Video Game makers and sellers liable for juvenile crime?

[WayAbvPar]

They will be if this bill get passed.

House Bill 2178 proposes to hold the makers and sellers of violent video games liable if someone under 17 years old commits a crime, due in any part, to playing the game.

Supporters of the bill, like Bill Hanson with the Washington Police and Sheriff's Association, say "kids" are getting the games, and they're becoming desensitized.

"If you sit up and watch this and play these games over and over again... it seems that this is alright to walk up and hit a police officer over the head with a bat," Hanson said.

Give me a goddamned fucking break. If some little fuckstick commits a crime, punish HIM, punish his parents, etc. The games are all clearly rated, and parents allowing their children to use materials rated Mature are completely and soley responsible for Junior's criminal tendencies. Any of you posters who live in WA need to contact your representatives and let them know this shit is not acceptable.

[Samwise]

I'm sure the lawyers (prehistoric and otherwise) will have something to say about this.  To me, it seems like this opens the way for all sorts of regoddamnediculous lawsuits.  "Due in any part to playing the game?"  How hard is "any part" going to be to "prove" in a court?  I suspect not very.

[HaemishM]

What a fucking tool. Kids aren't looking at the behavior in the game and thinking it's ok to do, they are playing the game that lets them beat up a cop BECAUSE THEY KNOW IT'S WRONG. That's the allure of the whole fucking thing. How hard is that to understand?

How the fuck would you even connect the cause of the under 17 year's old act to the video game? If the kid one time mentions the game's name during the entire trial?

Prosecutor: What did you do the day you went on your massive kiling spree?

17-year old fucktard: I played some Pokemon, jerked off to Alizee pr0n and shot 17 people dead.

Prosecutor: POKEMON TRAINS KILLERS!

Fucking retards.

[schild]

If there is ever precedent set for kids being able to blame a game for their problems, I'm so killing a hooker with a spray can.

[WayAbvPar]

WA residents-
Find your legislators here. I just emailed all 3 legislators for my district and asked for a reply from each of them. I will post anything interesting in the responses.

[Special J]

Hooray for Columbine!

[MrHat]

At that rate, lets blame television and movies and books and older brothers and older sisters and uncles and aunts that get divorced and news and newspapers.

Blame bloggers too.

"I was reading this one dude's blog, and he was all like: man I wish someone would just kill all those pussy legislators who think videogames should be banned.  So I killed 2 of them.  I'm not to blame, blame the blog!"

[Stormwaltz]

It's good to see that Americans are keeping up their post-60s tradition of refusing to accept any responsibility for their own mistakes. If it's not games, it's the Media, the Devil, or the Man.

I hate people.

[Paelos]

It's good to see that Americans are keeping up their post-60s tradition of refusing to accept any responsibility for their own mistakes. If it's not games, it's the Media, the Devil, or the Man.

I hate people.

Note that these excuses rarely ever work. There merely make news because we all realize how stupid they are.

[Mesozoic]

Yessiree, once kids realize that they won't be held responsible for their own behavior, juvenile crime will plummet.

[Strazos]

Fucking sad....

This bill would lead to people using a "The Video Games Made Me Do It!!" Defense. "The Devil Made Me Do It Defense" doesn't fly in courts, so why should this? It's so stupid how the US gov't has such a huge fucking hard-on for video games, esp. post-Columbine. If I run out and kill a few ant-gaming politicians, I won't be using a "Games Made Me Do It" Defense, I'll go with "The Politicians Were Too Fucking Stupid" Defense.


This is ridiculous...I've actually given in-class reports and speeches on this nonsense. Most of us here have had games in their lives for a long time, or have even grown up with them (al la Me). We're all still pretty-well adjusted...maybe moreso than the fucktards trying to censor or crusade against games. Any sane person can recognize the difference between right and wrong, regardless of what they do within the fantastic confines of a game.

"OMG, I shot up some CT's in CounterStrike, it was awesome....I wanna go and try to shoot up Real coppers! I'll start with the local SWAT team!!"

Please....to all politicians who take up this position: Remove the stick from your ass, get a grip, and STFU, n00b...Don't make me pwn you with my....LOGIC.

Such a silly topic.

