Horror bestseller condemns videogame sales limit law
Proposed statute 'undemocratic', claims Stephen King
Horror writer Stephen King has dennounced moves to introduce a law that would ban the sale of violent videogames to kids.
House Bill 1423, which is currently being considered in Massachusetts, states that any games depicting “violence in a manner patently offensive to prevailing standards in the adult community” should carry a legally enforced age restriction. If passed, the law would make it a criminal offence to sell such violent games to kids, in the same way that it’s illegal to sell them pornography.
However, King, who made the comments in a column he writes for America's Entertainment Weekly magazine, claimed the introduction of such a law would be “undemocratic”.
The US already classifies videogames in several categories, such as ‘AO’ for Adults Only, according to standards set by the Entertainment Software Rating Board (ERSB). However, the ratings aren’t legally enforceable.
King added that simply banning the sale of violent videogames to children would be pointless because he believes kids will get hold of them anyway. He also said that US gun ownership laws, or the right to bear arms, contributed to more violent crimes being committed than videogames do.
So what’s King’s solution? He believes that parents should “have the guts to forbid material they find objectionable” and “monitor their children’s lives” – which, he said, means much more than merely keeping an eye on the games their children play.
He's is absolutely right. Why should the government waste tax payers money doing a job the parent's should be doing. They thought they were responsible enough to pull of their cloths, they should be responsible enough to handle their kids. If a parent can't handle their children then why did they have em.
The government has to stop trying to ban this and ban that. Selling smokes to children under the age of 18 is banned. How well did that bill do. How much money is gone into that and still you see all theses kids smoking.
Imagine the age restriction on porn was removed:
Parent: "Why should I stop my 9 year old child from looking at porn? It's perfectly legal and he seems to like it."
Making the sale of copied games illegal ? Wow, thats going to make a lot of difference to all the kids out there that download all their games....
Why society allows access to violence and not sexual content
The seemingly arbitrary decision to allow youth access to violence is because the U.S. (i.e., Exxon, Shell, etc.) needs access to willing cannon fodder (teens who feel immortal and heroic).
The seemingly arbitrary decision to deny youth access to pornography is because capitalists similiarly need labourers and consumers. Those who self-gratify more frequently are less motivated to work and to buy.... oh, and they are less likely to knock a girl up to create the next generation of willing cannon fodder.
Somewhere between 10 and 50 years from now, the capitalists will have destroyed enough of the world to make such issues a moot point.
>> Why does…everyone assume that "taking responsibility" for children means "locking them up"?
Because that is exactly what you are asking for. If the parents have to take _full_ responsibility, then that is the only way to do it.
The reality is that everybody in a society needs to take some level of responsibility, otherwise we just end up with a bunch of self centered assholes complaining that everything is someone else’s problem. (oh..., wait)
I generally agree, but the rabid cries of “blame it on the parents” finally got to me.