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.
Personally, I think this is a FANTASTIC idea.
I am an adult, and a fan of violent video games. Rather than all the complaning and censorship, I would rather just see an adult video game section. And just like they do certain music CD's, I would also like publishers to sell two versions of games - once censored for younger consumers, and one explicit adult only version. For ex, the adult version of Medal Of Honor could have had blood then, unlike the version that shipped. You could even create dedicated online servers for adults, where trash talk is ok, vs family oriented servers.
Okay. Porn is "bad". Your children might see it, but you're not going to spend money on it for them.
Video-Games can be highly social, skill-based, and excite learning about technology (c'mon, how many 20-somethings on Slashdot know Perl and never played a computer game for fun as a kid).
Violent or otherwise "objectionable" material is engaging. Not only that, but they can help children build "fantasy" scenarios, which, lets face it, aren't all that different from the things they might see in real life. I worked in a Day Care during highschool [before 9/11, etc, etc], and a kid in the room was lining up toy soldiers and playing "bombing Saddam" - *no joke*. This wasn't some abnormal kid, he was a 4th grader who had heard about this evil guy and made up a game to get rid of him.
Let face it, you wouldn't want your daughters growing up playing Princess, but you realize that there there's a point where children need to distinguish between reality and fantasy, and at a certain age, play-acting is play-acting.
I believe that Gov. Schwarzenegger will veto it for these reasons:
The sponsor of the bill has been going on and on about how he believes that Arnold will sign his bills into law, even though Arnold hasn't taken a position one way or the other(although Arnold being in a few games suggests that he will veto it) and also knowing full well that similiar bills in other states have been ruled unconstitutional because the First Amendment protects video games just as it protects movies and music. The sponsor also seems like the type of guy that wouldn't just stop at video games and would start going after Arnold's movies if given the opportunity. Again, if the Supreme Court handles any of the cases whether it's this one or the one in Washington state, I truly believe that the Supreme Court will rule in favor of this industry, not just because of the First Amendment, but also because they silently agreed with the lower courts' ruling when they rejected Indianapolis' appeals.
Another point of interest: Recently, Gov. Schwarzenegger has stated that he wants the California State Legislature to go from a full-time legislature to part-time like most other states. On vacation in Hawaii, Arnold was quoted as saying that the legislators had too much time on their hands in coming up with "strange bills".
Hmmm, I wonder if he directed that comment towards this particular bill?
Straying a little off-topic, the soccer moms that cry about this topic will soon be crying about the FCC going after their daytime soap operas and Oprah Winfrey for "indecent" content, if one FCC commissioner has his way.
BearDogg-X
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. ... and then video games again in the '00s. Ever feel like this society is regressing?
The question is, once all the regression is achieved, what will these people do? They certainly won't be living in bliss, that's for sure; they'll still be dealing with the same problems, only they won't have their favorite scapegoats around anymore.
I don't live in California, but I sure wish I could talk some sense into these people, because I know it'll only embolden their peers elsewhere. I don't want to live in a society that is afraid of itself.
I also do not want to be guilty of a crime by association, which is where this is heading. Make it "Adult-only" now, so that you can control it, then move to eliminate it by criminalizing it.
I read, recently, that the DoJ is looking to tear into the pornography industry. I read that, not satisfied with attacking the "extreme" of pornography, the DoJ is going to go after some of the "plain vanilla" and softcore mainstream pornography. First they seized control of it by limiting access to it, and now they are moving to eliminate it by criminalizing it. Evidently, some people take offense to other people seeing a naked human being in private.
Evidently, some people take offense to other people playing video games in private.
How long before the moderates speak out against this assault? How long before they act?
~UP
Eat the Path.
Short version: Of course they need a law because no retailer is going to voluntarily reduce their sales potential.