California Legislator To Introduce Games Bill

Thanks to Reuters for their report that California state legislator Leland Yee will introduce two bills restricting sales of violent video games next week. According to the article, the bills will continue Yee's previously reported plans: "The first bill will expand the 'harmful matter' definition to include games where the player can injure another human character 'in a manner that is especially heinous, atrocious or cruel'", and "The second bill would require games with a 'Mature' rating from the Entertainment Software Ratings Board, meaning they are not intended for children under 17, to be stocked above children's eye level and separately from other games. Stores would also have to display signs explaining ESRB ratings." However, although Yee "has signed on a number of co-sponsors" for the California-specific bills, their passage into law is not assured, and the piece points out that "Federal courts have previously struck down laws in Indianapolis and St. Louis" drafted along similar lines.

Comments

Great!

[Anonymous Coward]

Now I can stop playing video games and shoot people for real!

Does it matter?

[Zenin]

Slippery slope and all that, yah, yah, yah...whatever.

So all the good games are moved off to a single, special location in the store and high enough so that my 31 year old back doesn't have to bend over constantly like at Fry's. Yay!

As a fan of the goriest, most depraved, most offensive games made, I would view such a change as only a good thing. I'm already hard-pressed to pickup a box that doesn't have a "mature" label on the package much like many movie goers quickly dismiss any film w/o an R rating. I'd love it if all the Mature games were all in one spot, away from the unwashed masses of "Dear Hunter" and "Poker" games.

How could this be a bad thing?

Re:Does it matter?

[Fortunato_NC]

The previous poster wonders how this can be a Bad Thing.

Well, imagine a society where instead of just all the "good" videogames being segregated to a single "special" location, that it was a society where all the "good" books were segregated to a single "special" location and the government kept records of who wanted to read the "good" books.

Slippery slope arguments are tiring and boring, but that doesn't make them any less valid. I'm against almost any form of government censorship, and that includes videogames, books, magazines, whatever. If an actual, living, breathing, real human being (and no, the pixelated Haitians in GTA:VC don't count) isn't harmed by some work of art or book or videogame or whatever, then the government doesn't have the right to tell me I can't see it, or restrict how it is available.

And I don't care about how it affects children. Children need to be protected by their parents, not by government. Parents who let television and an anthromorphic mouse raise their children while they go off telling me that the videogames I like to play are harming kids should have painful electrical shocks applied to their naughty bits.

Raise your kids the way you want to raise them, protect them from whatever negative and harmful influences you can. I applaud that, even. But when you insist on using the police power of the state to control my access to the books, movies, and videogames I want, then you've crossed the line - even if all you've done is move the "good" stuff to a "special" part of the store.

Re:Does it matter?

[Haeleth]

Slippery slope arguments are tiring and boring, but that doesn't make them any less valid.

On the contrary - the "slippery slope" is a recognised form of false argument. If the argument was valid, then America would still be a British colony, and by now you'd be laboring under 150% taxes - since the "slippery slope" that was started with the Stamp Act would obviously have continued, and of course nobody would ever have said "this far and no further" and actually overthrown the government that was trying to take things further than the people would bear.

Ratings are good. You're saying that parents should be the ones responsible for what their children play? You're quite right. Hey, guess what - that's what ratings are for! And arranging stuff on the shelves according to its rating is just a way of making it easier for parents to choose games that fit what they want their children to see.

Well, imagine a society where instead of just all the "good" videogames being segregated to a single "special" location, that it was a society where all the "good" books were segregated to a single "special" location and the government kept records of who wanted to read the "good" books.

Want to know where the mistake in your argument is? It's right there in the above paragraph. We're talking about a society where the "good" videogames are in a "special" location. I don't see anything there about "the government keeping records of who wants to play the 'good' videogames".

By the way, in case you hadn't noticed, our society already segregates books. Or did you think the "adult" section in your local bookstore was full of Thomas the Tank Engine?

Re:Does it matter?

[Fortunato_NC]

Okay, I'll play, I've got karma to burn... :-)

Ratings are good. You're saying that parents should be the ones responsible for what their children play? You're quite right. Hey, guess what - that's what ratings are for! And arranging stuff on the shelves according to its rating is just a way of making it easier for parents to choose games that fit what they want their children to see.

I don't take issue with the idea that ratings help parents pick out what children should see/watch/listen to/play. But current ratings systems (ESRB, MPAA, etc) are *privately* run. A goverment mandated ratings system makes content subject to the whims of special interests and big donors of elected officials.

We're talking about a society where the "good" videogames are in a "special" location. I don't see anything there about "the government keeping records of who wants to play the 'good' videogames".

That was a worst-case scenario thrown in for effect, and you know it. The problem is that once government assumes a power, they almost never give it back. Whether it's a new entitlement or a new regulation, once you create a law, it's really hard to undo it. The fact of the matter it is the tendency of government to become more tryanical with time.

By the way, in case you hadn't noticed, our society already segregates books. Or did you think the "adult" section in your local bookstore was full of Thomas the Tank Engine?

Snide comments don't make you any smarter. The classification of books into similar categories is done to make it easier to find those books (or, alternatively, to keep kids from finding them). Again, it's a service that private industry provides to their customers. When the government mandates it, it stops being a service and starts being an undesired form of control.

You mistake guidelines for rules. Guidelines can be ignored. When you break rules, you end up in prison. I think it's fine that society makes the guideline that some videogames are too violent/sexist/racist/whatever. But when government makes rules that prevent people from creating the works that allow them to express themselves, then a tragedy has occurred.

