Slashdot Mirror
California Legislature Passes Violent Game Bill
404Ender writes "In a move similar to the passage of a law designed to restrict the sale of violent video games to children in Illinois, California is now awaiting only the signature of Governor Schwarzenegger before a similar bill becomes a law. Does this action signal the start of a disturbing trend of the restriction of First Amendment rights? How can we as gamers fight back against this type of government action?"
So only children can buy violent games in Illinois? Neat.
[PowerPoint] is a tool for capitalist presentation
Adults will still have rights to play games. It's about protecting the children. I think there is an implied right for parents to protect their kids and if a State wants to reinforce this, then they should.
Wow, not what I'd expect from California... it will be interesting to see how that goes now that the gay marriage bill has been vetoed in the name of public opinion. The populace continues to surprise.
Just how does a measure like this restrict free speech? Kids are no longer allowed to purchase violent video games, yet this does not make the sale or manufacture of such games illegal.
Furthermore, I don't see what harm can come of this law. All it will do is make sure a parent checks out the games they buy their children. Sure kids might still be able to get such games, but it's better than no law at all.
I don't know about you but I fail to see any violations. This is in place to prevent the sales of M+ video games to minors. It's the same as restricting them in R rated movies. If a kid really wants a violent video game then I guess they are just going to have to prove to their parents they are mature enough to have it and the parents will buy it for them. Atleast in a perfect world.
...would have been to simply enforce the "AO" rating given out by the ESRB. Why invent your own sticker and everything?
I mean, it's already enforced that children in the US cannot enter a movie rated NC-17 (no one 17 or under is admitted). Why not simply implement a similar rule that children 17 or under cannot buy AO games?
Beyond that, obviously, it's up to the parents to show a little responsibility, and maybe learn what the different ESRB ratings mean. Then, they can supervise what games their kids are buying, and make informed choices as to whether or not to allow it.
I mean, Schwartennegger has never made any violent media in his days.
Even Those from his last movie.
Wouldn't it have been much clearer to simply write "California is about to pass a bill restricting the sale of violent video games to children?"
Get one of your parents to buy it for you.
Seriously, everybody harps on about parents taking more responsibility, but as soon as a law that is intended to help them do this is passed, people forget about that. The only people who are prevented from playing violent video games by this law are children whose parents do not want them to play violent video games. That seems perfectly reasonable to me.
Bogtha Bogtha Bogtha
Why can't my five year old drive himself to school? Why is he not allowed to spend his allowance on handguns and alcohol?
Oh, that's right, because he's a child. Is the adult/child distinction unclear to you for some reason?
there's more than one way to do me.
and is pissed that he or she can't buy a game that the government thinks is violent. big effin deal. i can buy the game if i want, and minors aren't guaranteed the rights in the constitution. wait until you're 18 and you won't care about these laws. hippie.
Indeed they do. But the right to say what you want does not imply the right to buy what others have "said." For example, porn is restricted too. I suggest you try looking through the Constitution for what the First Amendment actually says.
After all, I am strangely colored.
Full text of the bill: http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/pub/bill/asm/ab_1151-120 0/ab_1179_bill_20050908_amended_sen.html
the first amendment has flown right out the window!!!!
There is already the ratings on games, there might as well be a law enforcing it. If I were to live in California, I might feel differently, as I'm a teenager myself, but I don't see any problems with this. Restricting minors to this is a good thing, as for every mature minor, you get 3 that are very influenced by what the see around them, and are pretty immature. What we really need to sort is why in this society it is bad for a child to see something that occurs naturally, and is necessary for reproduction is, but it is okay for them to see people getting shot, blown-up, and cut to pieces.
and I've never made violent movies! I just hope my fellow austrian makes it to president of the US!
www.weberseite.at
The question is "How can we as gamers fight back against this type of government action?". The answer is, and I quote my slightly "off" friend next to me: "Get a gun, steal a car and shoot everyone. Then have pixelated sex with an ugly girl, after which you drink coffee!". That's actually a very rational answer, considering the matter at hand...
As for our rights, we can take a realistic stand by signing not internet petitions, but having trucks of signed-on-paper petitions being delivered to various politicians. The only way to stare down the opposition, especially when the opposition is in such power, is to rally against. Similar to a mutiny, except we're not going to have any Governers walking the plank.
