Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

Bill Would Hold Game Makers Accountable For Players Actions

Last response: in Video Games
Share
Anonymous
March 3, 2005 6:33:51 AM

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.action (More info?)

Bill Would Hold Game Makers Accountable For Players' Actions

March 1, 2005

By George Howell


SEATTLE - Should the people who make and sell "violent video" games be
held accountable if someone commits a crime because of playing them?

That's something our state lawmakers are considering, to open game
makers up to more liability.

House Bill 2178 proposes to hold the makers and sellers of violent
video games liable if someone under 17 years old commits a crime, due
in any part, to playing the game.

Supporters of the bill, like Bill Hanson with the Washington Police and
Sheriff's Association, say "kids" are getting the games, and they're
becoming desensitized.

"If you sit up and watch this and play these games over and over
again... it seems that this is alright to walk up and hit a police
officer over the head with a bat," Hanson said.

Opponents argue that the proposed bill would shift the responsibility
from the person who actually committed the crime.

Lew McMurran, with the Washington Software Association, says violent
games are clearly rated for adults only, and that the responsibility
should be on parents to use the video game rating system and control
what their kids are playing.

"We're removing the responsibility from the person who committed the
act, to somebody else who's completely removed from the situation"
McMurran said. "There's a very strong video game industry in this state
that we want to support. We don't want to bring undo attention to an
area where there's actually jobs being created, where there's actually
some good economic development in our state"

House Bill 2178 is still in the committee stage in the state House of
Representatives.

http://komonews.com/stories/35494.htm
Anonymous
March 3, 2005 9:01:10 AM

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.action (More info?)

Jeff Holinski wrote:
>
> Of course to be fair, they should also hold the government
responsible
> for most of street crimes.
>
> "It wasn't fraud. It was just a private citizens version of an
> election promise"
> "It's not robbery, it's just private taxation"
> "I had to kill that guy. I suspected he had WMD's he was going to use
> against me" "It was pre-emptive self defense"

... and of course there'd be no more violent films, TV, books, radio,
newspapers, magazines.

"Your honour, I overhead some guys talking about beating up an old man.
So I figured it was OK to go out and do it myself."
"You're right - those men should be locked up. Who are they?"
"Film censors - they were discussing what rating to give a film"
"Then the film makers must also be locked up. What film was it?"
"A Clockwork Orange. It's based on the book of the same name"
"Then the book must be burned and the author locked up. Who wrote it?"
"Anthony Burgess. But you can't lock him up - he died in 1993."
"Well, everyone is equal in the eyes of the law, so I rule that
everyone must suffer the same penalty. Death row for the lot of you!"
"What about me, your honour?"
"You? Well, it wasn't your fault, so you can go free."
"Thanks. Gee, the law is an ass."
"Who said that?"
"Shakespeare"
"Lock him up as well, and burn all his books!"
"There's a murderin the Bible, if you're interested"
"By thunder! Lock up God as well then!"
Anonymous
March 3, 2005 1:34:45 PM

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.action (More info?)

FunkyDevil wrote:

> "We're removing the responsibility from the person who committed the
> act, to somebody else who's completely removed from the situation"
> McMurran said. "There's a very strong video game industry in this
> state that we want to support. We don't want to bring undo attention
> to an area where there's actually jobs being created, where there's
> actually some good economic development in our state"

This is the best part. "Maybe there's a connection, maybe not, but there's
a lot of money connected to this so let's ignore it."

GS.
Anonymous
March 3, 2005 3:25:16 PM

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.action (More info?)