You can dismiss a slippery slope argument as false logic, and you're technically right. A does not necessarily always lead to B. But when the topic is the defense of our rights, why would you take chances? A lot of people like to quote Ben Franklin: "Those who are willing to trade liberty for security deserve neither liberty nor security." That is a *classic* slippery slope argument, but few Americans disagree with it. Look at the outcry over the Patriot Act, etc for details.

I don't disagree with the fact that the children are our future, that we should teach them well, let them lead the way, show them all the beauty they possess inside, give them a sense of pride, etc, but I will be damned if I am going to stand by and let my government supress the right that authors, artists, musicians, and yes, even videogame programmers have to create and distribute their work. It isn't the government's place to do so.

Re:Does it matter?

[Thing 1]

If an actual, living, breathing, real human being (and no, the pixelated Haitians in GTA:VC don't count) isn't harmed by some work of art or book or videogame or whatever, then the government doesn't have the right to tell me I can't see it, or restrict how it is available.

What's your definition of "harm"?

Me, I take it to mean, "If a [child isn't molested/Haitian killed/bunny stepped on] while making this media, it's okay." I completely disagree with the idea that media can cause harm by viewing/listening to/reading it.

Re:Does it matter?

[Fortunato_NC]

I agree 100%...Something along the line of "your right to swing your hands through the air ends at the tip of my nose." People worry too much about how things look - "ohmigod! this video game tells people to kill Haitians!" - to worry about the actual problems in this world - there is an lively international trade in the sex trafficking of children. Now THAT is a problem that there should be more activists working to solve.

Re:Does it matter?

[Deternal]

Having not read the law - just for clarification: Whats wrong in mandating that Mature rated games get setup in higher places and that a sign explaining the rating system get setup?

As I see it, this should have been done by games stores long ago.

Doing more then that and I completely agree that government would be interfering too much - but mandating higher shelves and that a sign gets setup is fine by me.

Thats pretty much like the warnings you read on tobacco.

Re:Does it matter?

[pudge]

It isn't a bad thing, it's a good thing. All it does is say "if kids under 17 want this game, then that's fine, but a parent needs to approve the purchase by buying it for them." This is a good thing. It puts the parents in more control, and it fends off attacks from people who would ban the games entirely. There is no problem here, except for kids who would buy the games without their parents' approval ... and as a parent, I consider that *good*.

It just kills me when people say the government shouldn't be involved, this is an issue for parents. Hello, brainiac: that is what the law DOES, it puts the parents in control.

I love GTA: Vice City. I plan to get the next installment when it is released. I am an adult, I can make that choice. Kids can't make that choice responsibly, because kids are little piles of stupid. I was a kid once, I remember what it was like. Don't pretend you were/are any different. Parents exist because kids are stupid. You don't like it? I don't care.

Re:Does it matter?

[bskin]

You can dismiss a slippery slope argument as false logic, and you're technically right. A does not necessarily always lead to B.

There's nothing technical about it. A slippery slope argument is invalid; it proves nothing, and makes your argument weaker. Think of it this way: you're saying 'this isn't particularly wrong, but if it happens, *this* wrong thing could happen.' You've just said the thing you're arguing against isn't wrong. It's self-defeating. Of course, this doesn't necessarily mean your conclusion is wrong, but it does make you look foolish.

But when the topic is the defense of our rights, why would you take chances? A lot of people like to quote Ben Franklin: "Those who are willing to trade liberty for security deserve neither liberty nor security." That is a *classic* slippery slope argument, but few Americans disagree with it. Look at the outcry over the Patriot Act, etc for details.

This is, in fact, not a slippery slope argument. He says nothing about getting rid of one form of liberty leading to the loss of others. Rather, he makes a broad statement indicating that he values liberty over security. You may agree with this or not, but given the fact that there isn't even an argument to disprove, it's hard to call it a fallacy.

Furthermore, your mention of the Patriot Act would seem to be yet another logical fallacy: a red herring. The Patriot Act has nothing to do with the matter at hand (or if it does, you've certainly not shown any particular link).

For what it's worth, I disagree with both laws as well. I don't believe that giving the ratings of a private and unaccountable entity (the ESRB) legal weight is wise in general. Furthermore, I think that restricting the sales of certain things based on content is bad on its face, especially when there's no proof either way on whether such things are harmful to children. Finally, the definitions contained within the law are fairly nebulous and open to broad interpretation. That is likely to give them problems should they ever be reviewed by the Supreme Court. Of course, that may well be why this is two bills instead of one. It's very possible that the bill about 'harmful matter' will be struck down while the other one will stand.

Re:Does it matter?

[JFMulder]

Parents exist because kids are stupid.
I totally agree with this statement, though you have to admit that parents are stupid too. Or shall I say adults. They're the ones who close their eyes when 13-14 years old buy a game like Vice City at ebGames without parental supervision. Believe me, I see it everytime I go there.

Re:Does it matter?

[Pluvius]

How could this be a bad thing?

I can see a few problems:

1. The first bill describes violent games as "games where the player can injure another human character 'in a manner that is especially heinous, atrocious or cruel.'" But what is a human character, and what is heinous, atrocious, and cruel? The wording is a bit vague, as is the case with most censorship laws.

2. Putting games in a special section away from other games costs money. Who do you think will ultimately pay those costs? Hint: Not the retailers who are moving the games.

