![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
Another stupid law
Jan. 17th, 2007 01:57 amA proposed law that would prohibit the sale of certain, loosely defined types of video games to anyone below the age of 30?
So, let's get this straight. If this law passes and I were to move to New York, I would legally be able to drive, go to war, buy booze, buy cigarettes, buy porn, and so on and so forth ad absurdum, but I couldn't legally buy certain video games for another two years?
How incredibly retarded is that? This whole "video games are the spawn of Satan and must be stamped out for the sake of the children" mind-set (with children now being defined as anyone under 30 years old, apparently) has long since passed the point of becoming excessively tiresome, stupid, aggravating, and out of hand.
(UPDATE)
Okay, so in the actual bill, the age limit seems to be eighteen instead of thirty. It's just that they have to card you if you look like you are under thirty, apparently. Guess nobody (myself included) bothered to actually read the thing before going on a rant about it. Well, GamePolitics seems to have gotten it right, but Gamasutra suprisingly misinterpreted it.
( The section of the bill in question )
Honestly, I'm not as opposed to this as I was to the blatantly retarded, but thankfully illusory, 30-years old minimum age thing, since this, at least, would be somewhat more in line with what is already in place via the ESRB, except actually providing a bit of teeth to it now. Still not saying that I think it's entirely a good idea though, on the whole. Slippery slope, and all that good stuff.
(/UPDATE)
So, let's get this straight. If this law passes and I were to move to New York, I would legally be able to drive, go to war, buy booze, buy cigarettes, buy porn, and so on and so forth ad absurdum, but I couldn't legally buy certain video games for another two years?
How incredibly retarded is that? This whole "video games are the spawn of Satan and must be stamped out for the sake of the children" mind-set (with children now being defined as anyone under 30 years old, apparently) has long since passed the point of becoming excessively tiresome, stupid, aggravating, and out of hand.
(UPDATE)
Okay, so in the actual bill, the age limit seems to be eighteen instead of thirty. It's just that they have to card you if you look like you are under thirty, apparently. Guess nobody (myself included) bothered to actually read the thing before going on a rant about it. Well, GamePolitics seems to have gotten it right, but Gamasutra suprisingly misinterpreted it.
( The section of the bill in question )
Honestly, I'm not as opposed to this as I was to the blatantly retarded, but thankfully illusory, 30-years old minimum age thing, since this, at least, would be somewhat more in line with what is already in place via the ESRB, except actually providing a bit of teeth to it now. Still not saying that I think it's entirely a good idea though, on the whole. Slippery slope, and all that good stuff.
(/UPDATE)
