Boston Mayor Proposes Violent Game Ban to Minors

[ShermanTetrach]

Just surfing around GameReplays for CoH modding tips, but this caught my eye:

about article

The mayor of Boston, Massachusetts has proposed a ban on the sale of violent video games. Larry Mayes, chief of human services, is quoted in the Boston Herald, as saying, “Is it going to be an uphill battle Sure. But it's absolutely a battle that the mayor feels he should take on." This is in response to nine recent federal court decisions that have gone against the ban of violent video games.

One of the main reasons cited was the increase in violence in Boston, which has lead to several teenage deaths. The mayor has proposed a link between the "constant barrage of violence" youth are subjected to and the rise in violent crime.

All this talk of banning violent games has raised the concern of young gamers and video game industry advocates which claim that this content is protected by the first amendment and any recent bans have been found unconstitutional.

Even though there are laws banning sexually explicit content there is no law banning violent games to minors. The current ratings system is only observed on a per company basis in which it is up to the retailers discretion as to whether or not an M rated game can be sold to customers under the age of 18.

Now my fellow forumers, what is your take on this? I (and perhaps others too) would like to hear your take on this issue.

[Lt Psyco]

I smell a political maneuver to get the parent's vote for reelection. I believe that he has lost many votes as well for the first generation of gamers have become of voting age (or so I think). This guy just wants back into office and sees a correlation between two things that have one word in common, "violent".

[ThursdaysChild]

hes actually been mayor for an incredibly long time, and very few have even come close to challenging his position, but yeah, its likely another attention grab.

Also, where/when did you find that article, cause i havent seen anything to that effect in the local newspapers (the Herald is fairly sensationalist, so i dont quite trust it anymore) recently, though it may not have been given much focus as our mayor has a habit of declaring a new initiative every other day.

[Exsus]

It's more of the "this has violence in it, therefor it causes violence".
While he's on that he should ban all violent Movies, TV show, Books, comic book and anything else with violence because it must cause it.

[SOFDC]

What's this? Time for government to try and save the peasantry from itself again?

Expect more of this crap in the future.

I'd like to say that not selling Doom 8 to some sub-18 year old isn't going to do one whit of good with things like the forbidden W word floating around, or oh, 18 year old friends, or parents who use the PC/XBox as a 24/7 on-call babysitter, but I know damn well the people advocating the above are too busy thinking of the children to pay attention to the real world.

If anything, it isn't videogames that cause violence, it's someone NOT even giving the little darling so much as a "You know it's make believe, and it's wrong to take a chainsaw to someones testicles because they called you dirty names, right?" that may or may NOT set him up to be an uncontrollable little psycho later on.

[Chrome]

I don't see this likely passing, not after the nine decisions against similar bans. One contestable case and it's all over, however much the good mayor wants to dream.

Probably an attention-grab. It is an election year, after all.

And I also see this as being insanely hard to enforce. Each game would have to be looked at becuase not all levels of violence are the same, and the context of it would vary from game to game. And the chances of teenagers having the means to buy and get these games out of sheer resourcefulness are pretty high. Come to think of it, a ban would likely make things worse--much like Prohibition. It'd create an underworld society of sorts that'd likely be as troublesome as the violence the ban proposes to stop. And older gamers wouldn't tolerate it either--and vote him out.

It seems more a case of deranged minds causing these deaths by not intepreting the divide between reality and fantasy correctly. Ban the derangement however you can, and then you might actually get your votes by doing something rather than being more bark than your bite.

How many people are prevented from committing violent acts of catharsis by simply playing games involving virtual violence anyways? How many are kept off the streets and from doing no good simply by sitting in front of an XBox or a Wii? I'd love to see a study done on that.

I'd also venture to say that the Jack Thompson clones are probably coming out of the woodwork now that he's getting in hotter and hotter water with the courts. Wouldn't surprise me if more reactions like this cropped up elsewhere.