3. The second bill doesn't seem to be effective anyway. No matter where you put the violent games, kids will still have to go through the cashier to buy them (and most likely get the money from his parents as well). And if the kid is shoplifting, there are far more important problems to worry about than the fact that he's going to play a violent video game.

I understand that Problem #2 is the only one that's relevant to you, but you asked a general question, so you got a general answer.

Rob

Re:Does it matter?

[scot4875]

But current ratings systems (ESRB, MPAA, etc) are *privately* run. A goverment mandated ratings system makes content subject to the whims of special interests and big donors of elected officials.

And this is different from the MPAA's ratings ... how? Why is it that we can't see any form of sex in a movie without an R rating, but any amount of violence is ok for PG? Maybe ... because of special interests like the Christian right?

Just because something isn't government-run doesn't mean it's impervious to the whims of special interests.

--Jeremy

Re:Does it matter?

[Luke the Obscure]

Actually, as a vegetarian, I'd rather my kid be playing GTA than Deer Hunter, since shooting cops with a chain gun is very Obviously Bad, whereas shooting animals with guns is considered "normal" in some circles.

Re:Does it matter?

[pudge]

I totally agree with this statement, though you have to admit that parents are stupid too. Or shall I say adults.

Absolutely. I don't think parents are always right, just that they are the ones who are charged with the responsibility for the kids' decisions. And when enough of society thinks something is not appropriate for kids, then they say, "OK, let's make sure that if a kid is using this, that it is with the parents' permission, by making it legal only for adults to purchase it." It's not a perfect system, but it helps ensure the parents are the ones making the decision, even if that decision is a poor one.

Re:Does it matter?

[YomikoReadman]

While the MPAA ratings given are done within the industry, the guidlines for rating them are enforced by the FCC, IIRC. The ESRB ratings take a lot from those guidlines, and are basically a carbon copy at that. In essence, you are both right, However, Both parties would look really bad if they were to rate a movie lower than what it should be rated.

In essence, while it is quite easily for a group with interests to try to 'buy' a lower rating, it would more than likely come back to bite them in the ass when all the concerend parents groups, along with whoever else decides to rise against them for putting out such garbage.

Re:Does it matter?

[renuncln]

Think about the fact that most games that are out today contain and M rating. Does this suddenly mean that we will have a lot of shelf space under eye level that is empty or full of reader rabbit software.

I don't know about you but I know that when I go to the game store I want to be able to just stroll over and look at all the games without getting a crick in my neck because all the decent games are up near the ceiling. Also consider that when product is placed away from eye level it is probably not going to sell as well because that is where people are looking. If anything a better solution would be to put them in a seperate adult section of the store, but then maybe you have no probably with video games that carry an M rating being equated to porn?

Also consider the fact that the ratings system is a private non-government organization. It is done as a service to people who are concerned about ratings and in my practical experience I have not seen many parents use it at all. This is a persistant problem that is split pretty well between the retailers who voluntarily check ages on people who buy M rated games and people who don't pay attention to what their kids are buying. It has been proven numerous times and in practical experience that a fair number of the low wage employees at many large retail stores don't give a hoot if they get a message on the screen that says check the age of the buyer when they get a M rated game. They will just bypass it and sell the game anyway. I'm not saying this is always the case but it happens often enough. As far as parental blame, I have two boys and I sit down and look at everything that they watch or play so I have some idea if it is appropriate for my family. I don't neccessarily watch the whole thing through but I watch enough so that I have a feeling if it is indeed appropriate.

As far as the warnings on tobacco go, those are health concerns and I have yet to see someone playing a video game die from it. Although you will see that almost every console video game contains on the first page of the manual an epilepsy warning. How many people do you think are actually aware of that?

Re:Does it matter?

[Sylver Dragon]

It just kills me when people say the government shouldn't be involved, this is an issue for parents. Hello, brainiac: that is what the law DOES, it puts the parents in control.

It would seem that you are the one who is missing the point here. This law does not "put the parents in control", it does nothing of the sort. Currently the parents are in control, they are just failing to exercise that control in a responsible fashion. On the other hand, this law is just another example of parents who don't want to bother taking the time to raise thier children properly, and instead want a nanny government to do it for them. There is no reason for this law, if you don't want your kids playing 'M' rated or violent games, then don't let them; but let's not go and expect the government to play nanny for everyone.

Re:Does it matter?

[Anonymous Coward]

With taxes, the slippery slope has proven true. Not to 150%, of course, but getting closer.

Remember, the income tax began in 1917 (or close), and was only for the really wealthy, and was only for the wartime need. Nowadays Tax Freedom day is getting later every year.

Re:Does it matter?

[pudge]

This law does not "put the parents in control", it does nothing of the sort.

Yes, it does. It disallows the child from purchasing it for himself. It gives the parents control over that purchase. How do you not get this? 20 points higher than me, and he thinks a big guy like that can wear his clothes?

There is no reason for this law, if you don't want your kids playing 'M' rated or violent games, then don't let them; but let's not go and expect the government to play nanny for everyone.

You are ignoring reality. Just flat-out living in fantasyland. We have had laws for hundreds of years in this country prohibiting minor access to what society deems is "adult" material. It's not that parents aren't able to do their job, but that kids are stupid and run out and do what they are disallowed anyway, regardless of what their parents say. We have laws against kids buying porn and alcohol, but in most cases, parents are allowed to provide those materials to their children. Only the most extreme people -- or kids -- think this is an example of a "nanny government."

