.

This is why there are very very few AO (adult only) games on the market.  The Leisure Suit Larry game had an AO version you could only buy through their website.

Again, why should this legislation be passed without ANY type of evidence to back it up?  Simply because you think you won't be affected (you will) is not reason to be apethetic about this.

And no, the conclusion I drew wasn't the same thing as saying violence comes from video games.  I'm saying that there is CONFLICTING EVIDENCE currently available, why can these crusaders against smut come up with some evidence of their own?  Children on the streets of Japan can buy much more violent, bloody, and sexually oriented videogames in their home country, yet there are far FAR fewer violent crimes in Japan.  Oops, don't let that evidence get in the way of anything.  By all means, let's pass some more laws!  Think about the children!

Why are we passing these laws again?  Bleh.

[Lord Nepenthean]

If I'm not mistaken, the UK has a ratings system that is age-based and (I believe) legally enforced.  This makes a whole lot more sense to me than a letter system that also defines age as a sub-heading.  Do we really need both an M rating and an AO rating?  No.  The M rating should be canned.  The difference between a seventeen year old and an eighteen year old is essentially nothing in terms of ability to handle violence or sex in entertainment.  The 18 rating in the UK is essentially the same thing as the AO rating.  If we did this sort of thing, the hot coffee scandal would not have happened, because it would have only affected adults.  The ESRB, as far as I'm concerned, is in part responsible for all the criticism it receives.

Is it true that stores don't carry AO games?  Yes.  Is this idiotic?  Yes.  Retailers in the UK carry 18+ games, so if the M rating were eliminated, to say that nobody here would carry AO games is kind of silly.

[yap]

In the UK it is not illegal (currently) for a 17 year old to purchase an age 18 rated game.  

I don't see how that's relevant to anything though.  As for the letters, it doesn't really matter.  They give a pretty good description for parents to decypher what the game contains (gore, violence, strong language, whatever).

There is currently no law prohibiting a 13 year old from watching an R rated movie, I don't see why there should be a law prohibiting a 13 year old from purchasing an M rated game.

But whatever.