Slashdot Mirror
California Passes Violent Games Bill
TecnaDigit writes "Today, after sitting on the bill for nearly a month and constant political pressure, Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger signed Assembly Bill 1179, the bill that would prohibit the sale and rentals of violent video games to minors. Again, the Entertainment Software Ratings Board and the Video Software Dealers Association (VSDA) are challenging the bill. According the the VSDA, the bill is faulty in that a game is decided whether or not it is 'violent' by juries, and different juries could have different opinions on what is defined as 'violent'." Commentary on GamerGod.
Let the parents decide what is too violent and what isn't and be done with the whole thing. If parents cared then we would not be in this whole entire mess.
Ooo man the floppy drive is broken. No wait. The computer is just upside down.
Do we need legislation to set up ratings schemes? Once its rated, selling to minors is illegal already.
No matter how much law is enacted, they still won't be able to enforce the law with anything that approaches what people envision. Grandmothers and family members will still buy games and movies for kids when they shouldn't....
What a gigantic waste of time and money... pfft!
Support NYCountryLawyer RIAA vs People
A man best known for starring in violent movies that mostly appeal to adolescents signs a bill prohibiting the sale of violent video games to adolescents.
Rob
How the heck do you define what is too violent? We cannot even define "pornography" in a global sense- except by an ill defined "community standard". CDA on the internet, Patriot Act in the USA, and California on Crack.
Another consultant who stuck it out.
"We are the Priests, of the Temples of Syrinx..."
Like, the parents perhaps...
-- Who is the bigger fool? The fool or the fool who follows him? --
They're complaining that juries give inconsistent results?
That a jury might rule one way one time, and another way the next?
These guys need to start submitting Slashdot stories. They're experts at old news.
Indeed. Although we routinely use juries to decide matters of actual life or death, using them to judge video-game violence is beyond their competence...
Seeing bad movies only encourages them. Watch responsibly
H0w wi11 12 y3@r 01ds be 1337 at CS if th3y @r3n'7 @110w3d t0 p14y i7?
Honesty may be the best policy, but by process of elimination, dishonesty is the second best policy.
That's right, violent games make violent people, and Tiger Woods PGA Tour makes professional golfers.
google.slashdot
So it is illegal to sell or rent. What if I give them away for free? I am going to make them obscene games as well so go ahead and ban that Kalifornia!
California, along with the rest of the U.S. already has a system like this in place. It's called the ESRB ratings system. M (mature)-rated games can only be sold to people 17 and older, and AO (adults only)-rated games can only be sold to 18 and older.
http://www.esrb.org/
Slow Down, Cowboy! It's been 60 minutes since you last successfully posted a comment.
Think of the children.
The laws punish HOMEOWNERS not just retail!!! BAD!
A mother or father of a home taht unwittingly allows a NEIGHBOR's kid to play GTA at their home can get the parents into criminal court!
GREAT!
Swell. Thats what just we need.... feuding neighbors. It almost makes me want to shoot a bullet into the head of my goddamn tattletale snitching neighbor, or burn down their house while they sleep.... oops i mean, can't we all just get along?
Seriosuly though... these laws are not for retailers... they are to send PARENTS of cool kids to jail. Nobody but me seems to get it.
You read it here first.
I heard Schwarzenegger on the radio and he was saying that when he was an actor he felt that the ratings system kept kids from seeing violent content, and stating that games needed similar ratings.
Um? Hello? You mean like the ratings system they have now? The one that is more granular that the MPAA system? With movies I get a general "R" rating. WIth games I get a breakdown of what that "M" is for, similar to the TV ratings system.
So do the people who come up with this stuff simply not realize that there has been a game content rating system in place for YEARS now? If not, that's just woefully ignorant.
Parents don't want to watch every movie beforehand to see if it is suitable for their child, same goes for games. Rating is perfectly acceptable way to do it.
For that matter, why don't people challenge movie ratings? The juries that rate movies are generally quite fair, can the game rating people not be fair?