Re:Does it matter?

[Sylver Dragon]

Yes, it does. It disallows the child from purchasing it for himself. It gives the parents control over that purchase. How do you not get this? 20 points higher than me, and he thinks a big guy like that can wear his clothes?

No, it just gives either the government, or a private organization, control over what a child can purchase, but does nothing to represent the parent's views. Now, these views will often line up, as most people will agree that a child shouldn't be playing "Debbie does Dallas: The Video Game", but there will be more questionable titles that either will or won't be put on the restricted list, but this will not necessarilly represent the views of the parents. In fact, a child may still end up getting a hold of games that the parents find objectionable. In the end, the parent will have not gained anything other than a false sense of security. I stand by my original point, the parents need to do their job and control what thier children have access to.
As for how I don't "get this", its easy, I believe in personal responsibility. If you can't or won't control what your children are doing, what the hell are you doing having kids? Yes, some things are going to get by you, kids are ignorant, they aren't dumb. This is all part of the experience of growing up.

You are ignoring reality. Just flat-out living in fantasyland. We have had laws for hundreds of years in this country prohibiting minor access to what society deems is "adult" material. It's not that parents aren't able to do their job, but that kids are stupid and run out and do what they are disallowed anyway, regardless of what their parents say. We have laws against kids buying porn and alcohol, but in most cases, parents are allowed to provide those materials to their children. Only the most extreme people -- or kids -- think this is an example of a "nanny government."

So, if I get you right, you are basically saying that the fact that because kids can do things, ouside of parental supervision, we should allow the government to decide for everyone what is acceptable for thier kids, and what isn't? Basically, you want the government to watch what your kids are doing when you aren't. Sound's a lot like a nanny to me. I'm hardly an extreme person, I just have this deeply seated belief that raising children is the burden of the parents who decided to have them, not the rest of society. Have kids, teach them as you wish, and I will teach mine as I wish, but keep the damned government out of it, it tends to screw up everything else it does.

Re:Does it matter?

[pudge]

No, it just gives either the government, or a private organization, control over what a child can purchase, but does nothing to represent the parent's views.

I never said the purchasing itself represented the parents' views. It can't. It only puts the decision to purchase directly into the hands of the parents.

In fact, a child may still end up getting a hold of games that the parents find objectionable.

Yes, but that is not an argument. We have laws against killing, and people still kill! OMG!

If you can't or won't control what your children are doing, what the hell are you doing having kids?

Spoken like someone who has no children. You can't control your kids, unless you abuse them to the point where they go Clockwork Orange. You can discipline them and train them, but no kid is expected to be well-trained or well-disciplined such that they will always do the right thing. That is why they are KIDS. If they could be fully trusted, or have full responsibility for themselves, we would call them ADULTS.

So, if I get you right, you are basically saying that the fact that because kids can do things, ouside of parental supervision, we should allow the government to decide for everyone what is acceptable for thier kids, and what isn't?

You keep pretending that these kids are being disallowed by the government from playing the game. Nothing could be further from the truth, and your dishonesty is transparent.

I'm hardly an extreme person, I just have this deeply seated belief that raising children is the burden of the parents who decided to have them, not the rest of society.

That's a ridiculous belief to have, and a quite extreme one.

Re:Does it matter?

[Sylver Dragon]

I never said the purchasing itself represented the parents' views. It can't. It only puts the decision to purchase directly into the hands of the parents.

As I attempted to point out, it still fails to do so. It will do so on those titles which the government has deemed "unsafe", but will not do so on other titles, which may be just as objectionable. The only way you're ever going to really get that type of control into the hand of parents, is to deny kids access to all video games, without parental consent. Which, if we're going to try and give the parents control, would probably be a better way to go, but then, that would, and should, be viewed as rather extreme. I still stand by my point, this is just another form of parents wanting to have the government watch over thier kids for them.

Yes, but that is not an argument. We have laws against killing, and people still kill! OMG!

Given, its part of a much larger one that I didn't feel like typing when I posted. Its meant to tie back into the idea of cost versus benefit. We have laws against killing, what is the benefit? We have a way to deal with killers, and hopefully, less killing going on. The cost? Well, enforcement, houseing of those that break the law, and a few others. Are the costs worth the benefit? This is a value decision that everyone has to make, but the majority of society has said yes. Now, what about a law keeping kids from getting a hold of 'M' games easily? Costs are basically enforcement, and dealing with offenders. What's the benefit? Well, kids won't get a hold of games that are deemed objectionable by the government, easily. So, now the value judgement, is it worth it? There is not a clear concensus on this (otherwise, why would we be having this discussion?) There are those who think that it is fitting for society, as a whole, to pay for watching over everyone's kids. Then there are those that think it should be the parents who should be watching over the kids. I guess the comprimise, that I would be happy with, would be some sort of child tax, if you have kids you have to pay an extra tax to cover the extra costs of the government playing nanny to your kids.

Spoken like someone who has no children. You can't control your kids, unless you abuse them to the point where they go Clockwork Orange. You can discipline them and train them, but no kid is expected to be well-trained or well-disciplined such that they will always do the right thing. That is why they are KIDS. If they could be fully trusted, or have full responsibility for themselves, we would call them ADULTS.