Whether or not you outlaw drugs, guns, alcohol, or video games... or set an age requirement; if a person wants to engage in any of those behaviors, they will. Especially if it is something trivial like playing video games.
Furthermore, from personal experience, I have always managed to get into an R movie, even if i had to buy a ticket for a PG13. As easy as that was... buying a video game will require much less effort.
This law is absurd.
A way that I could see this restricting is not in the law but in the enforcement of it. If because of this all violent video games now can only be displayed in location where children are not allowed to enter (as is done with pornography or if companies must now card for all purchases of mature videogames(as is with cigarettes). Many of locations that sell video games may not carry violent video games anymore. If it goes the way of restricting viewing of the product, Wal-Mart is not going to create a separate section within their stores just for the sale of mature games. They would simply not carry them anymore. If it goes the way of cigarettes where the purchaser must be carded before every sale this is going to create allot of hassle for the large companies. They will have the change within their product databases whether the item must be carded for the purchase or not buy a title by title basses rather then just a product basis (cigarettes alcohol) and then they would have to monitor their registers at all times because if the casher forgets to check the age of the buyer it is now a legal problem. Large companies may not find this hassle worth it. And they may simply stop caring mature titles. If Wal-Mart and similar companies stop caring your game you have lost a very considerable market for your game and your company will have a very hard time competing in the market. Financially this sounds pretty scary for the game industry. As far as freedom of speech goes is that the way that games get put into that violent category. This IS NOT using the ESRB or another rating system. The bill only gives examples of what can not be in games that are now to be regulated. Under these regulations there are only generic descriptions of what type of violent acts are no longer going to be allowed. Because there is not a rating system or an impartial body that will be making this decisions there is now a loophole open where someone may bring up legal claims on just about any video game. A mother may watch their kid playing lets say a new Tony Hawk game. When the mother looks at the game their kid happened to wipe out on the skate board and there is a long animation of the skater falling down a hill running into multiple objects. Because this is a violent and gruesome animation if the mother had a problem with it she may now bring legal action against the place where the game was purchased. It doesn't matter that the game was rated teen. There was still some violence that she saw as unacceptable for her children.
Inflamatory rhetoric aside, this seems like an OK bill. Basically, it is saying that certain types of media can't be sold to kids without parental permission. This is consistent with movies and other forms of entertainment.
The whole "2-inch sticker" seems a bit ridiculous, especially because it implies a new ratings system, a new ratings board, etc. But that's a pragmatic problem, not an ethical one. Both sides come out smelling like zealots here, with one side saying that it will destroy first amendment rights, and the other saying that videogames are as bad for you physically as smoking.
I also don't necessarily agree with the findings of the bills, that "Even minors who do not commit acts of violence suffer psychological harm from prolonged exposure to violent video games." Taken literally, this is true of basically anything. It does go into some lovingly crafted detail on what constitutes violence. I'll be amused to find out how the courts decide to interpret the requirement that a virtual victim must be conscious of the abuse at the time it is inflicted.
The ______ Agenda
Seeing as there are no laws barring the sale of ultra violent movies, music CDs, books, magazines or any other violent materials to minors, i see no reason why there should be one for violent video games.
Not only that but the courts including the Supreme Court have ruled that minors have First Amendment rights and that the only material that can be legally restricted to them is material that falls under the legal definition of "harmful to minors", and that the "harmful to minors" definition is an extension of obscenity law that deals only with sexually explicit material (a.k.a. pornography). Materials that depict of describe violence are not obscene and are therefore fully protected by the First Amendment for both minors and adults.
I think alot of you are leaning towards 'this is banning children from buying M or AO rated games'. But what about the teenagers that are aged 14-17. If i was a seventeen year old kid who wanted to play GTA or Devil May Cry, why shouldnt i be able too? This is protecting the children and giving a kick in the balls to the teenagers who bring life into the videogame industry by buying all the bloody games. Videogames are not like movies, in a rated R movie you can see everything from frontal nudity to a 'real' persons head getting chopped off. In a videogame everything is fake, nothing looks real, and therefor a M rated game should not be like an R rated movie. There needs to be a rating for teenagers, because "T" isnt it.