[Margalis]

The funniest thing is, most of the people who support this bill are going to be the same people who would say that gun manufacturers should NOT be held accountable. (Not that I think they should be held accountable, but it seems to me selling a gun called the "Street Sweeper" is as bad as selling GTA)

If kids are getting their hands on games rated MA, someone should be punished, but not the game makers. That's like saying if someone has sex after watching an R rated movie the movie makers should go to jail. There are ratings for a reason.

When it comes to guns, these people ALWAYS say that enforcement is the issue. Why isn't that true of games? Just enforce the ratings.

[MaceVanHoffen]

I came across a related question-of-the-week on Gamasutra that asked, "Do game creators have any moral responsibilities in teaching values to their audience?"  It's too long to repost in its entirety, but some of the 'Yes' responses disturb me:

Yes, but what those responsibilities are can vary greatly. Obviously, who the audience is will matter - a game marketed for pre-teens will bear a greater burden than one marketed to adults. (Assuming that games intended for an adult audience aren't being consumed by pre-teens ... whoops, there's a can of worms.) It also depends on how the values taught within the game world relate to reality. Sometimes shooting invading aliens to save the planet has nothing to do with teaching one to use violence to solve real-world problems.

The question is a bit double-sided. I don't think it's a big deal if games don't teach positive values, but I do think it's an issue if games teach poor values. After all, we wouldn't fault Tetris for not teaching us higher moral standards, or Pac-Man for failing to present a higher meaning to life.
- Josh Giesbrecht, Electronic Arts

That's scary to me mainly because EA is gobbling up so many development houses.  I wonder what kind of values are taught by companies that pursue business deals that, while strictly legal, aren't in the public's best interests?

Absolutely, game creators do. I, personally, have obtained nearly all of my morals from video games, especially playing RPGs. Any form of media, from literature to television to video games, influences those who view it and shape who these people are. Although I cannot think of any specific games to point to this, many games present moral values to the player, either blatantly or subtly, and imprint themselves onto the player. Of course, how much the game influences the player depends greatly upon age and how permanent his/her current mindset is. Some players, like me, are still largely moldable and adaptable, but others might be less so. The best way to present good morals to the audience would be with a powerfully grasping storyline that shows the player, through the conflicts that the player character goes through, just how important and right certain morals are.
- Alex Marsh

Uh, what?  I don't know who the hell Alex Marsh is, but he's an idiot.  All his morals from RPGs, eh?  Blasting orcs with fireballs must be morally acceptable in some way that I do not comprehend.

[Alkiera]

The funniest thing is, most of the people who support this bill are going to be the same people who would say that gun manufacturers should NOT be held accountable. (Not that I think they should be held accountable, but it seems to me selling a gun called the "Street Sweeper" is as bad as selling GTA)

If kids are getting their hands on games rated MA, someone should be punished, but not the game makers. That's like saying if someone has sex after watching an R rated movie the movie makers should go to jail. There are ratings for a reason.

When it comes to guns, these people ALWAYS say that enforcement is the issue. Why isn't that true of games? Just enforce the ratings.

I'd actually disagree... I'd guess the people who liked the Brady Bill and other gun controls, and the laws that let people sue gun manufacturers, are the same people who want to see laws like this.

Alkiera

[Samwise]

You'd think so, but for some reason, Democrats tend to come down in favor of gun control but against censorship, and Republicans tend to be opposed to gun control but in favor of certain types of censorship.

Libertarians are actually consistent in that they're opposed to both, but they're a "third party" and therefore don't count.   

[Margalis]

The Representative who introduced it appears to have a liberal record, so perhaps Alkiera is right. When it comes to video-game related stuff the parties don't seem to be clearly divided.

It is true that many pro-gun people are pro-censorship, and that anti-gun people are often anti-censorship. But then you get into things like the women's movement which tends to be anti-gun and pro-censorship...

Conservatives will cast the argument as personal responsibility, and liberals will cast it as freedom and anti-censorship. So you would think neither party would really be behind issues like this.

I think you saw the same thing during the whole music labelling stuff, where Tipper Gore and Charlton Heston were standing next to each other attacking the same problem. It's really the whole "D&D made me do it" or "Judas Priest made me do it" all over again. Those types of issues tend to create odd coalitions.