Ahh yes, the "You don't have kids, so you don't know argument". Ok, you got me, I don't have kids, this is a decision that I have made because I don't think I have the resources available to properly raise a child (that whole personal responsibility thing again). However, this does not disqualify me from having an opinion about the laws that are going to affect me, and how tax money is going to be spent. Sorry, if the law is going to affect me, I have every right to get involved. Now, I do understand that kids are not able to be controlled 24/7, they are going to go out and do things that you don't want them to do. Nor do I think its good to control them that tightly anyways. Just from antecdotal evidence, it seems to me that the tighter kids are controlled, the more wild they go when they do get some measure of freedom.
However, we are talking about video game sales. Its not that hard to occasionally look at the screen your kid is playing on, to figure out if they should be playing that game or not. Or, (insert diety here) forbid that you actually sit down and play some of those games with them from time to time. Its quite possible to monitor thier playtime, without being too intrusive. And if they are trying to put one past you, eventually, you'll catch them, and be able to punish them, and put that punishment in the right context.

You keep pretending that these kids are

Re:Does it matter?

[pudge]

However, this does not disqualify me from having an opinion about the laws that are going to affect me, and how tax money is going to be spent.

I didn't say it disqualifies you or that you cannot have an opinion, nor did I imply it. I meant only that your judgment is clouded by having a lack of understanding.

And I don't see how tax dollars are relevant: it's not like this requires significant public monies (or any monies at all) to implement. Sure, there's the issue of enforcement, but that's rarely significant for cases like this (unless it goes to through the courts on a FIrst Amendment appeal, but that would only happen once, whether the law was upheld or not). Money isn't the issue.

Not at all, and thank you for calling me a liar. But it is still government control of what these kids can and cannot buy.

You are quite welcome, and if you persist, I shall thusly honor you again. You kept talking about what the kids can "do," what is "acceptable" for them. This (proposed) law does not say it is not acceptable for a child to have, or even purchase, this game. It says a parent must give the approval. It says society CANNOT give approval. It says society CANNOT say something is acceptable. It is the exact opposite of what you think it is.

And that seems so extreme to you?

So, government should not forbid kids from smoking, drinking, purchasing firearms, getting married, etc. Yes, that sounds exceptionally extreme to me.

Re:Does it matter?

[Thing 1]

Yep, but it takes a bit more effort to track those people down that it does to write flame-filled letters to the editor, I guess.

But then again, if I heard about a grassroots organization trying to go after the people doing the buying and selling of children for sex, I'd gladly pony up a couple bucks. Hopefully others would too; perhaps there's a business model in that? (I'm too busy and besides, my skills are tracking bugs, not humans -- so I won't start it, but if you hear of such a thing let me know.)

PS Yer a new friend. ;-)

Re:This calls for

[PzyCrow]

could you, or anyone, please explain the motivation behind a post like this? Or other -1 posts for that matter... I do not understand. Allmost all posts you have are -1 too.

Sounds reasonable

[Rhinobird]

Putting in for video games what we do for Magazines and Movies already. Hopefully this will eventually lead to a wider range of content in the 'adult' section of my video rental place. I can only take so much in flesh tones.

Re:Sounds reasonable

[StingRay02]

This would make sense if this legislation was for Adults Only rated games. It's not. It's for M rated games, the equivalent of R rated movies. I don't know about where you're at, but I work for the Wal-Mart electronics department and our R rated movies are listed in alphabetically. This would be like saying Scarface and Pulp Fiction need to be cordoned off from the rest of the movies. Movie buyers would never stand for that, so why should gamers stand for it. If the cashier does their job, GTA3 and other mature games don't get sold to kids. I can't count the number of times I've gone through this scenario:

"Mom, that's the one I want!" A twelve year old's pointing at Vice City.

The mother turns to me, "Can you get that out for us?"

Me: "Sure, but do you know that it's rated M for sexual content and extreme violence."

Mother: "Really? No, I didn't."

Kid gets whacked for trying to sneak one past her.

And I will not sell M rated games, or R rated movies, to children without their parent's knowledge first. Besides that, the ratings are starting to work. More and more I have customers that won't buy T rated games even because their child is only 12. M rated is right out.

This will fail. I have no doubt of that. It's started by some no name legislator looking to get headlines. The game industry is huge, and in a few years, the ESRB ratings will be as ubiquitous as the MPAA ratings.

Re:Sounds reasonable

[KrinnDNZ]

A minor correction, speaking from a CA district near Yee's - Yee is a no-name nationally, sure, but that doesn't mean that he can't do bad-for-your-freedom stuff that sets a precedent. He got a column into the San Francisco Chronicle recently, hyping his bill and peddling the same disgusting "Videogames turn children into copycat killers!" tripe that's been going on for years. Bloody idiots. The paper published a couple of follow-ups - one gamer defending the right to imagine, and one sort of half-and-half agreeing with Yee in principle, but waffling about the bill. Bloody idiots. I thought we were supposed to be the smart area of the country here, but apparently we've got the same problem finding qualified officials as everyone else.

Re:Sounds reasonable

[FauxReal]

Yes, it would be even nicer if the stores took a little initiative and put the more mature rated games up higher or seperated themselves, instead of on the bottom line.