Since when did the first amendment have anything at all to do with what types of products companies are allowed to supply to children?
The proportion of alarmist articles that are getting through lately is completely rediculous. It's an embarrassment. Until lately, I used to promote this site quite a bit.
Please, for the love of god, stop this nonsense.
This is not a dream, not a dream...we are transmitting from the year 1-9-9-9.
How can we as gamers fight back against this type of government action?"
Become 18 years of age?
This is another non-issue being made into an issue on slashdot. Im surprised it wasnt posted in YRO...
You ASKED for this!
___________________________________________
A vote against a Libertarian candidate is
a vote to abolish the Constitution itself.
"The right to say what you want does not imply the right to buy what others have "said.""
That's just a rhetorical trick. Using that, it's easy to restrict any speech. Oh sure, you can publish a newspaper criticizing the government, that right is guaranteed... but the right to buy such a newspaper is not.
The first amendment says "Congress shall pass no law restricting the freedom of the press," or some such. The freedom of the press is a matter both of producer and consumer freedom. There are works so objectionable that purchasing or owning them is illegal, but they are far, far worse than violent video games.
Moreover, any restrictions on the first amendment that have been accepted have traditionally been required to be enforced equally. That is, if material is objectionable in one medium, it is objectionable in all media, and if it is not objectionable in one medium, it cannot be restricted in others.
This was originally important because people wanted to put restrictions on comics and movies which were not being applied to literature. The works of the Marquis de Sade and Poe were far beyond mid-50s media morality.
In this case, it is *only* violent video games which are being legally restricted, and the content in them falls far short of many movies, graphic novels, novels, records, and even graffiti. The restrictions on other media are voluntary and do not have the force of law.
The fact is, the right to a free press does imply that your potential audience will not be legally prevented from accessing your work. If the audience cannot access an author's work, that _author's_ right to freedom of speech has been abridged, not the right of the audience, you see?
The question of whether that applies to minors is obviously much more complex, but the implication must be clear.
Generally, when the government sticks it's nose in video games, it's bad news. But this is one of the few good things they've done right.
Since I'm over 18, this doesn't really affect me at all. So seriously, I don't care. If your under 18, I say to you, sorry, but we all have to go through it. I personally have a little brother around 12. I've never had a problem with him playing T-rated games and such, but I forbid him from playing M-rated games. There's just no reason he should be playing those types of games.
I'm one of the biggest 1st ammendment rights pushers on the planet, and I feel even more strongly when it comes to gaming. However, some things just make sense. Mature games are made for mature people. Kids shouldn't be playing GTA and RE4.
I'm first.
That they seek to impose a ratings system seperate from the ESRB system.
If this law (and others like it) simply gave legal power to the ESRB system (i.e. restricted the purchase of M and AO games to adults or whatever), I would have no problems with it really.
Explain this to me again - what's so bad about restricting the sale of adult video games to children? Unless you're not an adult yourself, you won't be affected by this, so... what's the big deal?
quidquid latine dictum sit altum videtur.
...on stupid parents who ignore ratings and buy unsuitable games for their young kids? Like maybe, hold said stupid parents liable when their kids shoot people and say "the violent games made me do it!" as an excuse?
Because IMHO that's what we really need: parents being held responsible for their piss-poor parenting.
~Philly
How much money do you recon arnie made from royalties of the violent terminator games?
Is this a new thing, restricting sale of video games to minors? I know for at least 4 years in Washington that people under 17 can't buy games rated M. I'm 22 now and still get carded from time to time when buying video games rated M, and when buying music CD's with Parental advisory.
I dont think this affects adults or children at all. Children couldnt buy M rated games from most retailers anyway. It affects the people around the age of 18 that arnt 18 yet. This isnt liquor or drugs or masturbation from porno's. Its violence, which isnt even obsene. I would be pretty pissed if i was 16 or 17 and couldnt buy GTA by myself and had to get mommy to do it for me. Everyone wants kids to grow up, then treat them like babies.
I don't know about you, but I haven't bought a game in a store in a decade. They are just so much cheaper on eBay, especially if you wait a while after the release. Children, especially, would benefit from those lower prices; as it is, a single game takes a pretty big chunk of a kid's allowance.
