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.
this shouldn't be a LAW.
it should be.. hmm.. common sense.
Of course, as on the previous thread about the suicide kid, someone said "common sense is usually not."
Not all games are intended for kids.
"Champagne for my real friends - and real pain for my sham friends!" http://ericblade.postalboard.com/
Still, though, wouldn't trade it. So you have to look somewhere else for the violent video games. Don't give me that, "One freedom at a time..." diatribe either, because it doesn't apply here. In the long run, making it harder to get games would probably be better for all the little chunkers running around, anyways. Go to the beach and {swim,surf,dive,fish,sail} for fuck's sake, it's a gorgeous day! Only pick the controller up when it's DARK OUT, kids. Seeing real bikinis is better than those PS2-generated-volleyball-whoores anyways. The physics of bouncing breasts just can't be simulated quite right yet.
And now I'm all riled up. Well, have fun picking this post apart, there's plenty of contention here.
Late.
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.
This idea is kickass. Then you could go to the porn store and pick up a movie and a violent game at one time. Then if your girl sees a reciept on your table for the porn store; you can say, "I just bought a game. I swear!"
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.
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
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?
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
I'm not turning it into a religious issue by bringing in the Passion. I consider the Passion a violent movie rather than a religious movie, and it seems that most people see it the other way around. What I meant is that movies in general seem to be allowed more leeway in the violence thay can show. I would think that seeing Christ crucified in the Passion, a woman getting decapitated by an elevator in Final Destination 2, and 88 people getting dismembered in Kill Bill would be just as psychologically damaging to kids as shooting imps with a BFG, running people over with cars in GTA, and impaling zombies with wooden stakes in Painkiller. Why regulate one violent form of expression more harshly than the other?
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.
...it's pretty stupid. I'm tired of seeing politicians freak out about videogames because they don't understand them, while ignoring, say, movies. I think games should be treated like movies, not worse because...because...? I mean, a seperate section for AO (the equivalent of X or NC-17) games would make sense (we haven't seen one of those since the 3D0). But for a game that is rated M (supposed to be equivalent to R, personally, I think that in many cases is kinda between PG-13 and R)? Is there a seperate section of the store for R-rated movies? Sheesh, next we're going to see Wal-mart refuse to sell M rated games because they're supposedly worse than the goriest R-rated movies.
And place violent games seperately from other games on BitTorrent networks as well.
Wait, you mean that's illegal?
If my answers frighten you, stop asking scary questions.
Many adults watch movies and don't play video games.
They realize that the movies clearly are not significant factors in causing someone to kill someone, but they don't have a similar experience with video games.
May we never see th
This is complete and utter stupidity on so many levels. Those who say "it's to better mark the games" are full of shit, or they don't know what they're talking about. I'm 14, and my mom KNOWS what M-rated means. Can't get it past her. That being said, I do have GTA3/VC and several other violent games. Do I wanna go out and whack people? NO! I think anyone who says that 12-year-olds and older can't tell the difference between games and reality has their head up their ass. In a way, I think these people are to blame for some of the school shootings and whatnot because they have offered these stupid fucks a cozy excuse for being insane. Am I the only one who thinks that most violent people have played violent videogames BECAUSE they are attracted to violence in the first place? Also, in many ways I think that T-rated games are worse than M-rated games. In T-rated games, people get shot and fall down or disappear. In M-rated games, it shows (more or less) what actually happens. I would also be more likely to support this if the line between M-rated and T-rated games were higher. What's wrong with seeing red pixels?