Re:Sounds reasonable

[StingRay02]

The key here is that it's been going on for years. If something bad was really going to come of all this, I'm sure Leiberman would have managed to get something pushed through when he was on his soap box back when. What these legislators and reporters and everyone else who jumps on this bandwagon fails to realize is that gaming is no longer a niche thing. It's not some kind of nerd's only area with no voice. The industry makes more money than Hollywood, and if it doesn't have a voice yet, it will, and will as soon as one of these quits being an idle threat and attention getter and starts being taken seriously, which I don't think this will be. I mean, if Columbine couldn't cause any major shifts in the way games are sold, even just in Colorado (where I live), it'll take a lot for me to believe this will do much.

makes sense

[jeffy124]

the second bill (the one that enforces ESRB M ratings) is one that most chain stores already follow. if anything, passage will calm those who say violent video games are evil. because then their opponents (eg, RockStar, other game makers) will be able to point to a law that deflects blame onto the store-of-sale rather than arguing with them to try and accept common-sense reasoning.

Re:makes sense

[shadowcabbit]

the second bill (the one that enforces ESRB M ratings) is one that most chain stores already follow.

No, they don't. They already display signs detailing the ESRB ratings-- little itty bitty Extra Fine Print ones-- but there's no policy in place *enforcing* the "under 17 + M rated game = no sale" guideline. At least, when I quit EB a year ago, there wasn't. It's there but never really enforced, kind of like hand-washing in a factory men's room.

Re:makes sense

[Anonymous Coward]

a lot of stores have made news by announcing they were gonna start enforcing by policy of no M games for those underage. WalMart checkout registers, for instance, ask the cashier to verify age when an M game gets scanned. Similar happens for other age-restricted items (cigarettes, hunting/fishing licenses/equipment, etc)

yeah, it's easy for the clerk to just not check, but having the law behind it allows for the state to set up sting-ops and assess a fine rather than it go unchecked as before.

Re:makes sense

[Anonymous Coward]

the guy said most chains, he did not say all chain stores. your entire post is based on one store of one chain.

Re:makes sense

[/dev/trash]

Toys R US enforces this. They even tell the clerks:

"Sell a M-rated game to a minor,and you WILL be fired."

Define 'cruel'

[RyoShin]

I'm all for the second bill, mainly because Mature titles are, for the most part, kept higher than the rest of the games (though not all stores do this), and all it would do is make a legal statement of something already happening. Plus, as some pointed out, it would get various activists and parents groups off the backs of stores and video game developers because it would be 'harder' for a child to see one of these games.

Though, really, they could probably still see it by craning their neck. Not to mention that if a 10 year old kid is playing M-rated games already, his parents are probably being irresponsible and buying the games for the kid, so putting them higher will just make the 'parents' complain that they have to lift their kids up to let them see the 'good' games.

As for the first bill, that should be shot down PDQ. The reason is of the extending of the definition of 'harmful matter' to "games where the player can injure another human character 'in a manner that is especially heinous, atrocious or cruel.'"

People can interpret that in various ways. I would hope that most of America (and the world) would take games like Manhunt to be in that definition. But there are people out there (both crazy and non), who think that it isn't cruel or heinous at all. Instead of describing one's feelings about something, it should list specific acts (i.e. cutting off a head with a butcher's knife, repeatedly stabbing a man with sharpened bat, forcing people to watch Richard Simmons tapes, etc.) that can be easily identified, so there would be no question.

Re:Define 'cruel'

[EvilSporkMan]

It can't list SPECIFIC acts since then we'd get into things like the difference between a butcher knife and a butter knife - it'd have to say things like "dismemberment", which is actually fine as long as these games aren't BANNED, since loads of games contain this sort of thing. (They're usually rated for "Blood and Gore")

what exactly is a human character?

[Anonymous Coward]

What exactly is a human character? Is Mario a human character? I can after all make him go splat or what about all of those skeleton warriors in RPG games? They used to be human. Are we to overlook the plight of skeletal hordes just because they lack flesh?

Separation and enforceability

[Cyphertube]

stocked above children's eye level and separately from other games

Two things bother me about this:

1. What is a child's eye level? Tell me the difference between a 6' tall 15 y.o and a 4'8" 50 y.o.? How can you enforce a child's eye level? Without a specific height defined in the legislation, enforcing this will be difficult to say the least and some court will throw it out.
2. By separating these games, will it not create the same backlash that happened with those stupid 'Tipper Gore'-sponsored Parental Advisory labels on music? I think more than anything, it'll make it easier to find the games. At any rate, these titles already are labeled mature and list the reasons why and parents still buy them. Given that the latest statistics show that adult women gamers outnumber boys 8-15 y.o., this really won't affect the market.

Of course, reality says to me it doesn't really matter since I don't live in California and I won't live in California. Even if they try to ban such games here (Minnesota), unless they ban them in all 50 states, which would never be held up under First Amendment legislation, trying to keep me from ordering them from elsewhere would violate interstate commerce, which is under Federal jurisdiction, not state.

Cracking the ESRB code

[obsid1an]

I really fail to see the point of bills like this. I am holding the game "Tony Hawk Underground" and right on the back I see:

Teen

Blood

Mild Violence

Strong Language

Suggestive Themes

Do parents continue to view this as some crazy code they need a big banner to decipher? Maybe a bill to force parents to actually look at the game they buy their children would be better.

Re:Cracking the ESRB code

[JFMulder]

Parents trust movie theaters not to show a movie to someone underage. They probably are doing the same thing with computer games store. On boxing, I waiting in a line at ebGames and a kid on front of me, not more than 13 or 14 years old, had a copy of Vice City for PC in his hands. The clerk didn't even say a word. He was all by himself. So part of the blame is on the store.

