Slashdot Mirror
Proposed CA Laws to Reclassify Violent Video Games
cybermox writes "There are two laws (AB1792 and AB1793) up for committee approval next week in the California State Assembly that seek to reclassify violent video games in a manner similar to pornography (1792) and require retailers to display Mature rated games separately from other games (1793). The IGDA trade body has a document opposing the bill in its anti-censorship advocacy page." Update: 04/09 02:22 GMT by S : Reuters is also covering support for the bill among "elected officials, religious leaders and civic activists", who "rallied across California on Thursday" - we've previously covered the introduction of this proposed legislation.
What the hell is wrong with the U.S.
- Parents complain about no rating systems.
- We got a rating systems.
- Parents complain about ineffective rating systems.
- We make the labels bigger and train EB employees better.
- Parents complain about 1 kid out of 100 sneaking out with a mature game.
- We make better rating systems.
We are fucking pilgrims. The news just showed a couple american contractors dangled and burned publicly in Iraq. Where's the damn label for the news. Parents blame rock music in the 70s, then video games in the 80s, then internet in the 90s.
Prohibithion does not work. Especially when we are dealing with digital products in an era with P2P networks, email, various other things and even sneakernet connections. Legislation to rate games which are unfit for the tech savy youngsters will only serve to save them some time in choosing the really hot titles.
How about spending money to promote the development of more interesting, challenging, educational games rather than to spend money to enforce such legislation.
Provide a more interesting alternative without letting the kids know that it is good for them.
Why not do the same for books and movies too?
I mean, take the bible. Some of it's pretty gruesome. I would NOT want my kids reading this kind of stuff.
Oh, I know. It's because video games weren't around when these people were growing up, so they have no idea what they are.
How is a violent videogame any worse than Mel Gibson's The Passion of the Christ? Christ getting whipped and crucified was much more graphic and mind warping than shooting a lizard man in the head with a rifle. To specifically target violent videogames, as opposed to violent movies, seems hypocritical to me. Why not make a special R-rated section at Blockbuster so little Billy doesn't accidentally see the cover to Die Hard and become horribly scarred for life? They're already supposed to card people for buying M-rated games. Why not enforce that before doing anything more extreme?
Sure, for real ADULT games.
Do we need a separate section for R-rated movies? No? Then don't allow video games to be held to a different standard. Don't partake in the demonizing of games.
I'm not going to bother explaining why this legislation is stupid because it's already been done before. I just noticed this, though:
The bill would exclude from this definition any game in which the visual depiction of violence occurs as the result of simultaneous competition between 2 or more players.
So beating up the representation of a real person that you know is better than beating up a completely fictional being?
Rob
First, no publisher is going to put out two versions of a 5 disk game because some state legislates a back room violent section. If anything, they would put out two versions and supply the diffrent versions to diffrent areas (ie: no blood version to Germany, California, regular version everywhere else). Without an internet tax, the state will lose money as people buy from EB online.
Second, stores like Walmart, Target, and other wide-variety stores would just stop carrying anything they couldn't show to the public at large.
Third, nobody is going to host a family oriented Medal Of Honor server.