[Paelos]

Unpopular as this opinion is, not all games are good. Some are made strictly for shock value and don't really have any redeeming elements. That being said, it makes them bad games. It doesn't make them a defense for murder, or suicide, or stupidity.

[TheWalrus]

 As a huge fan of personal responsibility, that someone would even suggest this is just mindboggling. And since I live in Washington, it appears that I have to write and tell them they suck and should burn and die. Politely of course.

From the same state that brought you the Port Angeles Graving Yard Conflict!


 (As a side note on that graving yard project, one of the local indigenous peoples wrote in to the paper and said because people have opposing viewpoints on an issue, that doesn't make them racist. She then went on to define racism as discrimination based on color, and PEOPLE THAT SUPPORT WHITE SUPREMACY. Since we all know only white people are capable of racism. Grr.)

[TheWalrus]

I've also emailed all 3 of my representatives, and as I was doing so it occured to me...

Instead of punishing the studios for the "violent" games they put out, why don't they reward the ones that have above, oh say, 75% ratio of educational/family friendly games? Would encourage business to remain and grow here, as well as make nicey nice games. Just an idear.

[Margalis]

(As a side note on that graving yard project, one of the local indigenous peoples wrote in to the paper and said because people have opposing viewpoints on an issue, that doesn't make them racist. She then went on to define racism as discrimination based on color, and PEOPLE THAT SUPPORT WHITE SUPREMACY. Since we all know only white people are capable of racism. Grr.)

What's sad is that there is a significant population of academics that believe the same thing. Their theory is that only people in power are capable of being racist. Of course, that only applies in the US, and only when "in power" is in a broad sense, not a situational sense. It's a fancy way of saying that only white people can be racist. A very self-serving redefinition of terms.

[Strazos]

Big long tirade.

Wow, that's the biggest, steamiest, stinkiest pile of mooseshit I have read this week.

Fuck EA, and fuck this "Alex Marsh" person. Morons.

[Shavnir]

Fucking ridiclous!

[dEOS]

What's frightening is that YOU, americans, elected people that think it's a good bill.

d

[schild]

No, most of our hillbilly cousins elected people that thought it would be a good bill. Despite what most think - there aren't enough technophiles here to elect people that would sell Grand Theft Auto to children still in the womb. Dumb ears perk up whenever they hear "violence" and the ability to blame someone besides their children in the same paragraph. These are the same people that buy shit like virgin mary grilled cheese also.

[HaemishM]

The trick in video games is that we want games that are affecting, games that do act on our emotions, but not games that are effecting, something that causes a change. Most rational people can understand the difference between the two states. Just like movies, books, TV shows, comics, or any other form of entertainment, we want games that evoke a sense of passion or excitement in us. The people who want this type of law think that because the games/movies/music/etc. are affective, they are also effecting, causing us to change something to the point where we act. They either truly believe that most people are blank slates of action waiting for some impetus to tell them what to do. I wonder what it's like to see the world in that light. I also wonder why these people think that if kids can be effected by video games enough to become killers, why couldn't the same exact thing happen to the people who are asking for the video game manufacturers to be punished? Why couldn't they also become killers by playing GTA, or become rapists by watching a pr0n video?

Oh, right, because they don't really believe the shit they spout, it just makes good headlines.

Assholes.

[Paelos]

The games didn't make them killers. Those kids were already killers mentally. They just gravitated to that form of game.

[Ralphie]

While I'd like to see more responsibility taken by retailers and parents in granting minors access to games that are rated Mature, this measure takes it a step too far.

If you take crimes committed by minors you can show some correlation (because most kids today play games), but you can't really show that the game caused the crime. IANAL, but what is the point of putting a law like this on the books given how difficult it would be to prove causality in a court of law?

--Ralphie

[WayAbvPar]

The Representative who introduced it appears to have a liberal record, so perhaps Alkiera is right. When it comes to video-game related stuff the parties don't seem to be clearly divided.

2 Ds, 1 R on the co-sponsorship of the bill. There are douchebags on both sides of the aisle.

Conservatives will cast the argument as personal responsibility, and liberals will cast it as freedom and anti-censorship. So you would think neither party would really be behind issues like this.

