| Mail |
You might also like: WoW Insider, Massively, and more

Reader Comments (85)

Posted: Feb 24th 2009 7:18PM The Wicker Man said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
Yes I too think metal would help this dildo. Maybe mister Thompson should go into the water...
Reply

Posted: Feb 24th 2009 8:00PM (Unverified) said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
You make some very good points in there and I agree with many of them. My biggest complaint is your view on the status of art. I believe that there should be no real regulation for freedom of expression. You should be able to do as much as you want with, ideally, no censorship. However, in order to maintain this freedom you have to have respect for the potential consumers of your expression as well as those who would not want to or should not be exposed to your expression.

For this I believe these warnings are in place. But this begs the question, what do we do when these warnings fail? Who is to blame? The parents are very easy to blame, and as you very well know, in many instances it is their fault. But parenting is hard, and no matter how hard you try, there is no way that you can know everything that your child does. So it is in this situation that I know I wouldn't mind a little help from retailers. Knowing that, if my (figurative) child saved up enough money for the new ultra violent game, they wouldn't sell it to him is an extra assurance that I'd be happy to have.

And let's face it, not all parents are as active or care as much as you do. But in those cases should be turn a blind eye and let the child be exposed to all there is out there? Or do we take a little step, that doesn't really hurt us, to make sure that they can not be exposed to the harshness of the world for a little longer?
Reply

Posted: Feb 25th 2009 1:14AM ummhello said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
metal help? the type of metal that's used in projectiles?
Reply

Posted: Feb 25th 2009 4:05AM (Unverified) said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
Other than your many spelling and grammar errors, I feel the need to point out that rights are not granted by the US constitution.

Rights are inherent. the constitution limits the government, it does not grant rights.
Reply

Posted: Feb 25th 2009 12:06PM Comp1demon said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
@John

Your a Friggin idot. This isn't school - I could care less about grammer on a reply to a blog - yes there are a few spelling errors but that is because I used WORD to spell check it and it changed some of my typo's into words that I didn't mean.

Metal Health - was supposed to be MENTAL HEALTH - but what ever - Quiet Riot Said "Metal Health will drive you mad" so carries the same meaning in my opinion.

AS FOR MY RIGHTS!!! Based on the current Law sets - I have every RIGHT to freedom of speech and expression - if you are gonna play samantics and pick apart my reply to Mr. Thompson becuase you can't get past a few spelling errors and are a grammer hitler then you sir are an idiot. I am just expressing my opinion on how I feel about Mr. Thompson, his crusade, Video Games, Video Game laws, and the LIMITS THE GOVT NEEDS TO SET TO STAY THE FUCK OUT OF MY GAMES AND MY INDUSTRY. They have no right at all what so ever and the more Laws they try to pass based on the RECOMENDATIONS of a VOLENTARY AGENCY is just more money you and I have to fork over in taxes to clean up the mess of a bill or Law that should never have been drafted in the first place.

DO us all a favor and stop being so litteral.

Comes down to this. ESRB is just a entitiy with a opinion and their opinions should not have a criminal record and a fine atttached to it if you don't agree with it as a retailer or a person workling at retail.
Reply

Posted: Feb 26th 2009 10:04AM (Unverified) said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
You prove once again that you are a product of the school system.

1. your spelling and grammar are shitty. Not, just poorly spelled and using your and you're incorrectly, but your post was actually difficult to read because fo poor structure.

2. your belief that the constitution enumerates your rights. This is the biggest failure of the indoctrination of public schools. people are being trained that the rights they have are granted by the government. Not the case. The rights are inherent, you are born with them. the constitution specifically outlines things the government can not attempt to take away, not "priveledges" it has graced you with.

3. your failure to read this point the first time.

You freedom of speech is a right you have by virtue of being a free man (man being a generic term I do not know nor care about your gender) The purpose of the constitution is to put into writing the things that government CANNOT limit.

the laws do not grant you the right to free speech. the constitution limits the Law from taking away your inborn right.

The phrase is "I couldn't care less" it is obvious to me that you COULD care less because if you didn't care, you wouldn't have made a butt hurt name calling response.
Reply

Posted: Feb 26th 2009 12:15PM Comp1demon said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
@ John

Wow, my sister is an english teacher and I have hear crap from her all the time.