[Alex Drake]

No one in Boston takes Mayor Mumbles seriously anyway. There hasn't been a serious challenger for Menino in years and he tends to get re-elected based on union and elderly voters. Its a publicity stunt, yes, and there is little national will for these kind of things anyway.

[guysnocussing]

So this law bans retailers from selling Mature/Adult Only games to minors?

[Agdune]

I always thought there was more gratuitous violence on your mainstream US television anyway. Am I wrong?

[Energizer Bunny]

File under 'political stunt' and please also link to 'Jack Thompson' and 'going nowhere'.

Politicians who pull this shit piss me off. It's basically exploiting the natural fears of a generation of parents who are generally just one or two generations too old to really have much experience of videogames. Preying on the fears of voters = bullshit politics and I hope this guy pays for his cheap tactics. The only consolation is that I can't see this sort of stuff working for much longer, because pretty soon most parents out there will have grown up with videogames themselves and will know they are perfectly harmless.

[Starblade]

One of the main reasons cited was the increase in violence in Boston, which has lead to several teenage deaths. The mayor has proposed a link between the "constant barrage of violence" youth are subjected to and the rise in violent crime.

If he actually meant that he'd be including other forms of media than just games.

[Herr Kodax]

I personally believe that the violence in video games is fine. I mean you either have to be sick in your brains or you must have been watching humans being decapitated (in tv) since you were two years old to go and slaughter beings just because you did it in a video game. But as a teenager, you can think, and know it's just a game. I've been playing "Manhunt" since I was 16 (rated 18), and never hurt anyone. I totally agree this is a political trick to earn some more votes, but hopefullly someday this will stop won't it? Because in a few years, almost everybody will have played videogames and know they are not the cause of evil - as Energiser Bunny already mentioned.

Off topic: Shame "Manhunt 2" was rated too violent and had much of the gore pulled out of the game. Hope this will not happen in "Condemned Bloodshot" heh...

[variousgamesfan]

I read that quotation and im left unsure of the situation.


It doesnt sound like a ban at all, it sounds like a local enforcing of an age certifiicate on violence.

Sex has this already, and can only be sold to adults.

violence doesnt? well, yes it should.

If its not possible for minors to see two adults fucking it shouldnt be possible for minors to see the most gruemsome detailed postal like games.

I think its perfectly obvious, if anything it highlights the american irrational opinion of sex on screen is bad blood & guts good.

Just so long as for us consenting adults there is no limitations its all good.

[Retroboy]

banning {the sale of} violent games to minors.

Can someone PLEASE change the title of this thread to avoid misinterpretation?

-- Retro

[Cable]

Isn't this a little stupid? Whenever I was refused sale because I was under 18 when trying to buy a game I either went to the next shop, or got an older friend to go in and get it.

[Plasma]

The next shop was breaking ze law cable, as was your mate

At least in this country I dont know about the colonies.

If its rated by the bbfc at 18,15 or 12 you cant sell it to a person below that age,same as movies,smokes and booze. Some companies voluntarily go further and wont sell ELSPA rated games to those below the age on the box.

For example Call of Duty 4 is rated as 16+ by ELSPA but not all by the BBFC. An employee selling this game to a minor would be disciplined for breaking company policy but couldnt be prosecuted by the courts as no crime was comitted.

Im a bit gobsmacked that US stores dont already do this kind of thing voluntarily to prevent any such jumped up snake oil merchant hindering them with laws and codes of practise or to cover their arses in the sue happy enviroment theny operate in.

[Paladin]

Many of the major chains do. I don't agree with it, but they do.

Most hole in the wall mom&pop shops will sell anything to anyone.

There's no law requiring retailers to abide by the ratings. And IMHO, there shouldn't be one.