On 3 Mar 2005 03:33:51 -0800, "FunkyDevil" <qs8rzr001@sneakemail.com>
wrote:

>Bill Would Hold Game Makers Accountable For Players' Actions
>
>March 1, 2005
>
>By George Howell
>
>
>SEATTLE - Should the people who make and sell "violent video" games be
>held accountable if someone commits a crime because of playing them?
>
>That's something our state lawmakers are considering, to open game
>makers up to more liability.
>
>House Bill 2178 proposes to hold the makers and sellers of violent
>video games liable if someone under 17 years old commits a crime, due
>in any part, to playing the game.
>
>Supporters of the bill, like Bill Hanson with the Washington Police and
>Sheriff's Association, say "kids" are getting the games, and they're
>becoming desensitized.
>
>"If you sit up and watch this and play these games over and over
>again... it seems that this is alright to walk up and hit a police
>officer over the head with a bat," Hanson said.
>
>Opponents argue that the proposed bill would shift the responsibility
>from the person who actually committed the crime.
>
>Lew McMurran, with the Washington Software Association, says violent
>games are clearly rated for adults only, and that the responsibility
>should be on parents to use the video game rating system and control
>what their kids are playing.
>
>"We're removing the responsibility from the person who committed the
>act, to somebody else who's completely removed from the situation"
>McMurran said. "There's a very strong video game industry in this state
>that we want to support. We don't want to bring undo attention to an
>area where there's actually jobs being created, where there's actually
>some good economic development in our state"
>
>House Bill 2178 is still in the committee stage in the state House of
>Representatives.
>
>http://komonews.com/stories/35494.htm

Of course to be fair, they should also hold the government responsible
for most of street crimes.

"It wasn't fraud. It was just a private citizens version of an
election promise"
"It's not robbery, it's just private taxation"
"I had to kill that guy. I suspected he had WMD's he was going to use
against me" "It was pre-emptive self defense"



Remove nospam_ to reply by email

Jeff H........


Lies, All lies. Don't believe a word Difool/sayNO says.
He fears the truth!
Anonymous
March 3, 2005 4:37:09 PM

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.action (More info?)

Thusly "FunkyDevil" <qs8rzr001@sneakemail.com> Spake Unto All:

>SEATTLE - Should the people who make and sell "violent video" games be
>held accountable if someone commits a crime because of playing them?

What I'd like to know if people who claim that someone commits a crime
because of playing a violent game should be required to prove the
connection, rather than just asserting it.
Anonymous
March 3, 2005 7:59:44 PM

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.action (More info?)

Mean_Chlorine wrote:
> Thusly "FunkyDevil" <qs8rzr001@sneakemail.com> Spake Unto All:

>> SEATTLE - Should the people who make and sell "violent video" games
>> be held accountable if someone commits a crime because of playing
>> them?

> What I'd like to know if people who claim that someone commits a crime
> because of playing a violent game should be required to prove the
> connection, rather than just asserting it.

And what about people who commit crimes based
on what the Bible said - can the victims sue The
Gideons International?

P.
March 3, 2005 10:37:16 PM

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.action (More info?)

"Chadwick" <chadwick110@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1109856237.829260.64480@l41g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...
>
> Jeff Holinski wrote:
>>
>> Of course to be fair, they should also hold the government
> responsible
>> for most of street crimes.
>>
>> "It wasn't fraud. It was just a private citizens version of an
>> election promise"
>> "It's not robbery, it's just private taxation"
>> "I had to kill that guy. I suspected he had WMD's he was going to use
>> against me" "It was pre-emptive self defense"
>
> .. and of course there'd be no more violent films, TV, books, radio,
> newspapers, magazines.
>
> "Your honour, I overhead some guys talking about beating up an old man.
> So I figured it was OK to go out and do it myself."
> "You're right - those men should be locked up. Who are they?"
> "Film censors - they were discussing what rating to give a film"
> "Then the film makers must also be locked up. What film was it?"
> "A Clockwork Orange. It's based on the book of the same name"
> "Then the book must be burned and the author locked up. Who wrote it?"
> "Anthony Burgess. But you can't lock him up - he died in 1993."
> "Well, everyone is equal in the eyes of the law, so I rule that
> everyone must suffer the same penalty. Death row for the lot of you!"
> "What about me, your honour?"
> "You? Well, it wasn't your fault, so you can go free."
> "Thanks. Gee, the law is an ass."
> "Who said that?"
> "Shakespeare"
> "Lock him up as well, and burn all his books!"
> "There's a murderin the Bible, if you're interested"
> "By thunder! Lock up God as well then!"