I think people see a difference because acting out violence in video games might be different than passively watching them. Even then, many stores (around here, at least) restrict the sale of rated R movies. The problem is that it's a voluntary restriction, of course.
Fahrenheit 451:
"With school turning out more runners,... and swimmers instead of examiners, critics... and imaginative creators, the word 'intellectual', of course, became the swear word it deserved to be."
"Colored people don't like Little Black Sambo. Burn it. White people don't feel good about Uncle Tom's Cabin. Burn it. Someone's written a book on tobacco and cancer of the lungs? The cigaretter people are weeping? Burn the book. Serenity... Peace... Take your fight outside. Better yet, into the incinerator."
"She was a time bomb... She didn't want to know how a thing was done, but why. That can be embarrassing."
This sounds more and more like America EVERY DAY.
Show this to your friends and family that don't know what a real hacker is
This passing of the law is starting a disturbing trend against the First Amendment? This has nothing to do with the First Amendment, you can still buy your video games can't you? In addition if this is the first time you thing the First Amendment has been trampled on you are not only blind but ignorant.
What about McCain-Finegold, where a canidate is restricted from putting on ads about other canidates in the last 30 days? That is the trampling of Free Speach becaue a couple whiny Senators don't like people attacking them in ad form.
What about the forced removal of the ten commandments from court houses and public buildings. Don't give me seperation of church and state, because I would like to see somebody find that quote in the First Amendment.
What about the repeated calls for censorship of a certain talk show host by Senator Robert KKK Bird?
What about the calls for Blogs to fall under FCC regulations when contain political speach?
Give me an F-ing break this doesn't even come close to the crap I have seen in the last 2 years. You are a whiny panzy and somebody should take away your voter card and burn it.
As far as I know, right now the game ratings are only a suggestion, a suggestion I've never seen enforced. I've seen kids/teenagers carded at movie theaters for PG-13 movoes, I think it's required in NYC theaters. Other than that there is NO enforcement of ratings, games or movies, unless their porn. As long as they're just a suggestion kids who may be too youg for some games are going to be able to buy them. If not, at least the "questionable" game material may gain the attention of the parent buying it to shut their kid up when they're carded by the teenager working the counter at GameStop and think give more thought to buying their 12yr old an "M" rated game.
As for the question of rights, minors don't have them(I know someone's going to call me on this), except for being held responsible for an action when 7 or older and the right to be tried as an adult if they do something really bad. I remember having the right to be yelled at by the neighbors for being "too loud" while playing whiffle ball and football in the middle of the street.
"Ban" sounds too negative, perhaps they should change the wording to; "employees of places of commerce are required to verify the age of patrons seeking to purchase age sensitive[entertainment] materials." That way it should cover movies, games, magazines and any other items not covered by other state or federal laws.
Fortunately I'm about 2500mi away and 7yrs too old to have to even think about that silly proposed California "law." A seemingly dumb and pointless bill aimed at gainging support from religous and parents groups, I wonder who's up for re-election this year.
F7 doesn't work, ignore spelling and grammar
> simimlar to... law designed to restrict the sale of violent video games to children
And you oppose that. What are you, a software industry shill?
> Does this action signal the start of a disturbing trend
> of the restriction of First Amendment rights?
No. Children don't have first amendment rights.
> How can we as gamers fight back against this type of government action?
Don't even try. The government is *of* the people.
The best commentary on this ever...
About 6 months ago, GameSpot or one of those sites ran a story about the push to get this law passed.. and on the right of the article was a banner ad featuring the ultra-violent first-person shooter, Terminator 3, featuring Arnold Schwarzenegger.
If Ahnold signs a bill saying violence in games/movies begets violence in kids, he needs to go out back and lynch himself, because he's done more than any ten of us.
Perhaps a More Efficient Way...would have been to simply enforce the "AO" rating given out by the ESRB. Why invent your own sticker and everything?
Going from memory of a G4TV interview with Yee, all he claimed to be pushing for was to make it legally punishable for a store to sell a game to someone outside the ESRB's label.
That's not actually any different to a child not being allowed to buy porn, cigarettes or alcohol and those stores that sell them anyway risking getting fined.