[Herr Kodax]

Can you explain to which people you are refering to as "minors"? If you mean little kids below 15 years old, then of course too violent games should not be sold to them. But I believe a 15-16 year old can "afford" much violemce and know it's just a game and not to do that in real life.
Personally, I've been shooting things (in video games, that's it...) since I was 13, but I haven' turned into a psychotic killer or something like that. But back then, violence wasn't so "real". At least not in Nintendo 64's graphics. That's why people insist (and are right to do so) not to let little kids have too violent games. When reffering to "too violent games", I mean games like Condemned etc, not CoD. But I can't see the point why a teenager (say 16 years old) should not be able to buy such games...

[Demon_Eyes]

Sounds like more useless lawmaking, waste of time and money. The industry is already self regulated as much as is practical with rating systems for parents to use, even if there was a link between violent media and violent acts. However considering how many studies contradict a link between violent games and violent acts, including recent Harvard studies I believe we are at a point even archac politicians should know there is not link now. Looks like they will have to find a new scape goat. I know! bearpigman!

[Ten Tigers]

When I was young it was D&D and Garbage Pail Kids that were the cause of violence in youth. I guess evil has evolved.

Some people deserve testicle cancer.

[Cable]

The next shop was breaking ze law cable, as was your mate

Quick, clap me in irons for I bought a game underage!

[Starblade]

The proper authorities have already been alerted, Cable.

[Cable]

Dangnabbit. I guess I can look forward to playing 360 and Ps3's in prison.

[Retroboy]

Some people deserve testicle cancer.

No.

Get some perspective. Jeebus.

-- Retro

[variousgamesfan]

Out of curiosity, with the people saying "its a rediculous joke to have violence censored from minors"

Do you also think that porn/sexual content aught be censored in games from minors? What about truely hardcore porn? What about movies with nasty rape e.g. irrevesable?

If its ok for a game to include visually acurate 3d acting outs of slaughtering people whether they be korean gangsters or a milkman or just some random passerby on the street, if its ok to kill them all i nthe most blood thirsty grenade entrail exposing methods, would you say its also ok to rape them in game? It is a lesser crime afterall in pretty much all courts I know of. And what if its a 13 year old does the playing thats still cool?

Personally, I dont want the content of the games I play to be dumbed down or watered thin of its mature content due to the chance that kids will be playing it, looking at euro release of hellgate london.

[Paladin]

I'm totally against any censorship. If parents want to regulate what their children see, then it should be their responsibility to enforce it, they shouldn't be allowed to force unrelated strangers to help them.

And personally I don't give a fuck what minors of any age are allowed to see.

[Mac_Bug]

I donno Paladin, I know you're a proponent of home schooling and all, but it'd be kind of hard for them to be with their kid all the time, and what are they supposed to do if someone like you went up to a kid and exposed yourself?

[Paladin]

Ignoring your ridiculous attack, it wouldn't really change much.

No, you can't be with your kids 24 hours a day. However, to watch something they're going to have to actually bring it home. If you have a situation where your kids can and do bring things into the home that you don't allow, and watch it without your knowledge, you fail as a parent. End of fucking story.

"Well they could go to their friend's houses!"

Yeah, guess what? They already can. And if their friends parents allow their kids to watch whatever crap you're trying to bar them from seeing, your kids will probably get to see it too. And guess what else? That's totally legal. You should probably be more aware of who their friends are and what they're allowed to do at home huh?

Ultimately what it boils down to is: If your kids are sneaking around viewing ultraviolent or pornographic material behind your back, your parent-child relationship has bigger problems, and it's not the responsibility of the rest of the world to make it easier for you to continue to be a lazy, pathetic BAD parent and still have your arbitrary decisions enforced.

Also, lets be realistic: If your kids are over the age of 14, they ARE viewing pr0n in some form or another. Don't kid yourself.

[Ten Tigers]

No.

Get some perspective. Jeebus.

-- Retro

Its not my fault. I played videogames as a child. If only somebody had saved me in time...