The local gasbag commentator (Ken Schramm, who swings pretty far left on nearly everything) came out against it, citing personal responsibility, so at least some liberals see it in those terms as well.

If they are going to pass a law about juvenile crime and delinquency, start holding parents more responsible. Explain to me again why you have to have a license to get married (which you can't get if you are in a same sex couple in the vast majority of places), but any pair of retards with functioning genitalia can reproduce as often as they are physicially capable? Sure, we don't want brothers and sisters marrying, but somehow they are free to have a kid out of wedlock?  Which casts more of a burden on society: the ill-fated marriage or the pandemic of unwanted, unloved, unsupported, unsupervised, improperly parented children?

[gimpyone]

I  think DEA gives screenwriters certain funds to write anti-drug plotlines into certain popular tv shows.  However stupid those plots tend to be, why not just do something along those lines?

[Paelos]

I  think DEA gives screenwriters certain funds to write anti-drug plotlines into certain popular tv shows.  However stupid those plots tend to be, why not just do something along those lines?

Law and Order did one very recently with a kid killing someone exactly like a hooker dies in a GTA-type game. "Ripped from the headlines"

DON-DON!

[MahrinSkel]

It would be a lot less scary if it were a Republican initiative, but it's not.  Tipper Gore was a Dem (well, at least her husband was), as is Lieberman, and Washington is a "blue" state, and about as liberal as you're going to find (Oregon maybe a little bit more so) on social issues.  Unfortunately, this is not coming from religious right conservative social values, but from hard-left "let's protect people from their own foolishness" liberal values.  Children are doing bad things, therefore there must be influences in their lives making them do those bad things.  It is our responsibility as purveyors of entertainment to self-censor, and if we won't do the responsible thing, then lawmakers must force us to, for the children.

Republicans don't get worked up over violence in just about any media, their hot button is sex.  This is why an un-cut Saving Private Ryan on ABC could skate past the FCC.  To the extent they give a damn about killing hookers in GTA, it's because you can do business with them for a power-up first.

--Dave

[MahrinSkel]

I  think DEA gives screenwriters certain funds to write anti-drug plotlines into certain popular tv shows.  However stupid those plots tend to be, why not just do something along those lines?

It's the ONDCP (Office of National Drug Control Policy, aka the "Drug Czar"), and the way it works is that the networks are supposed to give the ONDCP a certain number of slots for anti-drug PSA's.  These timeslots, especially in primetime, are very valuable (a few hundred grand for a 30 second spot on a top show), so the networks worked out a deal where if the content of the show contains an anti-drug message, the networks can get back some of those spots.  Supposedly no shows are written specifically to satisfy the desires of the ONDCP, they are merely getting credit for anti-drug messages they already contain.  Supposedly, other shows with pro-drug messages (like the circle scenes in That Seventies Show) don't count against them.  Supposedly.  Also a Democratic initiative, it was worked out during the Clinton administration.

--Dave

[Roac]

Bills like that normally don't get passed, and if so, don't stand up in court.  It's sabre rattling.  The point isn't to get a bill like this law, the point is to stir up the game community to agree to come to the table and avoid getting slammed in the media, or dragged into court.  Legislature is happy to spend US money propping up laws they know won't be upheld, just to get the OTHER GUY to spend too.

[Hoax]

Threads like this make me think of people who say "I love you <insert location here>" during some kind of performance/speech.

Yes, everyone on a gaming forum agrees that those responsible for this stupid idea should be sacrificed to skullfuckasaurus immediately.

Seriously, like Roac said this is total shite and would never hold up in court.

[TheWalrus]

And....heres the first reply I've received.

I'll keep your thoughts in mind should this issue come before me for
consideration.  At this time, HB 2178 is in House Juvenile Justice
committee and today at 5 pm is the deadline for moving bills out of
their committee of origin.  If HB 2178 isn't out of committee by then,
it'll be considered "dead" in its current form for the remainder of
this
session.  I hope this information is helpful to you.

Sen. Hargrove


Note the complete worthlessness of the response. GIVE A DAMN ABOUT ME!! I VOTE FUCKER!