Does this bill only mention it being violent games that cannot be sold to minors? What about sexuality? If it doesn't mention sex - hooray! Finally a law that realizes that violence is worse than a normal human activity!
Cyde Weys Musings - Scrutinizing the inscrutable
The problem is, that there is already judicial precedence on the issue.
The above is from http://fact.trib.com/1st.01.02supr.htmlAlso check here http://www.constitutioncenter.org/education/ForEdu cators/DiscussionStarters/BanningViolentVideoGames .shtml
and here http://culturalpolicy.uchicago.edu/conf2001/papers /walsh.html
So this is nothing new people. Ever since the ID brought us a world where we could literally kill and watch Nazi's die (even before that really). This has been an ongoing debate.
The one thing you MUST realize is that this is not a bill being pushed by the Right-Wing Conservative Nut Jobs (granted they aren't really all against it), this is being pushed by DEMOCRATS. You want to know who hates freedom of speech? Hillary Clinton, after the Columbine murders ordered the surgeon general to find a link between school shooting tragedies and Quake. He found no conclusive link, but that didn't stop her, Lieberman, and the rest of the gang from going hog wild trying to censor video games. I lean left politically, but you can bet your ass I don't agree with censorship.
Do what I did, I joined the EFF http://www.eff.org/ and joined the ACLU http://www.aclu.org/
Ignore the "p2p is theft" trolls, they're just uninformed
does it seem ironic and sureal that Arnold Schwarzenegger would be the one to sign this. I mean I know that he's the governor of Cali and all, but its just kinda ironic given his past roles in films.
The juries will have a choice between the following ratings: Family,Teen,Mature, and Grand Theft Auto.
...a game is decided whether or not it is 'violent' by juries, and different juries could have different opinions on what is defined as 'violent
So apparently they object to it because it works the same way as our judicial system, which has been in place for hundreds of years. Does the phrase, "I have a cunning plan" spring to mind?
When the law becomes to tyrannical, revolt is allowed.
How about an FPS game where the hero (a videogamer) starts an armed revolt against the California government?
Rate it at M or AO, sell it to minors, challenge the law when you're arrested.
Hmm...
Hmmm.... I think I'll have to alter my game design a bit...
Let's see, yeah - the main character will now be carrying around an arsenal of flower-based projectile seeders. Upon hitting the target, these "horticulture tools" will instantly spread a rather red blotchy flower, possibly dripping petals. People will be so enamored by these lovely blooms that they will instantly transcend their ugly everyday lives, given enough flowers, and fall to the ground in pure bliss - possibly with a soul-shattering scream of freedom.
Some people will be driving around in horticulture-tanks, which do massive seeding. Upon sufficient counter-seeding, these tanks will celebrate the wonder of the event by launching short-range non-violent fireworks, breaking down once they are satisfied that their flowery job has been complete.
The flowers will be everywhere - breaking down walls, flooding innocent cities, carried by massive armies of rabid horticultualist monsters. Apparantly, many people in the game world will be flower-phobic until properly administered to with a variety of area-affect flower spreaders.
Thanks, California, for providing the perspective we need to make games imaginative, once again!
Ryan Fenton
Sex can't be shown to minors, but every adolescent watch pr0n... if kids (let's say > 15) can't buy games, they just download them That's a stupid idea indeed...
If this law holds up, it could be great news for the videogame industry. Game makers will be forced to move away from Ghetto Fabulous design and instead go back to making interesting games based on things other than promoting inappropriate behavior. It is only in the last decade or less that video games have moved toward a sickening fixation on person-to-person violence.
By cutting off a huge slice of the market in a huge state -- where game publishers are based also -- they will know that demand for ghetto crap is now lessened, and good games will have more of chance to be made.
Nintendo, of course, has the lead.
A most admirable representant of violent culture...
Now I shall view him to be just a simple political coward.
There you are, staring at me again.
That's what this law is about - it makes it illegal for kids to buy violent games for themselves, so the parents have to buy them if the kids want them. The "whole entire mess" is that parents do such a shitty job of raising and monitoring their children that the state has to step in.
