“JOURNALISM NEXT: Video games to go on trial” |
| JOURNALISM NEXT: Video games to go on trial Posted: 26 Dec 2010 08:50 PM PST The Supreme Court is now hearing a case about banning youth from playing certain violent video games. The state of California has written a bill claiming that games with a level of "deviant violence" are having dangerous effects on children and teenagers. Is this a compelling argument or a load of rubbish? The law itself states that violent games will be labeled with a 2-inch square on the front of the box to address it as violent. In addition if any retailer should sell one of these games to a minor they would be held accountable and fined around $1,000 for each violation. In place currently is the Entertainment Software Rating Board which considers the content of each game and produces a rating ranging from E for Everybody to M for Mature gamers 17 and older. Graphic by NICOLE FELDMAN/Special to the Herald New state lawsuits could put the squeeze on video game makers by ramping up required rating codes. The California bill requires a new rating system for any game where "the range of options available to a player includes killing, maiming, dismembering, or sexually assaulting an image of a human being." It branches out to include characters with substantial human qualities, which includes zombies, aliens, mutants, and others. Opponents say this bill is unconstitutional. To prohibit games is to take away freedom of speech. If the law does pass, than anyone under the age of 18 would be affected, including the vast majority of high school students. Why is this dangerous? With there being a fine on games sold to minors it would be difficult for the developers to make games that include any form of violence. If a sales clerk makes a mistake, than the people who made the game have to cough up a huge chunk of change to pay for it. With that happening, they'd stop taking chances with games that had any form of action, and even gamers of adult age would suffer. Also with a smaller window of players able to purchase games the industry will make less money. A game as simple as Super Smash Brothers Brawl could be considered too violent and banned from our age group. Games like Call of Duty or Halo would almost certainly be, and other games like God of War and Left 4 Dead would for sure. With less income the game industry will not be able to make as many games in any genre and will, ultimately, collapse. Is this necessary? As it is, games have a strict rating system. Games that have any form of violence are rated T for Teen. If language, blood, or other acts of violence or indecency are included in the game, then the rating gets bumped to M for mature, or on the rare occasion a game is too graphic it's rated AO for adults only. When it's rated M for Mature you have to be 17 years of age or older to buy them, or have a parents' permission to play. If this is true, then why would there need to be a separate rating system? The games that have extreme violence and content can't be purchased by minors without parental consent. If the parents don't take the time to parent their kids and take a look at what their kids are buying and playing, is that the video games fault? Should society step in and prohibit these things if their parent doesn't? This entry passed through the Full-Text RSS service — if this is your content and you're reading it on someone else's site, please read our FAQ page at fivefilters.org/content-only/faq.php |
| You are subscribed to email updates from Content Keyword RSS To stop receiving these emails, you may unsubscribe now. | Email delivery powered by Google |
| Google Inc., 20 West Kinzie, Chicago IL USA 60610 | |
0 comments:
Post a Comment