Also, if parents were interrested in what their kids do now days, they might realise that they might be playing games unsuitable for them.

If people are too stupid to take the matter in their own hands, I think it's better if the government does something about it. It may not be the best thing to happen, but it's better than having some kids play some untra-violent game.

Re:Cracking the ESRB code

[scot4875]

Maybe a bill to force parents to actually look at the game they buy their children would be better.

That's what this bill does. Kids can't legally buy M-rated games (under the bill), forcing parents to buy it for them. And while that doesn't force them to read the label, at least they might give it a glance.

Personally, I wish the ESRB had the ability to crack down on dealers who sell M-rated games to minors. The ratings are there for a reason. They aren't working right now because nobody can enforce them. (and honestly, do you think that EB and company will turn down a customer's money if they don't have to?) This bill would make them enforcable.

--Jeremy

Re:Cracking the ESRB code

[obsid1an]

I agree stores should do a better job of enforcing ratings, but not that there needs to be government intervention. Comparing the movie and game industries only goes so far. When a kid goes to see a movie, he sees it, comes home, and no one knows the better. When a kid buys a video game, he buys it, comes home, and plays it in the same house as his parents.

Re:Cracking the ESRB code

[dgagley]

I do read the boxes/CD cases. My 8 yr old son knows that any game with a "T" rating is out of bounds unless I first play it through. The "T" is a little broad in some cases but he does trust my judgement (pat on the back). I also teach them that the movies and games ARE NOT REAL AND DO NOT RELATE TO REAL LIFE.

It should be the parents who need to take more responsiblity instead of blaming every thing else

With their track record?

[Associate]

Federal courts have previously struck down laws in Indianapolis and St. Louis

Anyone want to trust this to the 9th circuit? I surely dont.

Re:With their track record?

[Anonymous Coward]

Even if the 9th Circuit does rule this bill passes Constitutional muster, The Supreme Court could decide to step in. Think about this, The 9th Circuit has had its rulings overturned by the Supreme Court the most out of all 11 circuits.

Remember, The Supreme Court refused to hear Indianapolis' appeal and could do the same to St. Louis' appeal should it get that far. If the 9th Circuit rules differently from the 7th and 8th Circuits, by refusing to hear Indianapolis' appeal, the Supreme Court pretty much set a precedent basically by silently agreeing with the 7th Circuit's ruling against Indianapolis. If this is the case, then the Supreme Court might not have any choice but hear this case. How they'll rule after that is another matter for another time.

Re:With their track record?

[Associate]

Well put AC. Mine was a knee jerk reaction.

Bill will not pass

[Anonymous Coward]

This pile of garbage will be used to light Gov. Schwarzenegger's cigars in the Governor's Mansion. Arnold will veto it because this ignorant fool will then try to go after the movies Arnold made(Terminator series, Commando, Red Heat, Running Man, etc.)

Even if Schwarzenegger does sign it, it will be blocked by the federal judges on First Amendment grounds anyway, wasting California taxpayer's dollars on legal fees.

Self-policing

[AHumbleOpinion]

Isn't the movie rating system a voluntary self-policing system? No government involvement?

That said, laws such as the proposed one are sometimes meant to merely "encourage" an industry to self-police. An industry announcement or two and the bill conveniently dies.

This is basically what you're saying:

[Pluvius]

1. Government intervention has made parents irresponsible with regards to what entertainment their children consume.

2. The best solution to this parental irresponsibility is government intervention.

Are you sure you've analyzed the situation properly?

BTW, the reason why movie theaters have enforced ratings is because children can watch movies in the theater, without their parents being able to do much about it. You basically have to bring video games home, on the other hand.

Rob

Re:This is basically what you're saying:

[JFMulder]

I don't think that parents are becoming stupid because of the laws made by the government, well, not where I live at least.

One of the many problems today is that people think more and more about money, so men and women go to work everyday, thinking about making more money and climbing the social and job ladder, hoping to be more and more succesfull. Because of that, they spend less and less time with their kids, so they don't supervise them anymore.

Between two evils, you sometimes have no choice but to choose the lesser one. Hopefully in the future we won't need them.

Sounds like a great idea

[MyDixieWrecked]

I mean, at least this way, I don't have too see all the Pokemon's and Marios when I'm looking for a good violent game to play. They'll be nice and grouped and ripe for the picking.

now if they'd only put the sucky games on a different shelf than the games that are actually good, this would be nearly a perfect world.

Re:what about zombies?

[Anonymous Coward]

Zombies are merely dead humans. Is it OK to put the hurt on zombies?

they'll just buy online

[Imperator]

Whether this is a good cause or not, it won't work. In the US, minors can't get credit cards without a cosigner, but they can get debit cards. Since these work just as well when buying things online, "underage" video game buyers will just order online with debit cards.

Kids will go a long way to avoid censorship. When stores made a fuss about selling "dirty" lyrics to minors, they went online to download it instead.

more power to them

[SHEENmaster]

Censorship is utter bullshit, especially when enforced by the law.

If a minor asks you to help him buy a violent or othewise blacklisted game, it is your duty as a citizen of a free nation to help him purchase it.

Any store clerk that refuses to sell such an item to a minor is a Communist spy, to be dealt with accordingly.

Re:more power to them

[Anonymous Coward]

Except it's not censorship Mr. McCarthy. When you can make an intelligent well thought out remark, then you can comment.