This is not school or a business - this is just me typing my thoughts out (which come faster than I can type) and tring to keep up with them. I have every right to express my opinions to stories like this and blogs that post this crap are looking for reactions like mine anyways.

I don;t need to sit here and spell check or grammer check or whatever else. Plus it's the fucken internet - know how many phrases and abbreviations we all use to get our message across - I try very hard to use full words like you instead of U - but again my brain comes up with ideas faster than I can type - so I don;t think twice about what I am typing. I type it - read it back to to myself to see if it makes sense to me and MAYBE spell check it by cutting and pasting into word then cutting and pasting back. Yes Word shows me all my run on sentences - the fact I shouldn't be using a hyphen all the time and fragments and even some words that are merhaps made up or not corrrect in there tense as spell check has no recommendations.

Again I don't give aq fuck - if you are grammer hitler or a person who feels the internet should be filled with neat thougts properly spelled out in and in correct phrasing and tense - then go read a book - no need to be here - it's a fucken video game forum and most of the people here don;t give a crap anyways - but I acutally am very passionate about the RIGHTS of the Game industry and what people like Mr. Thompson are tring to do to it. I AM SICK OF NEW LAWS - so much crap - they want to make my video games laws, they want to make my movies laws, they want to LIMIT FREEDOM OF SPEECH AND EXPRESSION - and they want to play parent and protect my kids - and there are something that need to be left to the parent - I will protect my own kids - I don't need laws to do so - I don;t need my child having his INHERENT FREEDOMS becoming abridged cause he wants to go out and buy a M rated game - regardless of how old he is. I don;t see retail or even Govt talking about enforcing the T or the E10 rating. Dam I saw a 6 yr old kid put Guitar hero on the counter at game stop - the kid was maybe 7 tops - that games is rated for T (13+) yes the retailer took his 55 bux no problem. Thats the way it should be - take the money and thats it - if the patent has a problem then the parent can intervine.

The bill of rights - which is the cornerstone of the constitution - the first 10 ammmendments that give us our "rights", "privledges" whatever - Yes everyone is born with them and yes - I understand the point that they are there to LIMIT the GOVT from making new law from taking those away - but that is what laws like this are doing. I understand they are not granted by the govt - as it is WE ARE THE PEOPLE - WE are the power base as we elect a govt that is supposed to represent us and at any time if we feel those officials are running away with or not catering to the needs of the people who put there there we have every RIGHT to remove them. thats all great and grand in theory - but the fact of the matter is they do not represent a majorty of the US population, they do not act in our best interst and they have gotten too big and complicated for the standard citizens of the USA to ever remove them from power and I hate to say it a VOTE is not enough. I'm getting a bit off topic - anyways - My whole point is - I have as well as anyone has the right to buy and sell any video game - and it should stay that way - there should be no law that starts to erode what protections the retail and game industry have of it's first ammendment rights.

Again you will probibly complain about my grammer, my spelling (as I did not spell check - just read it back to myself once) but I don;t give a fuck - there is a grammer and spelling bee blog somewhere else GO FIND IT.
Reply

Posted: Feb 26th 2009 3:35PM (Unverified) said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
Actually, my main complaint is that you KEEP referring to the rights as "granted by the constitution"

Let me again say it slow for you:

THE

CONSTITUTION

DOES

NOT

"GRANT"

YOU

RIGHTS

This is the line of thinking that allows the government to trample our rights. It leads to the "well if the government gives us our rights, they must be able to limit them" line of thinking.

The NeoCons like to always throw out that in the constitution there is no right to privacy. This is used as justification for every citizen spying program the government uses. It assumes that the only rights we have are given to us by the government. This is not he founding father's dream since they found these truths to be self evident, that all men are created equal and endowed by the creator with certain INALIENABLE RIGHTS.

And as for the grammar, I simply suggest that you once over your long wall of rambling bullshit and read it in your head to see if it's coherent. It makes it a lot easier for those of use who would otherwise be interested in what point you are making.

I simply ask that you stop making the claim that the constitution is granting us rights.
Reply

Posted: Feb 24th 2009 6:35PM (Unverified) said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
Wow, what an ugly prick.

