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.
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.
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.
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.
...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
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.
"What is Internet Explorer 7? Are you saying we can't access the normal internet?" - I love tech support. Really.
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.
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!
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.
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)
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