Posted on 01/06/2004 8:54:55 AM PST by Scenic Sounds
A state lawmaker wants to put violent games out of reach of children under the age of 17.
Assemblyman Leland Yee, D-San Francisco, introduced two bills yesterday to restrict sales of video games that feature graphic violence and criminal behavior.
The first bill would label such games "harmful matter," and ban sales to children similar to the way other "adult" materials are restricted.
"These violent games are bad for children and should be treated the way we treat pornography, guns, tobacco and alcohol," said Yee, who is also a child psychologist.
Yee's second measure would force retailers to display M-rated video games at least five feet above floor level to keep them out of sight of young children.
Games rated "M," for "Mature," are considered appropriate for players ages 17 and older. The most notorious of the "M" games is the "Grand Theft Auto" series, which Yee criticized for portraying the "brutal murder of women, minorities, the elderly and police officers as entertainment."
The second bill also requires retailers to provide parents with more information about the voluntary rating system used for video games and created by the Entertainment Software Rating Board.
Ratings include: "E" for "everyone," "T" for "Teen," ages 13 and older; and "AO" for "Adult Only," meaning ages 18 and older.
The issue is of interest to the California video game industry, the largest in the country, according to the Entertainment Software Association. San Diego, Los Angeles and the Bay Area are among the top 10 U.S. regions for video game development and publishing.
Association president Douglas Lowenstein, in a written statement, called Yee's proposed legislation misguided and unconstitutional.
Federal courts have struck down similar legislation in Indianapolis, St. Louis and Washington state, ruling that video games are artistic works protected by the First Amendment.
Yee said that his bills were drafted after those court decisions with an eye toward the objections judges raised, and that First Amendment rights do not extend to materials that are harmful to children.
He also said the unsuccessful laws in other states failed to establish the harm done by video game violence.
Yee's legislation cites a joint statement from the the American Academy of Pediatrics, the American Medical Association, the American Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry and the American Psychological Association linking video games and aggressive behavior.
He said that more than 1,000 studies have linked media violence with increased aggression in children, and that video games are more likely to promote violence than television.
Lowenstein said more than 80 percent of the time, parents are involved in the decisions to buy and rent video games, and that there is not an epidemic of children buying violent games for themselves.
"These are bills in search of a problem," he said, "bills that seek to turn retailers into surrogate parents by substituting government regulation and bureaucracy for decisions best left to parents."
Jonathan Sidener: (619) 293-1239; jonathan.sidener@uniontrib.com
Is this bill an example of overly intrusive government regulation or a common sense effort to prevent cultural suicide?
That's a favorite phrase of yours, isn't it?
| Rank | Location | Receipts | Donors/Avg | Freepers/Avg | Monthlies | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 41 | New Mexico | 50.00 |
1 |
50.00 |
96 |
0.52 |
50.00 |
3 |
Thanks for donating to Free Republic!
Move your locale up the leaderboard!
I know that you never decayed your soul with video games, did you?
Well...never mind that. I still have a very high soul rating anyway.
"Your soul is worth £47938. For your peace of mind, 14% of people have a purer soul than you."
And that was just my first try! ;-)
Any chance we can get a bill passed that stops wastes of mostly public funds on worthless studies.
It appears that someone's been backsliding a bit. ;-)
You have a more pure soul than me?
Do you know what I say to that?
It appears someone else is Arthur Anderson-ing his results.
That's got to be the only explanation. :-)
It was your test, as I recall. And, obviously, it's a good one.
I retain the right to disown all tests I show you. I officially disown that test.
See? It doesn't count anymore!
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.