2010-11-04, 07:29 PM
I was about to make a topic regarding this, but checked just in case and it turns out this thread was related. Is it possible to rename topic to Schwarzenegger VS. EMA or something to add interest to the topic?
That said, yes, this was the case that I made a thread for a while back to sign the ECA's petition for.
I have a little confidence on where it will go based on the few articles I've read containing the questioning regarding clarity, but this case is still testing my nerves.
For those who are uninformed, the primary concern isn't the law itself, but the precedent it can set:
EXAMPLE 1: How do you cut off "obscene violence"? - This could lead into varying degrees based on studies that have shown comic violence causing just as much of an impact on children as graphic violence. (Studies all seem to be partial to their benefactor though so there is nothing conclusive here)
EXAMPLE 2: "If you've allowed restrictions here, why stop there?" - Other outlets of the media are concerned with good reason that this would be a foothold to lash against them as well. Violence is violence after all.
EXAMPLE 3: PARENTS: "If it is illegal to minors, isn't it just plain bad?" Why not ban it entirely to make sure older people don't go violent on us? - Moral legislation just treads dangerous grounds and can be led one direction if the mass media keeps displaying things as it has.
EXAMPLE 4: "Well, hell! All those dang gaming companies are making their content download-able, how the heck are we suppose to maintain this restriction?" - This is my greatest fear. If it was by law, a simple age verification or ID card input would not be enough. It could lead to IP Identification practices being put into place on everyone covering all internet use. I've seen reports over the years that the government has wanted to put some form of restraint on the internet for a while, but it got out of their hands before they realized it. I realize this is a slippery-slope logical fallacy, but this to me sounds like the closest thing I've heard to "thought police" coming into practice. And that possibility should never be given the chance to exist.
As it stands, the ESRB works. When I was testing games we had a specific category of that nature so I can attest to making sure that content stays in it's target rating personally. Parental controls are everywhere as well, so it isn't like people are advocating children playing these sorts of games. Parents are just not willing to admit their own laziness and irresponsibility.
I know my arguments are simple and non-sourced, and that I couldn't hope to make as good a point as journalists have (which is why you should go read more yourself on the topic), but this is my personal summary of the case.
Book of the day, "Grand Theft Childhood."
That said, yes, this was the case that I made a thread for a while back to sign the ECA's petition for.
I have a little confidence on where it will go based on the few articles I've read containing the questioning regarding clarity, but this case is still testing my nerves.
For those who are uninformed, the primary concern isn't the law itself, but the precedent it can set:
EXAMPLE 1: How do you cut off "obscene violence"? - This could lead into varying degrees based on studies that have shown comic violence causing just as much of an impact on children as graphic violence. (Studies all seem to be partial to their benefactor though so there is nothing conclusive here)
EXAMPLE 2: "If you've allowed restrictions here, why stop there?" - Other outlets of the media are concerned with good reason that this would be a foothold to lash against them as well. Violence is violence after all.
EXAMPLE 3: PARENTS: "If it is illegal to minors, isn't it just plain bad?" Why not ban it entirely to make sure older people don't go violent on us? - Moral legislation just treads dangerous grounds and can be led one direction if the mass media keeps displaying things as it has.
EXAMPLE 4: "Well, hell! All those dang gaming companies are making their content download-able, how the heck are we suppose to maintain this restriction?" - This is my greatest fear. If it was by law, a simple age verification or ID card input would not be enough. It could lead to IP Identification practices being put into place on everyone covering all internet use. I've seen reports over the years that the government has wanted to put some form of restraint on the internet for a while, but it got out of their hands before they realized it. I realize this is a slippery-slope logical fallacy, but this to me sounds like the closest thing I've heard to "thought police" coming into practice. And that possibility should never be given the chance to exist.
As it stands, the ESRB works. When I was testing games we had a specific category of that nature so I can attest to making sure that content stays in it's target rating personally. Parental controls are everywhere as well, so it isn't like people are advocating children playing these sorts of games. Parents are just not willing to admit their own laziness and irresponsibility.
I know my arguments are simple and non-sourced, and that I couldn't hope to make as good a point as journalists have (which is why you should go read more yourself on the topic), but this is my personal summary of the case.
Book of the day, "Grand Theft Childhood."