Washington To Restrict Game Sales

By Maarten Goldstein, Apr 18, 2003 10:58am PDT

MSNBC is reporting that the Washington State Senate has passed a bill which will restrict the sale of videogames to minors. Stores that are found to be selling games that feature "violence against women and the killing of police officers" will be subject to a $500 fine. The bill still has to be signed into law by Governer Gary Locke, but it is expected that he will do so. There is also a new Game Over column on CNN Money about this.

Doug Lowenstein, president of the Interactive Digital Software Association (the gaming industry trade group), denounced the bill, saying, "We feel that government-mandated regulations to limit access to entertainment products are both misguided and unconstitutional. No laws restrict the sale of movies, music or books, even though some of these products may not be suitable for children. There is no basis for treating video games any differently than other forms of popular entertainment."

Click here to comment...

Comments

60 Threads* | 213 Comments
  • #1 this is a good thing. I don't think children have any reason to be playing the lightly violent "GTA: Vice City" and the wonderfully fun constitutionally protected "Postal 2"

    #2 Parents have yet to realize that all games are not for kids. I think it's good that government realizes this and takes steps to protect our rights as adults to play these types of games, while preventing children from purchasing inappropriate games.

    #3 It's either restrict the sale to minors, or allow crazy crusading parents to restrict the sale to everyone.

    #4 If your parents don't mind you playing these games, they will buy them for you.

    My dad is one of those old guys you see working in walmart these days. He tells me stories of 12 year old kids trying to fool their parents into buying them M-rated games. My father, being a responsible parent himself, makes it a point to educate parents that games do have a rating system and he would not be able to sell "vice city" to children. The music industry and movie industry already have rating systems that restrict the sale to minors. Parental advisory and nc-17 have been in place for over 10 years now and have done a lot to protect authors and merchants and consumers from absolutely crazy crusading parents that want to tell you what is appropriate for your children. I rarely agree with this type of legislature as censorship and nazi-like behavior, but I think this bill is smart and appropriate for today's times when there are a lot of irresponsible parents that let their children run free.















  • you said: "but I would not treat women differently just for being a woman. "

    But that's not true. You wouldn't have sex with a man, but you would have sex with a woman!

    Why?


    Because I'm not attracted to men?

    Stop this ridiculous line of reasoning now, please. Sexuality has nothing to do with this. Having sex with me is not a "right" that everyone should have to be considered equal. It's something for me to give - and if I'm not attracted to men it doesn't mean I'm discriminating them. Just like it's not discrimination if you prefer redheads to blondes.

    You can either read my post, try to understand it, and argue against it. Or you can act like an asshole, miss the point entirely, and pick out one particular wording, twisting it to mean something that clearly wasn't intended, and start arguing about that instead.
    By "not treat differently" i was obviously referring to rights (as in "everyone should have the right to defend themselves against acts of violence") not sexual preference.

    Discussion is not about "winning", especially not if you can not do it by arguments - but only by nitpicking on specific wording and spinning of into a completely different and ridiculous topic. It's about coming away from it a better person. So try to understand my arguments, don't pick out specific phrases trying to actively misunderstand them (even after I corrected you). It does no good whatsoever. You may "win", but you're not convincing anyone else, and you're not gaining anything from it.

    If you're not interested in a real discussion based on my arguments of my reasoning, not in specifc wording or rhetorics, then just stop posting now.


    I think everyone should have equal rights, but it's clear that women are different from men. Different, enough, I think to afford them different treatment in certain situations.

    Why? I mean why not take the difference into account on a per-individual basis. So if a PERSON - man or woman, is weaker than you physically, you should restrain yourself a bit more than you would if the person in question was your physical match or superior.

    Treating someone different because of their gender is just stupid, in my opinion. Treat them differently on the basis of their differences, not on a basis that "most people of this gender has this property, so EVERYONE of that gender should be treated differently".

    That's just as stupid as the racist argument that "most black people in my experience are aggressive and criminal so we shouldn't give black people the same rights as white people".

    The 0.02 dollar question:

    If a 300lbs body-building woman, clearly much superior in strength to yourself, starting beating you, would you not defend yourself because she's a woman and thus has right to different treatment? Would you let her beat the crap out of you and do nothing to defend yourself?


    So no: I don't believe you should beat women, in the general case. But the reason is not "because she's a girl", it's because they are weaker physically. So just like you don't beat a kid for doing stuff that you would normally get into a fist fight over if he was closer to your physical strength, you shouldn't be doing it to women.

    People who treat women differently based on their gender, and not their differences, are just as likely to treat them differently in the "other" direction - like giving them less pay for the same work and such.
    Treating women differently, in either direction, based on their gender is wrong, and if you're willing to go one direction you're a lot more likely to be willing to go the other direction as well.