Posted: Feb 24th 2009 6:38PM Soulcrux42 said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
TL;DR

Posted: Feb 24th 2009 6:46PM codysjb said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
First and foremost, it seems like this bill is purely and "optional" bill, which means that in the future it could become a mandatory bill. I hate the regulation of video games as much as you do, and I following in the comments of many others on this thread I think Jack Thompson should just find something else that he is qualified to do as the united states doesn't approve of his type of proposed legislation. Having said all this, this bill is clearly only to enforce those companies that chose to engage in it, which provides peace of mind to the citizens that trust the sing saying "no M sales to anyone under 17". Why should we not have regulation that makes stores stand behind their words, if they chose to sell to those under 17, then they can simply take down the sign.

Posted: Feb 24th 2009 7:02PM Comp1demon said

  • 2.5 hearts
  • Report
I'll tell you why - cause IF I am a register drone and decide to ring out the 15yr old for GTA4 - and don't check ID - I should only have the option of getting FIRED from my company - Why should I have a criminal Record and a FIne to pay? It's not constutional. You cannot make corporate policy, state or federal law.

Unless that corporate entity (as a single person) is going to individually check every ID and ring every sale - there should be no legal repercussions for going aganst it's own word. IT's Not an advertisement - it's not binding - it is a promice - it's not the same thing.

If I cheat on a test and get caught I might have a inschool detention or a suspension (but I cannot go to jail or get fined) I can then promice my parents I will never do it again - If I go aganst my own word - is there any legal repercussions? NO.
Now if I have a fight at school and nothing comes of it other than the 2 parties agreeing to their parent and to their school that it will never happen again and it does - is there legal repercussions? PERHAPS - as the schol or the parents of one of the students can file criminal charges. -

That is the difference between tring to stick to a moral policy and having that policy legally enforced.

IF Wal Mart claim it will not sell ciggs to a minor and does the clerk and the corporation have legal repercussions.

IF a store says milk ALWAYS .99 cents or less and makes milk 1.00 there is legal repercussions. But If a store says MILK ALWAYS IN STOCK and you go at 2 am and find the case empty - is there any legal repercussions? NO

SO saying we will not sell M rated titles to individuals under 17 - is the same as saying MILK ALWAYS IN STOCK. It's not legally enforeable. And since Video games will never be regulated like ciggs and beer are - there can not be or should ever be repercussions from anyone any age for buying GTA or any other title outside it's recommended rating.

Reply

Posted: Feb 24th 2009 6:50PM Professor Lario said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
Ok - question time.

If we have a law based on ratings made by a non-governmental body, won't that ratings body have to change? Won't game ratings become a state or federal process? Surely they will not base a law on the ratings of a private organization.

Posted: Feb 24th 2009 6:53PM Levi Partridge said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
Hey Jack! I have another Mark Twain quote for you!

"Lawyers are like other people--fools on the average; but it is easier for an ass to succeed in that trade than any other."

Posted: Feb 24th 2009 6:55PM Misframed said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
Questions: Who is going to pay for this "age verifing software" that Mr. Thompson proposes? The shop owners (higher prices to the consumer) or the government (higher taxes)? Will this mean that children will need government issued IDs? Who is going to regulate the issuance of these IDs? What will be the cost for these IDs? To what government department will the funds from these fines go to? Who will regulate the law? Federal? State? Local law inforcement? Who will pay for this regulation? ...

Posted: Feb 24th 2009 7:08PM m1sapito said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
my only issue with all of this is where is the law making "Mommy & Daddy" responsible for their kids, you know like teach them good, bad, and sitting there enjoying video games with their own kids!!!! a Little control at home goes a long way in the real world.

Now back to Halo 3, ya Im old enough!

Posted: Feb 24th 2009 8:25PM Iroquois said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
Now correct me if I'm wrong,
but as far as video games go, aren't retailers already required to check ID?
I've never bought an M rated game without being carded ANYWHERE
So why not just make a bill that enforces ID checks for movies?
That seems to be more of a problem to me.
If parents buy M rated games for underage children and they get upset with the game, that's the parents' fault and not the game's. But if a child gets into an R-rated movie, THAT is the industries fault. This isn't a secret, Jack. Even us, your stereotyped demographic of "lazy problematic gamers who have problems worse than alcoholism" know this but you seem to be viewing one side.
Learn about laws before you make a law.