[Herr Kodax]

Posted by variousgamesfan:

Personally, I dont want the content of the games I play to be dumbed down or watered thin of its mature content due to the chance that kids will be playing it, looking at euro release of hellgate london.

I couldn't agree more. If a game is being developed for mature players (18+ I guess...) then why not let the developers throw in as much gore as they want? If a game is clearly for adults, there shouldn't be any restrictions. Ok, a 16 year old may buy it as well, but that's fine as well (unless he is psychotic). He can think it's a game after all. Point is, little kids would never be able to get their hands on such games (unless parents are bad), so why dumbing them down? (Like Manhunt 2)

Posted by Paladin:

Also, lets be realistic: If your kids are over the age of 14, they ARE viewing pr0n in some form or another. Don't kid yourself.

With all this cell phone stuff...

[LoCo]

One could point out that the games that have too much gore/violence/etc. are for children or minors. In my younger days I wanted the blood and such. I thought it was good, I thought that was what made a game good, or at least made it better.

These days I couldn't care less. I just want good game play, nifty story and a fun time.

That is one of the reasons developers want the age to be as low as possible. Because if their game isn't any good, but they add in lots of "cool" things that the youngsters like, then they will sell.

[Mac_Bug]

I don't get it Paladin, you just said 14 year olds are all viewing porn behind their parents' back, does this mean all parents are bad parents?

[Paladin]

No, it means that trying to keep teenage boys away from pr0n is pointless, and stupid.

If you were a reasonable parent they wouldn't have to do it behind your back.

[Mac_Bug]

So what you're really saying is that parents shouldn't regulate what their kids see because it's hopeless to try and enforce it, and you'll make sure of that by giving them no help and if parents can't deal with that they're just bad parents.

[bottenbreker]

The gaming industry is a rather "new" industry. thus, it's an easy target. before the video-game industry was as large as it's now, didtn't people blame the movies for violence? and before that, didtn't they blame books for violence? now, some people still don't see the point. games, movies nor books make people do violent things. it's poor education and poor parentship that causes violence.

for example: 2 years ago a guy went to buy a shotgun in Antwerp and shot some people down, for "fun" (including a 3 year old girl i believe). and, he was a gamer. the media obviously started bashing the living hell out of the gaming industry. yet, it was shown that the guy didtn't had a good childhood and had psychological issues. thus, the cause was not the gaming, but a bad childhood and the government, simply cause nobody ever noticed that the guy had a psychological problem.

[Demon_Eyes]

botten: yes movies and music were major targets, in the US there was a lot of this seen through the 60-90's, the funny part is the gaming industry is more regulated in the states than any other medium afaik. To me it looks like the a typical witchhunt we see every decade or so, people see a problem highlighted by media or other form of communication and jump on the bandwagon to fight the "evil corrupting <insert social aspect here>", with no actual justification other than a belief that what they are fighting is the cause.

I wouldn't say it is so much education or parenting that causes this type of violence, in every study I have seen about these kinds of acts it is a mental issue/illness that is at the root of the problem, whether it be genetic, psychological, childhood, etc.

[TheDividedGod]

So what you're really saying is that parents shouldn't regulate what their kids see because it's hopeless to try and enforce it, and you'll make sure of that by giving them no help and if parents can't deal with that they're just bad parents.

So, what YOU'RE saying is that just by not actively helping to regulate what other people's kids see, I'm "making sure" that their kids will be exposed to it? They NEED my help to enforce their own rules, to raise their kids? Implying of course, that they can't do it themselves, which in turn suggests that they shouldn't have had children at all...yeah, I'm with paladin on this one, those would be some pretty terrible parents.

[Mac_Bug]

Yeah except the part where Paladin says it's pointless to keep boys away from them, I guess that makes everybody bad parents.

[LoCo]

No Mac Bug. What he is saying is that it is pointless to try and keep them away from it, it would be better to educate them about the stuff, and then regulate it.

