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?"

Comments

1st Admendment Rights lost?

[gameboyhippo]

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.

Re:1st Admendment Rights lost?

[Mr. Slippery]

obscenity isn't protected by First Amendment.

Oddly enough, I don't recall seeing an "obscenity" exception in the text of the First Amendment. Yes, the government has decided that it has such power, but such decision to exclude "obscene" material is in no way supported by the First Amendment.

Re:1st Admendment Rights lost?

[gameboyhippo]

Why can't I protect my kid from your kid? Your kid is playing a harmful game that desensitizes him to killing. He pulls the trigger in the videogame (unlike a movie). Thus he is desensitized faster. Why does my kid have to be murdered by your child?

Just because you want to sit on your hands and treat him like a knowledgable adult, doesn't mean that you have the right to make other people suffer at your ignorance. Ever hear the saying, "If only I knew then what I know now." That's what it's about. Giving all kids (Even the ones with bad parents) the right to learn then so that they have a chance in not making harmful descisions.

Look at smoking for example. Most smokers start when they are underage. They don't know any better and they are still disillusioned to the consequence. You don't hear of a 35 year old adult deciding that he wants to be "cool" and smoke. Let's think about it.

Finally, it takes a villiage to raise a child.

California?

[Caiwyn]

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.

If you didn't vote Libertarian

[Anonymous Coward]

You ASKED for this!
___________________________________________
A vote against a Libertarian candidate is
a vote to abolish the Constitution itself.

Its abotu the teenagers, not the children.

[Brantano]

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.

Re:Restrict the sale to children?

[The Clockwork Troll]

The other one that gets me is "sanction", which as a verb means to approve or to penalize for, depending on usage.

Re:Explain this to me again...

[ElleyKitten]

My big problem with this is that it's not saying that M rated games shouldn't be sold to minors, it's saying that "violent" video games can't be sold to minors. How do they define violent? ""Violent video game" means any video game or any copy of an electronic game that may be played using a portable electronic device or hand-held gaming device using a television or computer, that, taken as a whole, to the average person, applying contemporary statewide standards, appeals to minors' morbid interest in violence, that enables the player to virtually inflict serious injury upon human beings or characters with substantially human characteristics in a manner that is especially heinous, atrocious, or cruel, and that, taken as a whole, lacks serious literary, artistic, political, or scientific value for minors." However! "This paragraph shall not apply to a game in which the visual depiction of violence occurs as a result of simultaneous competition between two or more players" link to bill

I'm not quite sure what games exactly are covered, but I guess gory fighting games and shooters aren't, as long as they're two-player! Seriously, I used to work at a game store, and I feel bad for anyone who has to figure out which games this actually covers, and if they get it wrong, it's a $1000 fine. Now you could say that they just shouldn't sell M-rated games to minors and they should be fine, but then why doesn't the bill just say M-rated games shouldn't be sold to minors if that's what it's supposed to mean?!?

Also, oddly enough, the bill doesn't have an exception for family members. So technically, if I gave my (future potential) 17 year old daughter GTA, I could get fined $1000. Wouldn't that be great?

And stickers annoy me.