Posted: Feb 24th 2009 7:25PM Comp1demon said

  • 2.5 hearts
  • Report
I don't mean to be rude but it's people like you and the brainwashed attention span you have,

THERE IS NOT LAW THAT REQUIRES ANYONE TO CHECK ID for GAMES, MUSIC OR MOVIES OR ANY TYPE THAT IS LEGALLY ENFORCEABLE - it is done on a strictly volentary basis.

It's also opinions like your that force more and more people to give up their constutional rights.

I QUOTE YOU
"So why not just make a bill that enforces ID checks for movies?"

ANSWER: they tried and passed tons of laws that require this and guess what they were all found UNCONSTITUTONAL!!! IT's abridges freedom of expression!

I QUOTE YOU AGAIN
"Now correct me if I'm wrong,
but as far as video games go, aren't retailers already required to check ID?"

ANSWER: NO THEY ARE NOT REQUIRED - the corporate offices creat corporate rules that ask their employees to do so to have a better public image in the eyes of people like Jack Thompson - but if an employess fails to do so - the only thing he did wrong was break a company policy" NO LAW WAS BROKEN!

I QUOTE YOU AGAIN:
"But if a child gets into an R-rated movie, THAT is the industries fault."
No it's the persons fault who was checking ID - and if the whole theather has a no id check policy (very few do but there are some iun the usa that exist) again there is NO LAW BROKEN - it is strictly volentary....

You need to educated yourself - becuase if retail employees have you convinced that there are LAWS that they MUST CHECK your ID then you are the same as the guy who don;t care if the gov't wipes their ass with the Constitution.

DO us all a favor and think a bit before expression an opinion. IF you FEEL there should be a law I will not thump you for it - your entitled to your opinion - though it might be wrong in my eyes and the eyes of the constitution. But to blindly conceed based on what you think is law already is what hurts people like me from keeping my freedom of expression.






Reply

Posted: Feb 25th 2009 8:27PM Iroquois said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
ok
I'm sorry if I offended you, but that whole conjecture was based on what I had come to understand.
Your attack seemed a little unnecessary. Sorry if freedom of speech affects other people besides you too.
Reply

Posted: Feb 24th 2009 7:11PM datniceguy said

  • 2.5 hearts
  • Report
So I hope this means a decrease in immature behavior in my games of Halo and the such when I'm online? Fail? Yeah, I thought so...

Posted: Feb 24th 2009 7:30PM anoffday said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
Really, is there seriously anyone out there who is against a bill that fines people who sell M rated games to minors? It is something that needs to be done. M rated games are for adults.

No one hates Jack for this. We hate him for trying to completely ban M rated games, and getting rid of them for everyone.

Posted: Feb 24th 2009 7:52PM Comp1demon said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
offday are you communist, facist, or just aganst what the United States Constution says.

VIDEO GAMES ARE ART, EXPRESSION, not under the controll of the government of any level (local, state or federal)

M rated games IN YOUR OPINION MIGHT BE FOR ADULTS - but should not nor never be regulated by any law.

I am aganst any bill that promotes a criminal record or fine agasnt anyone selling ART or 1st amendment protected merchandise to ANYONE.

To have a law like this is a gateway to abridging more free content in the USA. Video Games should not be regulated by anyone but the people who make them.

THere are worse things children can spend 60 dollars on other than a video game that would hurt them alot more.

I rather my teen go buy GTA4 then lots of junk food, a BB gun, tons of soda, energy drinks, or if you want to get into stuff children can get but shouldn't be able to Beer and tobacco. There are so many things parent over look what their children spend money on that can ultimately hurt them - but for some reason were all hell bent on grand theft auto.. We need to get our priorities straight.
Reply

Posted: Feb 24th 2009 7:54PM Comp1demon said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
offday are you communist, facist, or just aganst what the United
States Constution says.

VIDEO GAMES ARE ART, EXPRESSION, not under the controll of the
government of any level (local, state or federal)

M rated games IN YOUR OPINION MIGHT BE FOR ADULTS - but should not
nor never be regulated by any law.

I am aganst any bill that promotes a criminal record or fine agasnt
anyone selling ART or 1st amendment protected merchandise to ANYONE.

