Law Professors on the California Violent Video Game Bill

Rydia writes "In light of the California Legislature's amendment and consideration of AB 1792, regarding violent video games, Findlaw's Vikram Amar (UC-Hastings) and Alan Brownstein (UC-Davis) have written an editorial on a child's vs. an adult's protections under the first amendment, and the right of the state to introduce legislation in this vein. It is welcome to see the topic discussed on its own legal merits, in lieu of actual law, and not the moralistic turf both sides of the debate have attempted to claim as their own."

Comments

morality

[fateswarm]

We humans have most of the times a distorted idea of morality. How come a violent picture produces violence? How come a 'bad' show up produces evil? The greatest people of this world were the ones that were able to see violence, to see the 'bad' things and still stay calm in front of them.

We should try to make ourselves better and our environment will become better eventually.

Video Games?

[Meneudo]

As far as I see it, there are other problems in the world that need more attention than deciding whether or not kids should play violent video games.

As far as I see it, let kids play violent video games all their life. But don't try to take it out on the video game industry because you screwed up. Otherwise, make a squeaky clean society in which nothing that encourages a crime can be aired/made into a video game.

My take

[black mariah]

The gaming industry should, as a whole, start regulating itself. Start forbidding retailers from sellings M rated games to minors. I like my Vice City as much as the next guy, but if a 13 year old is going to be playing it, their parents should be aware of the content and it should be up to them whether it's allowed in their house or not (for the record, I'd let my kids play it). By restricting the sale to minors, you don't bring up any more issues than not allowing kids into R rated movies does. This is something every gamer should get behind, just as most everyone did with the ratings system a few years back. The more the industry and its customers regulate themselves, the less the goverment gets involved.

Re:My take

[GTarrant]

But note that it is not the motion picture industry itself that forbids those under 17 access to R-rated films, it is the theaters themselves that have made the agreement to do so. The ratings are just that, ratings.

I think the video game industry goes *farther* than the motion picture industry does - not only giving a rating, but explaining what in the game caused the rating (you'll see things that say "T - Some violence, light profanity" and such).

If *stores* decide, as theaters do, to get together and restrict the sales of M-rated games to minors (which I have no problems with), then that's fine.

The only way this whole "politicians pass laws on video games that they would never pass for movies" will pass is when they start realizing that video games and movies are, in essence, equivalent forms of entertainment. If you asked the same people trying to pass these laws if it's a good idea to require, say, Blockbuster (for rentals) or Best Buy (for sales) to take *all* R rated movies and put them in a separate section, they'd probably laugh and say "Of course not, that wouldn't be legal." Neither will this be.

T.

Re:My take

[incubusnb]

any smart kid knows the Default code, and if they don't, they know where to find it. Parents are too lazy to change the code usually so Parental Controls never work.

besides, if the parent did change the code, a Patient kid could probably figure a way in (ie. unplug the console for 15 minutes, thus, resetting the code)

missing the point

[SkunkPussy]

According to the bill, the key requirement of heinousness, atrocity, or cruelty can be established if, in addition to other requirements, the game "depicts exceptional pain or suffering on the part of the victim and is accompanied by a graphic depiction of the victim's injuries," and "the circumstances surrounding the violence indicate that it is committed without conscience, pity, or empathy."

What if a game depicts no pain or suffering on the part of the victim, but is accompanied by a graphical depiction of the victim's injuries? Surely its worse if the consquences of violence are not made clear? If you are not reminded of the suffering then perhaps you are not going to be aware of the consequences of violence?
Arguably all the programmes like starwars where there is fighting all the time, but noone gets injured, noone gets hurt could be worse in terms of desensitising people to violence?

just my two pence.

just a Fact for you all

[incubusnb]

Violence existed long Before video games, it existed long before Movies, and TV, it even existed long before books.

Violence is a part of the Human Subconcious, and Shielding kids from Violence will only make them unprepaired when their put in a violent situation

It's all just a little bit of history repeating...

[Anonymous Coward]

Food for thought:
Back in the 1950's the government considered a similar situation concerning the comics industry and its influence on minors. It response to a near witch-hunt the comics industry created the Comics Code Authority to regulate itself. The government was satisfied, and supposedly minors would be saved from degenerating society. Today, however, the CCA is viewed as archaic and many comics no longer stick to it (the CCA stamp is no longer need to sell). American youths have continued down the path that the government was so concerned about, and everyone realized that comics were not the cause of the "decline" of American youth culture, but societal causes for the changes. The same thing is beginning today with video games. My opinion is that the causes of the "problems" with youth today are not video games, but the decline of parenting in American households (more parents working longer hours, higher rate of devorce, etc.) Maybe we should address the parenting issue instead of retarding the development of an industry.