Now, the way the ESRB makes it sound, it sounds as if Yee is creating a blanket law that bans games without sensible consideration of content. My guess is this may well be much like the gun lobby protesting gun safes or trigger locks - they really don't have a problem with them themselves but they don't want to conceed this issue only to start down a slippery slope. Similarly, I'm guessing the ESRB don't want laws passed forcing stores to abide by the ESRB's own ratings - because that gets legislators thinking they can create other laws - potentially ones that push the ESRB out of its role.
I mean, it's already enforced that children in the US cannot enter a movie rated NC-17 (no one 17 or under is admitted).
Effectively, yes. Legally, no.
If I recall correctly, the movie industry faced almost exactly the same issue the games industry is facing. So they instituted their own body and got theaters to agree to it. By acting promptly, they forestalled any actual laws.
It's a common misconception but R, NC-17, etc. aren't legal terms. They are a voluntary code followed by theaters to keep the government off their backs. A theater could quite openly sell NC-17 tickets to ten year olds and there's nothing the authorities could do (save maybe a charge of contributing to the corruption of a minor).
The problem the games industry has is that, whereas most theaters apply the rating system as though it was law, about 30% of major stores and about 80% of independent stores (again, quoting the G4 interview) ignore the law. Those numbers are large enough that the games industry is shooting itself in the foot. If they'd stop whining and start applying the ESRB suggestions as strongly as the MPAA suggestions, the problem would go away - or would have done had they acted sooner and not waited until it's critical.
With bigger guns of course! Go out and arm yourself to the teeth and blow the shit out of other Americans to protect your 'rights'. Then get surprised when you don't feel safe at night.
I work in a toyworld store- In Australia, one of the most censorious countries in the world for video games(no 18+ rating) "I'd like a copy of Ultraviolent Megadeath please" "sure. is your mum or Dad here?" "sure" Mum comes over "He'd like a copy of Ultraviolent Megadeath" Point- a big sticker does nothing
Kids! Bringing about Armageddon can be dangerous. Do not attempt it in your home!
How can we as gamers fight back against this type of government action?"
Perhaps the answer is to make a Gamer Defense Organization that would pay for legal fees. A Gamer Defense Fund, if you will.
The Governator: As the duly appointed representative to California I feel it is my duty to ban the sale of violent videogames to minors. Now if you will excuse me I'll be back. I have to go and make another movie where I kill lots of people and sexually harass the women on the set.
Someone with a brain: Isn't that being hypocritical Mr Schwarzenegger?
The Governator: Don't insult me, I have never even looked at another man.
The push for this law is a perfect example of how the ESRB has failed in its duties. The ESRB's mandate is to create a system so the software game industry can regulate itself instead of having the goverment regulate it for you. A serious question that needs to be asked here that nobody is asking how can this be prevented for other industries? Is it too late for the ESRB to correct its ways? Is the ESRB needed once all these laws pass? etc.
Sorry for my bad english, english is a 2nd language for me.
Unvaringly, every seven seconds, someone dies of lung cancer because they played violent video games.
What really saddens me is the fact that something like this actually had to come into politics. Sure it might help parents, but the fact that parents need help being parents frightens me.
If it helps, it helps. Fine. But if it doesn't help, obviously ratings weren't the problem.
People claiming the slippery slope here, or censorship either don't have a grasp on reality, or are under 17 and whose parents would now be forced to parent. Or parents that don't want to do anything, and want the "nanny state" to allow them to let their kids run wild so someone else can deal with their unwanted progeny.
What constitutes a 'violent' video game. Cartoons are absurdly violent, but because they aren't even remotely realistic we (used to?) let kids watch them for hours on end.
Video games are somewhat more of a grey area. Battlefield 2 is clearly intended to look like real life, whereas say everquest 2 is not. Granted they're different genres but there's no reason (theoretically) you couldn't do BF2 as an MMO or EQ2 characters in a FPS. So is one violent and one not? How about using BF2 graphics in the sims, well maybe it will be violent maybe it won't be.
How about sid meirers "Pirates" by firaxis? Well, you are after all, a pirate, which in general would seem the sort of behaviour we would discourage in children, but what about a 14 year old?