To have a law like this is a gateway to abridging more free content
in the USA. Video Games should not be regulated by anyone but the
people who make them.

THere are worse things children can spend 60 dollars on other than a
video game that would hurt them alot more.

I rather my teen go buy GTA4 then lots of junk food, a BB gun, tons
of soda, energy drinks, or if you want to get into stuff children can
get but shouldn't be able to Beer and tobacco. There are so many
things parent over look what their children spend money on that can
ultimately hurt them - but for some reason were all hell bent on
grand theft auto.. We need to get our priorities straight.
Reply

Posted: Feb 24th 2009 7:56PM brentech said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
The only problem I have with what he's currently working on, is that it relies on the value of the ESRB's rating system. Other than that, I don't see any problem with this sort of bill.

Posted: Feb 24th 2009 7:59PM (Unverified) said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
"It's not a reliable age verifier because it's not."

"Am I equating playing Grand Theft Auto 4 with drinking a six pack? Some would say it's worse. Some might say it's not."

Are these the kind of argumentation techniques they teach in law school? Sheesh...

Posted: Feb 24th 2009 8:30PM Comp1demon said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
PRODUCTS THAT REQUIRE FEDERAL OR STATE REGULATIONS

FOOD - FDA
BEER - ATF and liquor autroity
TOBACCO - ATF and State or local license to sell
GUNS - (if it is a rifle - no regultion constutional given right) but ATF again here
DRUGS/PERSCRIPTIONS - FDA
CB/HAM RADIOS - FCC
TELEVISIONS (as in sets) - FCC

NOW THE SALE OF THINGS THAT ARE LEGAL WITH NO REGULATIONS BY GOVERMENT.

MUSIC
MOVIES
DVDS
CD'S
VIDEO GAMES
CLOTHING
and every thing else people buy pretty much for their every day lives.

HUMMM... Why is Video Games tring to be elevated to the list ABOVE.

IS THE ESRB gonna become the FESRB
IS THE MPAA gonna become the FMPAA
IS THE RIAA gonna becomes the FRIAA

IS this happens you will have no right to call anything your digitally create art and have protections for under the 1st amendment.

We all know there are people, groups or corporations that PUSH THE ENVELOPE of what is socially or consumer acceptable - but opinions change.

People found many publications, music and movies of the 70's and 80's morally and civially reprehensible and vowed to make sure laws were passed to prevent content like that from ever again being created.

We as a country from ages 10 - 60 maybe 70 looks at content that cause an uproar 20 or 30 years ago - kids and early adults laugh at it - we have been socially absorbed into accepting that kind of content and today the boundries get pushed more and more - but once you actually set a boundry with a LAW - you kill thew whole process of expression. The boundry is set socally. If GTA 4 was really that bad rockstar would have gone out of business years ago - the fact that a franchise like GTA gets so much attention is from the MINORIT who keep puting these already accpeted socal circumstances back into the limelight then put a spin on it that makes it more envelope pushing than ment to be.

Herd the expression "your only as old as you feel" well gues what I know 13 yr olds who feel like they are 30 and I know 30 year olds who feel like that are 16. I know 50 year olds who feel like that are 21.

Age is not a good verifier for protected content - though it is a verifier for vices and duty - (guns, ciggs, beer, army, jury duty - ect..)

Lay off my pretected content - leave gaming alone.
Reply

Posted: Feb 24th 2009 8:41PM BigD145 said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
That's quite a margin for passage. Who's c()ck is he sucking on the Labor Committee? How many palms were greased? WHO GETS THE MONEY FROM FINES?!

Posted: Feb 24th 2009 10:32PM (Unverified) said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
I am a 16 year old living in Utah and I have never heard nor seen anyone under 17 being able to purchase M rated games or R rated movie tickets. I've been with friends who are over 17 to go buy a game like gears or fallout and they all get asked for ID. All this will do is waste money from the state trying to enforce a law that isn't needed. Its regulated enough. A chain of movie theaters here will make the adult sign a paper if they bring minors in to see an R movie. I think we should regulate the sale of M content but we don't need to do any more than what we are already doing.

This is just a stepping stone to banning M content. It is ironic that we would ban M content to prevent shootings when the University of Utah is the Only school where students can bring firearms on campus and into classes.