In other words: Do what you can, not what you can't.

[Herr Kodax]

Posted by LoCo:

it would be better to educate them about the stuff,

Here's a video: http://www.newgrounds.com/portal/view/332674

Just to have a laugh in this controversion. But wasn't the thread's subject about the gore in video games and not good or bad parents?

P.S: If the video is considered a little offensive, tell me and I'll delete it immediately.

[stopgap]

im just gonna weigh in and say that it is possible to teach kids not to look at porn... i have no idea how but i have a brother at the 14 year old mark that actively avoids that stuff. (wish i had been so smart).

[Stripe7]

I think the point is to educate the kids about it. Putting up barriers and not educating them about it only encourages them to investigate. In most households in the US the kids know more about the technology than the parents. That will probably always be the case. Unless you teach them to avoid doing so themselves they will find a way, either via a neighbor's unfettered PC or flash drive trading, or email etc.. The main point is spend the time with your kid, teach them and do not let a computer or TV raise your kids.

[troff]

We've had the "violence in video games blah" stuff before - and I'm not going down that path... but if that mayor had wanted to prevent more teen deaths I think video games (violent or not) would help him solve the problem...

Do kids really want to go out into the cold after a good beat-em-up console/pc bashing session and kill someone (and risk getting killed?)?

Edit: Yes I agree the thread should be amended to add "... game ban to MINORS"

Banning games to minors is near to useless IMHO. On Xbox Live you hear 4-10 year old kids screaming like crazy (on the Xbox teamspeak) on rated games like Gears of War, FEAR etc.

Better to instill foundational family values and morals and all that crap - games are just one issue, why not movies (that they download), magazines (that they will get somehow), television (which is not regulated, except by bedtime) and so on...

[SACSlym]

To bring some perspective to this thread, may I point out this mayor, the mayor of the city that is my current residence also attempted to wage war on terrorists from the moon?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2007_Boston_bomb_scare

[ShermanTetrach]

...On Xbox Live you hear 4-10 year old kids screaming like crazy (on the Xbox teamspeak) on rated games like Gears of War, FEAR etc.

Never heard of something like that happen.

From what I've been reading in this thread, yeah, I guess censoring/banning video
games is quite useless. Minors, whether under or over 15-18, will eventually obtain their games they wish.

The ESRB Rating, IMO, serves only as an advisory/warning label. I don't know about AO rated games, but I doubt that I have seen a video game store employee not sell a M-Rated game to a thirteen-even ten-year old, even if their parent(s) were at the counter buying it for the child, with the child at his/her side.

There's a difference between mature, and immature minors who have bought M-rated, violent video games-the mature ones obviously, don't take the content seriously, and it never, if not barely leaves any personality/action changes on them; gamers like that are more common than this Boston mayor thinks, I can assume. The opposite is also said for the immature ones, as many of us know.

However, I have seen some (heartwrenching) news caused by these immature gamers. Apparently, one case was that two street racers, motivated/inspired by Need for Speed Underground 2 (don't remember the title, but I have a copy of it I used to play) had crashed into a 40+ taxicab driver. The driver was killed; the most tragic part of the story is-he was only ONE day from becoming a Citizen. I'm sure some of the folks here may have heard of the story.

[firestorm]

this is retarded. just because a is a subgroup of b does not mean that b means a.

to clarify: all white horses are horses. all horses are white. quod est absurdium!

[Herr Kodax]

Posted by ShermanTetrach:

Never heard of something like that happen.

You have to play Halo 3 on Xbox live one day...I don't know about FEAR or GoW, but Halo 3 is full of them little kids. I don't know if they are 4-10 years old, but they sound way too young. I almost had my ear drums destroyed by their tiny voices and screams...

But I don't think they will all grow up and become criminals just because they were shooting digital stuff. At least not all of them...heh....

[Starblade]

Never heard of something like that happen.

You have no idea how lucky you are.