Ratings on games probably need somewhat finer tuning than movies, and probably need a government mandated rating system. Not that the ESRB is bad persay, but who is it accountable to as such?
The really grainy area is stuff like KOTOR2 and GTA. Both communities are recovering content on the disks that isn't accessable through normal gameplay. In KOTOR2 this happens to be (partially complete) content the developers would like to have included properly but didn't have time whereas "Hot coffee" was something the developers decided was best not part of the game. How do you rate that work, or should it be rated at all, and isn't releasing patches with new/more/different content an important part of the modern PC game industry.
I think paradox entertainment goes through this with poison gas in victoria empire under the sun, and with 'Nazi symbols' type stuff in hearts of iron (WW2 simulator), where showing nazi flags is a nono, and you can't 'terror bomb' as such, but you can use nuclear weapons. Very strange, some sort of senible (or at least consistent, sensible may have to wait) system on which to rate all this would be nice.
Why would a killer robot from the future stand in the way of sales of violent videogames? It would never stand in the way of Californians doing what they want in their personal lives. It would never rely on activist judges to interfere with laws drawn by representatives of the people.
--
make install -not war
except we're not going to have any Governers walking the plank
But it'd solve so many problems!
For the love of God, please learn to spell "ridiculous"!!!
Wrong further. Pornography is BANNED under American legal precedent BECAUSE it is considered obscenity and obscenity is considered outside the First Ammendment. Adult entertainment must be pegged by a court AS pornogrpahy AND obscenity or it is merely indeceny but NOT pornography. The government does NOT regulate the sale of porn which would be regulating the sale therefore of obscenity and thus by default admitting that it has its place, rather it regulates the sale of objectionable materials and their assumed affects on individuals based on age, statistical experience, and a lot of assumptions.
This splitting of hairs has largely come about because the majority of Americans publicly would ban adult entertainment and not just limit it but privately want to be free to enjoy it if they change their mind. They want to have their cake and eat it too. There's also a fair amount of emotional and spiritual exhaustion on this in the land after close to thirty years of the subject being intertwined with everything from civil rights to Viet Nam to television.
Minor nitpick, but it is important to the remember that at present in the US, any speech or press deemed without redeeming value and in contravention of the supermajority of community standards is thus considered obscene and thus not protected whatsoever. However, not a lot manages to satisfy that for every judge up the chain to the SCotUS which has taken for itself the status of ultimate arbiter when in fact the US Constitution gives no such power to them or the executive or legislative branches to decide what the line to draw is or even that there can be such a line.
If my grammar and spelling are off, I am [distracted/tired/careless] (take your pick)
I'm sure this legislation will work at least as well as CA's gun control measures have prevented violent crime.
Does this action signal the start of a disturbing trend of the restriction of First Amendment rights?
No, because this action has nothing whatsoever to do with your First Amendment rights.
How can we as gamers fight back against this type of government action?
A) Figure out what the First Amendment actually is. And all the otehr amendments. While you're at it, go ahead and read the preceeding articles as well.
B) Stop voting for big government politicians. That means stop voting for Democrats AND Republicans AND Greens. For every one of you wanting a big government to control some other guy there's always someone else wanting a big government to control *you*!
A Government Is a Body of People, Usually Notably Ungoverned
The problem that this bill "fixes" doesn't exist.
Adults already make the VAST portion of buying & renting decisions for games, either for themselves or for their kids. This law is not going to cause much change in the way games are sold and rented. This solution was tried already when the ESRB was first introduced. It was supposed to head off legislation. Did it work?
What this law DOES do is say, "It's ok to put restrictions on things cause there are BAD THINGS out there that parents need help with." These are the other BAD THINGS that a 17 year old can not do but a 18 can:
Vote
Buy a Gun
Get Married
Have Sex
Buy cigarettes
Join the Armed Forces
Buy a Video Game
Now, the point isn't all the rest are FAR more important, or how you can drive a car before you buy a game about violently driving a car. It's that you are setting such a low threshold for what deserves restriction.
Now someone can come along and say, "Buying a gun is a big decision. You need to be 18 to buy a video game, don't you agree you should be older than that to buy a gun/cigarettes/have sex/vote? That's much more important."