GTA vs. KOTOR

[iasenko]

(warning, this will sort of give some spoilers if you haven't played the game)

I'm glad that a newer, objective system of rating will be introduced soon. I recently purchased Knights of the Old Republic, and found that it is a horrible and terribly violent game, bound to corrupt our youth with its lack of morality and suggestions of genocide and hate.

While playing this game I realized I was berating people, abusing them, manipulating them with my Jedi mind tricks, stealing from them, and ultimately murdering them. I was being a very bad person.

Early on, when trapped on a planet I started out by helping an innocent young Twi'lek realize her dream of becoming a famous "dancer"...but then decided to kill her after she told me how much better than me she was. After boring myself with a gang war and some drag racing, I killed a crime lord and stole his ship. I went out and obtained some banned weapons from some shady Rodians and illegally gambled a few games of pazaak, then decided I should check out my old stomping grounds on Tatooine. I went on down to deliver a stolen box to a Hutt, after having just finished a successful "spice" delivery. Nosing around, I walked into the Sand People enclave after having a local Czerka rep urge me to "Kill all the Sand People", and proceeded to systematically annihilate all the Sand People I could find from the city of Anchorhead. For this, I was rewarded with lots of credits. After repairing my assassin droid and getting a lead in Kashyyk, I decided to check out Manaan to get some hit contracts. Needless to say, I was rolling in some Republic dough.

I think perhaps the only thing GTA has that KOTOR doesn't is the penalty of getting caught for your crimes. In KOTOR, you're pretty unstoppable...even if there were police to force choke or mind trick.

I'm glad that this new law will keep this foul game out of the hands of minors.

Self Regulation

[x00101010x]

I was talking to my uncle who works for a defence contractor over the holidays and one thing he got me thinking about is "Self-Regulation".

Right now parts of the software engineering segment of the defence industry (including his employer) are working on certifications for software engineers equivelent to those for structural engineers. The reason for this self-regulation? They realize that it's only a matter of time until a tragic loss of life occurs due to a software bug, what if Columbia burned up due to a software bug on the re-entry trajectory calculations? So, they self-regulate now in order to avoid gov't regulation later.

The game industry tried and failed. Whenever I hear some story about some kid going off and their parents blaming music/video games my first 2 questions are 1) What was the rating on the package, and 2) Did you watch/listen/play the game yourself before you let your kid play (or at least when your kid started playing. Now that's assuming it really is the music/video games' fault (a whole other can of worms I won't get into here).
We (I'm in the game industry) have the ESRB labels and such, but they were unenforced. Maybe there was no way to really get BestBuy, WalMart, ElectronicsBoutique, etc. to enforce them.
So now the gov't steps in. Now they will be enforced.

Personally, I wouldn't mind it if they took it one step further and locked up the Mature games like alcohol and tobacco products rather than just putting them out of sight. Sure, it's a pain in the arse when I want smokes at the grocery store and I have to hold up the line while the manager goes and grabs me some smokes, but at my local target all but the bargin bin of games is behind locked glass already anywho.

My figuring is, people who want the games and should be buying them will still buy them. The already messed up kid who's going to play my game for a 4 day bender before blowing away his english teacher , ex-girlfriend, her new girlfriend, that kid that picked on him in grade school, etc. will now have to ask his mommy to buy the game for him. If mommy buys the game, she should be accountable to read the ESRB rating (which would now be posted, I'm seeing something similar to the "We Card" plaques at convinience stores).

So now, when I'm taken to court for making a game that "made" Billy go on a rampage my lawyer can rip into mommy with this line of questioning: "How did Billy get this game?" (I bought it for him), "Did you see the ESRB sign on the shelf, register and your recipt?" (Uhm... I guess so), "Did you check the label on the package after reading the sign?" (I might have), "And you gave him the game anyways?" (Yes, it was his birthday), "Did you watch him play at all?" (No, he plays up in his bedroom with the door closed), "Can you honestly say that you, as Billy's mother, took responsibility and due care regarding what content he was exposed to, even after being exposed to the ESRB information on the shelf the game came from, the register where you purchased the game, the back of your recipt, the pamphlet inside the game and the label on it's packaging?" (Uhm... ), "No further questions, your honor."


Anywho, I've degraded to rambling and I have a new blood and gibs particle system to write!

Re:Self Regulation

[Anonymous Coward]

These are two totally different fields. The game industry is similiar to the movie industry in that both are protected by the First Amendment.

The industry hasn't failed anything. They're being to set up to fail by a biased news media that takes every news story and completely blows it out of purportion with help from gloryhounds like Jack "Biggest Douche In The Universe" Thompson, because negativity sells. Asking thoswe two questions is NOT assuming anything is because every gamer knows that it NEVER is the games' fault, only asinine idiots like Thompson, Pee-Pee Yee, and the rest of the anti-video game mafia believe that.

Actually, I know at least Wal-Mart(I should know since I'm almost always in that store and there are two here in Houma, Louisiana) and K-Mart already enforces the all the rating systems and eventually, every retailer will VOLUNTARILY have a ID check system in place, not being forced to by a paranoid ass-clown politician only interested in securing votes to stay in office.

As far as locking the games in a case, most of the stores already do that or they have empty cases on the display racks and the customer would have to get the actual game when they check out.

As far as this goes, as I've stated in earlier posts, these particular bills won't get past Gov. Schwarzenegger's veto, much less be enforced.

the mccarthy part was a joke

[SHEENmaster]

Keeping information from one group is censorship, just as it is to keep such information from all of society.