We are working on a brand new version of the game! If you want to stay informed, read our blog and register for our mailing list.
Bill: Video Game Liberalization Act
Details
Submitted by[?]: Democratic Action Party
Status[?]: defeated
Votes: This is an ordinary bill. It requires more yes votes than no votes. This bill will not pass any sooner than the deadline.
Voting deadline: August 3269
Description[?]:
| The current policy for video game rating is far too intrusive, and the government should not be so involved in a matter better left to parents and individuals. |
Proposals
Article 1
Proposal[?] to change The government's policy regarding regulation of video games.
Old value:: The government maintains strict age limitation laws that require proof of age before sales of video games may be made.
Current: The government maintains strict age limitation laws that require proof of age before sales of video games may be made.
Proposed: The government does not maintain laws as to age limitation for purchasing video games, although it does require a content rating to be clearly displayed on the box.
Debate
These messages have been posted to debate on this bill:
| Date | 20:07:46, March 05, 2012 CET | From | Democratic Action Party | To | Debating the Video Game Liberalization Act |
| Message | Mr. Speaker, We open this bill for debate. |
| Date | 20:47:08, March 05, 2012 CET | From | Red Police Party | To | Debating the Video Game Liberalization Act |
| Message | Mr. Speaker, We must disagree on this bill. The current legislations are not overpowering, they are simply the only enforcement we can offer on the rating system. Do we allow children into our cinemas to watch R rated movies? No sir, we do not. Video games are no different, perhaps even potentially worse for our youth to be immaturaly and inaduquately released to. What is the point of ratings if we can't enforce it? |
| Date | 00:59:19, March 06, 2012 CET | From | Catholic Political Union | To | Debating the Video Game Liberalization Act |
| Message | Mr. Speaker, There is a wide range of very violent, very disturbing video games out there on the market. The current controls on their sale are necessary in order to protect young people, and we would like them to be maintained. |
| Date | 01:31:04, March 06, 2012 CET | From | Democratic Action Party | To | Debating the Video Game Liberalization Act |
| Message | Mr. Speaker, Frankly put, if violent video games are the insidious menace others claim, why not ban them outright? Certainly there is nothing stopping someone, perhaps a parent, from purchasing a video game and giving it to an underage child to play, just as a parent could purchase a copy of an R rated film and permit a child to view it at home. The change would enable people to make their own decisions about what they do and don't choose to play, and to be informed by the required rating system. Parents could still control what games their children can and can't own and play, and they would have the freedom they deserve as free citizens of this nation. All the current regulation does it promote evasion and disrespect for the law, in addition to taxing the resources of the police in enforcing it. There are far more dangerous things in the world than a particular arrangement of electrons on a screen, and the government should use its resources and powers wisely, not squandering them on such an inconsequential matter. To be even more frank, the paternalistic impulse this law displays, this 'WE the GOVERNMENT know better than YOU' attitude, is a disgusting throwback to a bygone age. Let it stay where it fell, and let our citizens be free to make their own decisions. |
| Date | 01:41:06, March 06, 2012 CET | From | Red Police Party | To | Debating the Video Game Liberalization Act |
| Message | Mr. Speaker, Allowing children to bypass parent inspection is not progress. There is a reason that we, both parents and the government, have a say in what our children do. Is education mandatory? For children, yes. The DAP might ask why, because they don't seem to know. Children are still developping, and if we open bad habits like violent video games and other R-rated material, then we are not promoting the safe or stable type of development. It is the place of the parent's to decide what's best for their kids, and we do not agree that a system allowing kids and youth to buy games behind their parent's backs is a good idea. Additionally, the DAP states that it is not the place of the government to decide what our citizens do. Unfortunately, it is. We are the elected representatives of the people, and if the people decide that they want someone to make a decision on their behalf, then it is their right. And if the majority of them agree, then it's democracy in action. We were elected on a mandate of big government, a mandate that the majority of our citizens not only respect, but desire. We are representatives of the people, and we make decisions on their behalf. It is how Parliament works. That said, I really don't believe this bill is about big government. It is about the parent's right to monitor their kids actions until they reach the age of 18. Once they are adults, then they can purchase all the voilent video games they want, because they are mentally mature and prepared for it. Development is over, and they can decide what right and wrong, what's true and false, and what's a game and what's real. This bill effectively says "No, the government and the parent's can't decide what a still-developing youth can do." We strongly disagree with that, and will vote a strong and emphatic "no". We urge other Parliamentirians to vote with us, and against promoting violent behaviour in our youth. |
subscribe to this discussion - unsubscribe
Voting
| Vote | Seats | |||||
| yes |
Total Seats: 269 | |||||
| no | Total Seats: 331 | |||||
| abstain | Total Seats: 0 |
| Random fact: "Kubrk" is a Jelbic word that has the colloquial meaning "old man" or "geezer". |
| Random quote: "If God had wanted us to vote, he would have given us candidates." - Jay Leno |