Suggesting that violent video games are in the same LEAGUE as the rest of them is insane. It is tacit to saying that books should be rated. I mean, can you tell me why a video game about killing someone can be restricted, a movie about killing someone can be restricted but a book about the same topic can not?
I mod everyone down who says "I'll get modded down for this." I hate to disappoint.
While the law doesn't seem terribly harmful in and of itself it does sort of seem like overkill to me. I'm an adult that grew up playing the most twisted and violent games the 90's had to offer. Who can forget the joy of killing police that look like pigs and shooting stippers to watch dollar bills settle around the remaining bloodstain in Duke Nukem? That was a blast when I was 14... and still is if not for slightly different reasons. The point is that all along I never took it seriously enough to run out and kill a real stripper downtown and then try to escape through an air duct when the police arrived, stopping of course to urinate for ten health points before crawling into the ventilation system. My pacifist self is still nervously awaiting the day the explosive violent temper that MUST have been generated by countless hours of playing DOOM emerges. If anything the extreme imagery and concepts of such games made me a much more reasonable person. I grew up without parents that shielded me from imagined demons lurking around every corner of the media. I grew up with parents that instead taught me the value of understanding all things objectively.
So what I say is, is an act of legislation really necessary to regulate an IMAGINED problem? Let's just go ahead and make some more laws regarding communism and witches. That would be equally as productive. Sheesh. It's just not called for!
...because it means giving legal power to someone who is not supposed to have it. Suddenly the ESRB rating board, which is not accountable to the government or to congress, can dictate terms to the industry.
Great way to create a new, out-of-control bureaucracy that will eventually grow into a moloch.
C - the footgun of programming languages
I for one want the sale of video games banned to all children. That way we can get over ourselves and make even more violent video games because hey, their only for adults right?
I mean imagine if every video game didn't have to worry about ratings, we could get more bad lanaguage, more sex, more violence. It would be a utopia of gaming.
I don't see a problem with restricting "Mature" rated game sales to those 17 years of age and above. If a parent wants to buy a M rated game for their child, that's fine, but CHILDREN should not be allowed to buy games intended for older people.
I would understand more complaints if they said that Mature titles had to be kept in a seperate area the way X-rated movies have their own room in places that rent movies, but just having a more obvious sign on the game box shouldn't bother people.
A warning sticker isn't the same as limiting availability. The only potential problem is that places like Wal Mart could potentially stop selling M-rated titles as a result.
Have these legislators compared the damage to children from games featuring virtual violence, with the damage from games featuring actual violence? Where's the calls to prevent children from watching, or playing, football?
Ben Masel: 51,282 votes for US Senate in the Wisconsin Democratic Primary
In other words, stop being so damned critical, just because the big, bad government made a new law that doesn't actually affect any of us, unless we're 12.
This is Slashdot, right?
My Heart Is A Flower
But for retailers, it will be pretty hard to implement this measure: you've got to properly train and monitor your employees, and if you let one M game slipped in the hands of a children,
Thus, it is in some way a form on indirect censorship. Moreover, similar laws have alread been ruled anti-constutional (but IANAL and I don't know the reasons why).
Moreover, the Californian law is not based on the ESRB ratings, but on its own rating. So who will rates the games? Also the 18+ label they should put on the box is ridiculously large.
And as most retailers will say, kids who still want the game will just piss off their parents until they buy it, without realizing what really the game is (as usual). Also playing a *edgy* game will become way much more thrilling for them.
I would have thought the answer was obvious. Blow the door off the State Assembly Hall and frag the hell out of everyone in there with your +4 Laser Pistol of Lordly Might.
"Patriotism is your conviction that this country is superior to all other countries because you were born in it." -- GBS
What about violent books? I think a kid would get more messed up by reading some Stephen King novels than by playing a game with a naked woman in it.
$8.95/mo web hosting
The populace continues to surprise.
The legislature is largely to blame not the populace. The California legislature is largely out of control, it has been so for many years, it's nearly impossible to vote out an incumbant.
Does anyone know if this law would make it illegal to let a minor play these games?
The same way it is illegal to give a minor booze or porn?
Do you really think that it's worse to expose children and teenagers to sex, an activity that's not only socially acceptable (between consenting adults) but required for the continued existance of our society, or violence, which is so socially unacceptable that we routinely lock people in cages for it?