Posted: Feb 24th 2009 10:40PM Lowe0 said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
I'd expect the first thing every retailer would do the next morning is rescind their policy against sales to minors. Why expose themselves to the legal risk?

Posted: Feb 24th 2009 11:16PM (Unverified) said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
Here I thought Jack Thompson finally came up with a bill that was reasonable and worth supporting, and then he ruined it with his answer to the last question. I agree, motives make a huge difference here.

The problem is that while retailers make a good faith effort to not sell M-rated games to minors - goes to show how great the ESRB is in regulating the industry - they simply don't have the means to prevent it from happening 100% of the time. For a $50 game, if a determined teenager gets his hands on an M-rated game, it would take the store 40 sales to earn $2000 in revenue, not to mention that the revenue is not 100% profit. I can see major retailers in Utah simply not selling M-rated games to avoid the risk, which I suspect is the end goal for Jack Thompson.

Posted: Feb 25th 2009 12:38AM (Unverified) said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
This is just a total blindsided reach around in the direction of the Utah State BAR, he's doing civil things and being a good boy to get his license to practice/mangle law back.

Posted: Feb 25th 2009 1:21AM (Unverified) said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
http://le.utah.gov/~2009/pamend/hb0353.hca.01.htm

That's the proposed amendment to the bill. The wording at the bottom is interesting. It seems that two or more violations must occur for the person to be prosecuted, but the total number of violations of employees counts against the employer; so, if two different employee each violate the law once, they themselves are fine, but the employer can be charged.

I'm expecting this to pass through the Utah House and Senate without many problems. They're overwhelming Republican, and while Republicans are typically anti-regulation at the Federal level, they're not so reliable at the State level. Also, I'm guessing that more Republicans in the Utah legislature are the "religious conservative" type on average compared to many of the other states due to the heavy influence of LDS in the state, which would explain why the idea of passing regulations concerning video games and children's "well being" would appeal to them.

I'm just guessing about that last part (I don't feel like researching the background of all the Utah legislators), but I didn't find any info on the official Utah website about which members of the Business and Labor committee voted for the bill and the 10 - 3 that passed it matches up nicely to the 10-3 Republican to Democrat makeup of that committee. It could just be a coincidence, though.

Posted: Feb 25th 2009 3:41PM contreramanjaro said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
I believe that game ratings should be more strictly enforced, however, I believe the reasoning is quite wrong. At the legal level he is claiming that the retailers are lying but the actual reason is that old people (sorry to the few well read elders) don't understand the media.

Many adults will actually claim that a youtube video can give you a virus. I just want to say, no, you're being a terrible parent by not keeping an eye on your child, but that's beside the point. There needs to be education to guardians for the reason that you can check out a sexually and violently explicit novel in school. The games are not desensitizing children, parents and human interaction are far more important for this.

That this man is taking steps to protect the youth when the incompetent or simply unavailable parents do not is respectable, and I wish him luck as long as he is in it for the benefit, not for the revocation of a freedom. I only worry that people do not understand video game effects and immediately jump to conclusions about things caused by other neglections.

Posted: Mar 6th 2009 3:16PM Drago Dracini said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
I've hated this guy for a long time, but you know, I agree with him. That fine should work well, but question is, where does the money go? ;p

But yea, I mean, at Gamestop we get fired on the spot for not IDing somebody on an M rated game. My manager has to ID 80 year old people all the time(yes, we get 80 year olds in our store)

Posted: Apr 8th 2009 6:52PM (Unverified) said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
I must say that I do agree with him to some extent but to spend tax payers dollars to try and make it a crime to sell these types of games to minors? I don't think that this is a very wise decision plus that fine is really steep. It would be nice if the companies would think twice before selling a graphic game to a kid but bringing the government into the mess just seems to complicate things way to much.

In my personal opinion I hope that this bill isn't passed especially since I am afraid to see a snowball effect. I mean, if Jack gets an inch, he could very well take a mile. But I suppose we will see how this plays out.

Featured Stories

Image

Silver Lining: I Am Alive's unfeeling world

Posted on May 25th 2012 7:30PM

Image

Game Of Thrones and the paradoxes of adaptation

Posted on May 25th 2012 5:00PM

Engadget

Engadget

TUAW

TUAW

Massively

Massively

WoW

WoW