Good post, Chadwick. Spot on.
March 4, 2005 12:57:48 AM

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.action (More info?)

"Greg Sumner" <See@Signature.com> wrote in
news:D uCdnY5D_7E4xbrfRVn-gg@comcast.com:

> FunkyDevil wrote:
>
>> "We're removing the responsibility from the person who committed the
>> act, to somebody else who's completely removed from the situation"
>> McMurran said. "There's a very strong video game industry in this
>> state that we want to support. We don't want to bring undo attention
>> to an area where there's actually jobs being created, where there's
>> actually some good economic development in our state"
>
> This is the best part. "Maybe there's a connection, maybe not, but
> there's a lot of money connected to this so let's ignore it."

Right conclusion for the wrong reasons. This shouldn't be ignored
because there's money to be made.

It should be ignored because it's completely baseless horseshit.


stePH
--
If it cannot break the egg's shell, a chick will die without being born.
We are the chick. The world is our egg.
If we cannot break the world's shell, we will die without being born.
Smash the world's shell! For the revolution of the world!
Anonymous
March 4, 2005 1:43:13 AM

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.action (More info?)

On 3 Mar 2005 03:33:51 -0800, "FunkyDevil" <qs8rzr001@sneakemail.com>
wrote:

>Bill Would Hold Game Makers Accountable For Players' Actions
>
>March 1, 2005
>
>By George Howell
>
>
>SEATTLE - Should the people who make and sell "violent video" games be
>held accountable if someone commits a crime because of playing them?
>
>That's something our state lawmakers are considering, to open game
>makers up to more liability.
>
>House Bill 2178 proposes to hold the makers and sellers of violent
>video games liable if someone under 17 years old commits a crime, due
>in any part, to playing the game.
>
>Supporters of the bill, like Bill Hanson with the Washington Police and
>Sheriff's Association, say "kids" are getting the games, and they're
>becoming desensitized.
>
>"If you sit up and watch this and play these games over and over
>again... it seems that this is alright to walk up and hit a police
>officer over the head with a bat," Hanson said.
>
>Opponents argue that the proposed bill would shift the responsibility
>from the person who actually committed the crime.
>
>Lew McMurran, with the Washington Software Association, says violent
>games are clearly rated for adults only, and that the responsibility
>should be on parents to use the video game rating system and control
>what their kids are playing.
>
>"We're removing the responsibility from the person who committed the
>act, to somebody else who's completely removed from the situation"
>McMurran said.

The idiot Lew should have stopped right here...

>"There's a very strong video game industry in this state
>that we want to support. We don't want to bring undo attention to an
>area where there's actually jobs being created, where there's actually
>some good economic development in our state"
>

..... foot in mouth and firmly down throat...... he should be
fired.......

Commercial justification has no place in this argument. The argument
is all about personal responsibility for one's actions..

Instead of the above asinine bill, properly enforcing a mandatory
requirement to show picture proof of age 17 before purchase of M-rated
games (new or used) would be in the interest of both the
games-industry and the public. ( How many 17-year olds in the US do
not have a DMV permit, licence or picture-ID card ? )

Still nothing to prevent dad ( or big sibling ) giving a 12-year old
Doom3, HL2 or Vice City, but now the responsibility chain becomes
crystal-clear.

John Lewis


>House Bill 2178 is still in the committee stage in the state House of
>Representatives.
>
>http://komonews.com/stories/35494.htm
>
Anonymous
March 4, 2005 4:48:40 PM

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.action (More info?)

"FunkyDevil" <qs8rzr001@sneakemail.com> wrote:
>Bill Would Hold Game Makers Accountable For Players' Actions
>
>March 1, 2005
>
>By George Howell
>
>
>SEATTLE - Should the people who make and sell "violent video" games be
>held accountable if someone commits a crime because of playing them?
>
>That's something our state lawmakers are considering, to open game
>makers up to more liability.
>
>House Bill 2178 proposes to hold the makers and sellers of violent
>video games liable if someone under 17 years old commits a crime, due
>in any part, to playing the game.

Maybe they should hold the parents responsible for buying it for them.
Have fun living in the United States of Korea kids.
!