Posted on 12/07/2005 12:08:13 PM PST by freepatriot32
WSBT/AP) Senator Evan Bayh says he’ll introduce legislation designed to prevent minors under age 17 from buying violent video games.
The Indiana Democrat says there's growing evidence that such games increase aggressive behavior in children.
He says the bill would prohibit anyone under age 17 from purchasing M-rated games without the express consent of a parent. M-rated games are those that under a video industry rating system should only be sold to players 17 or older.
“There is growing evidence that exposure to graphic violence does have consequences in terms of anger hostility and violent behavior on our children,” Bayh said Thursday during a stop in South Bend. “That is something that is not good for our kids, not good for our families.”
Bayh says his legislation might also include fines up to $1000 against stores that would violate such a law. Democratic Senators Joseph Lieberman of Connecticut and Hillary Clinton of New York are backing a similar proposal.
The system is corrupt. What's to prevent a 14 year old who looks older from walking into a movie that's rated R but deserves an NC-17 or even X? I've seen it happen.
"What's to prevent a 14 year old who looks older from walking into a movie that's rated R but deserves an NC-17 or even X"
His parents, and not because it's "the law."
Shouldn't these guys be making speeches at 1000 dollar a plate luncheons complaining about the plight of the poor?
Not necessarily. Like I said, I've seen it happen. Not everyone has responsible parents. Many don't care what their kids see.
"Many don't care what their kids see."
Either way, it's not the job of the federal government to step up to the plate.
On the contrary. "It Takes A Village", after all.
In a middle-of-the-road interpretation, most of these games are acquired through interstate commerce, so the fed has a hand.
In the liberal (current SCrOTUmS) interpretation, video games in general are sold interstate, and therefore the sale of a game that was developed and sold in-state is still subject to fed control because it influences the general interstate market on video games.
In a very strict view, the feds have no power. They can just tell the states they can't have tariffs and such on imported video games.
Funny on the interpretations. The feds are all over it when they want to regulate, but then you have California, which has put up protectionist barriers to trade with milk, but that's upheld.
I'm currently three quarters of the way through Doom 3d. I've been spending lots of time shooting "evil, vicious, slimy, abnormal, denizens of hell who are intent on destroying my way of life and raping my children". In other words, "democrats".
Frankly looking at the sad no back bone having state of the youth out there they could use something that caused aggressive behavior. Especially if they take it and use for sports or something physical. Does it really matter how aggressive you are with a controller in your hand?
(I happen to agree that ultra violent games shouldn't be sold to kids but that's the job of the states not the fedgov. Anyway, I just love an opportunity to call bayh a piece of garbage)
LOL - exactly!
We need MPAA reform.
What do you mean? The MPAA isn't a government entity.
I'm not talking about the guvment anymore.
Your "very strict" view is in fact the view that was universally understood at the time the Constitution was written.
A slightly less accurate (but still vaguely plausible) view is that Congress can restrict interstate traffic in these items, but has no say at all over local sales.
Like shaking down major league sports over steroids?
/sarc
Using this supposed logic one could make a case that liberals are encouraging terrorist to kill.
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.