Sure, more teenages engage in unsafe sex than felonious assault, but low-grade violence and intimidation is exceedingly common.
I don't think that it's the government's place to decide what kind of art[0] can be sold to which citizens. It's up to parents to educate their children so that they can deal with what they encounter in the world. That includes depictions of sex and violence.
[0] Video games are an art form, though they're not often thought of that way.
Why do movie makers want thier movies to be rated R? So their target audience (teens) will want to see it! The way I see it, this will help the industry because when most kids see something that is off-limits they will want it even more. Yes they will get it one way or another, just like people still got alcohol when it was abolished.
By the way, I agree with most of the previous posts, it is the parents job to monitor what their children are playing. It is the parents responsibility to raise their children, not the governments responsibility.
I don't think it's quite right to moderate down an on-topic quotation from Fahrenheit 451.
But if you're going to do it, "Flamebait" is probably the right tag to use. Especially if you know what eventually happens to the character who said those words...
Why is your child allowed to forgo his daily prayers to Baal? Why is he allowed to frolick and talk to other children when they will clearly detract from his devotion to Our Dark God?
No, seriously. Tell me the difference.
In case the difference in your mind is "Because that is ridiculous," I will state my point in concrete terms.
The comparison to violence and violent video games is equally ridiculous. It is a sign of a fundamental failure in critical thinking. Assuming similarity between objects based solely on our associations is cognitively incompetent.
We believe video games will lead to violence...why? Because they look like violence. Because they take on the appearance of violence. So they must cause violence. That's retarded.
They're *not real.* You know what? They're not even violent; nobody is being harmed. You just call them violent because they sensorily resemble violence.
Case in point: Play a video game. Jump down a cliff. Then turn off the TV and look at your body. Are your bones broken? Are you lying shattered at the bottom of a ravine?
Why not?
Well, guess what. Eight year olds can answer that question just as fast as you can. Don't believe me? Ask one.
The Religious Reich commissions study after study where they stare down the surveyers and say "This study MUST PROVE THAT VIOLENT MEDIA CAUSES VIOLENCE. We are not asking a question here. Do we make ourselves clear?" And even under those circumstances, they all seem to say "Well, as far as we can tell, video games are no more encouraging of violence than baseball, go-fish or scripture reading." Why? Because of the miracle of the control group. With a control group, you have to go off of the math. You'll find that the studies that imply violence increases do not typically have one. Those that do cannot draw any meaningful correllation, or draw correllations that look really, really bad for the point they're trying to make. (Such as finding that children's aggression increases drastically after, for example, a one-hour session of scripture study)
The whole concept reeks of stupidity. Not just misconception; flat out stupidity. The same people who claim video games will turn kids into bloodthirsty sociopaths are also claiming that video games will turn kids into fat, unmotivated slobs who won't even get off the couch to put out a fire. Have you ever heard of a fat, unmotivated serial killer? Have you ever heard of a terrorist slacker? Have you ever met a bully? They're all jocks who beat up on kids who play video games. Yet nobody says that children should be protected from sports, because adults like sports and adults are hypocrites.
This is a cultural problem. Your cultural superstitions say video games are bad. My cultural superstitions say you're all retards. I figure, if I agree not to declare jyhad on you for contaminating our culture with senseless, fear-mongering memetic bullshit, it's only fair that you keep said bullshit and the neanderthal emotional logic that leads to it out of our shared legal system.
And if that didn't make sense, I'll leave you with this final statement: Impiety before Baal leads children to smoke, drink, and engage in premarital sex. There's no reason I should allow you to put my child at risk by allowing your children to skip their prayers to Baal.
And if enough people said that enough times, eventually people would vote for it, and eventually your child would be forced to worship Baal. That's the kind of culture you're encouraging here. Do you think it matters whether it's ridiculous? It obviously doesn't matter to you.
Why should I, as an adult, give a shit? Because I was a kid once. Because I, as an adult, see a whole lot of fascist parents who don't know their ass from their mouth who's children genuinely are sociopaths. In all cases, the children were forcefully sheltered from everything associated with being objectionable. Me
All Hail the Maggott Show