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

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: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.

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.

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?

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.

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

[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: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.

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.

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!