See, it's a watchdog. Although it appears more like a guard dog... from a prison camp.
Parents Television Council president Tim Winter has responded to a Californian appeal's court decision to stop a law banning children from buying violent video games.*
According to the organisation, "The PTC's primary mission is to promote and restore responsibility and decency to the entertainment industry in answer to America's demand for positive, family-oriented television programming."
President Tim says, "Let’s be clear on what – exactly – is going on here: The video game industry has established a policy to ‘protect’ children from a harmful product, yet they file lawsuit after lawsuit to oppose any enforcement of that same policy. And they base their legal argument on a child’s ‘right’ to purchase the very product that they openly admit should not be purchased by a child. This is the most outrageous example of a non sequitur that I’ve ever seen, and the result is a tragic consequence on America’s children.
"How does the video game industry even have legal standing to sue on behalf of children who wouldn’t be able to pay them for the very products they admit that kids shouldn’t be buying? I’ll tell you how: greed. The only motivation for the industry to sue is to keep collecting blood money from kids who aren’t supposed to be able to buy these games without their parents present at the time of purchase."
'Blood money' is an interesting turn of phrase in this case. We will be interested to see if any of the games publishers decides to take out an action for defamation on this. The chances are, of course... zero.
Source: PTC
According to the organisation, "The PTC's primary mission is to promote and restore responsibility and decency to the entertainment industry in answer to America's demand for positive, family-oriented television programming."
President Tim says, "Let’s be clear on what – exactly – is going on here: The video game industry has established a policy to ‘protect’ children from a harmful product, yet they file lawsuit after lawsuit to oppose any enforcement of that same policy. And they base their legal argument on a child’s ‘right’ to purchase the very product that they openly admit should not be purchased by a child. This is the most outrageous example of a non sequitur that I’ve ever seen, and the result is a tragic consequence on America’s children.
"How does the video game industry even have legal standing to sue on behalf of children who wouldn’t be able to pay them for the very products they admit that kids shouldn’t be buying? I’ll tell you how: greed. The only motivation for the industry to sue is to keep collecting blood money from kids who aren’t supposed to be able to buy these games without their parents present at the time of purchase."
'Blood money' is an interesting turn of phrase in this case. We will be interested to see if any of the games publishers decides to take out an action for defamation on this. The chances are, of course... zero.
Source: PTC