Do they have corresponding violent movie and violent literature bills?
Why not just make a Violent Media bill and stop jumping onto hot non^H^H^Hissues?
C17H21NO4
Unfortunately this bill misses the mark.
I know numerous parents that buy their kids any video game they ask for, regardless if it shows sex, violence, etc. Better to do that than suffer the wrath of a pissed off pre-teen.
The abdication of parental responsibility in the last twenty years is astounding. But I'm part of the generation that spoils its kids but fortunately have no little curtain climbers.
If I did have kids they'd sure as hell play by my rules though.
I abhor overreaching government intrusion into these kinds of things, but the video game industry has had ample time to step up to the plate on this. This has been an issue for over five years at this point. The film and tobacco industries self-regulate to some degree in this regard. There's no reason video game companies couldn't have done the socially responsible thing and headed this kind of thing off. It still may not be too late, but when money-grubbing video game companies and their corporate parents carry on like they don't give a shit, then I find myself extremely unsympathic to reactions against this kind of legislation.
--Rick "If it isn't broken, take it apart and find out why."
If you're a minor, you've got no say in the matter. If you're an adult, why the hell should you care? If you want to buy a restricted game to your kid, go ahead and make his/her day.
The owls are not what they seem
Kids will get their hands on games the same way they get their hands on alcohol and cigarettes: by finding a store too lazy to card them, or just getting an over-18 friend to go out and buy it for them. The first option is by far the best, because word-of-mouth spreads fast among kids with a desire to purchase age-controlled products; this means that the wealth of the newly-attained business will pay for any fines the government can hand down. The second option is the fatal flaw in any situation: there will always be some older guy you know, or some uncaring 20-year-old outside the store that will do it for you.
It seems he may be unfit to be a politician.
If he did not want to sign this bill, then he should have not signed it, regardless of how much political pressure he was under. Freedom of expression for the Californian citizenry is far more important than him having to tolerate pressure from a few anti-violence extremists for a little while.
Cyric Zndovzny at your service.
The VSDA, according to the headline, suggests that juries will be the sole determinant in whether or not a game is "violent". The bill, however, is fairly explicit in its definitions:
(A) "Cruel" means that the player intends to virtually inflict a high degree of pain by torture or serious physical abuse of the victim in addition to killing the victim.
(B) "Depraved" means that the player relishes the virtual killing or shows indifference to the suffering of the victim, as evidenced by torture or serious physical abuse of the victim.
(C) "Heinous" means shockingly atrocious. For the killing depicted in a video game to be heinous, it must involve additional acts of torture or serious physical abuse of the victim as set apart from other killings.
(D) "Serious physical abuse" means a significant or considerable amount of injury or damage to the victim's body which involves a substantial risk of death, unconsciousness, extreme physical pain, substantial disfigurement, or substantial impairment of the function of a bodily member, organ, or mental faculty. Serious physical abuse, unlike torture, does not require that the victim be conscious of the abuse at the time it is inflicted. However, the player must specifically intend the abuse apart from the killing.
(E) "Torture" includes mental as well as physical abuse of the victim. In either case, the virtual victim must be conscious of the abuse at the time it is inflicted; and the player must specifically intend to virtually inflict severe mental or physical pain or suffering upon the victim, apart from killing the victim.
(3) Pertinent factors in determining whether a killing depicted in a video game is especially heinous, cruel, or depraved include infliction of gratuitous violence upon the victim beyond that necessary to commit the killing, needless mutilation of the victim's body, and helplessness of the victim.
Interesting that mental torture is included in the definition; so much for Medal of Honor: Abu Ghraib. There does seem to be a theme that simply blowing away your enemies isn't enough -- you have to relish it, go out of your way to cause extra pain to the digital victim -- "gratuitous violence upon the victim beyond that necessary to commit the killing."
That's thing, parents don't care. Far too often, parents take more of a passive role in raising their kids, fully expecting that all of these rules, laws, and 'safeguards' are all that is needed to protect them from all the bad stuff out there.
The parents are not and should not be the sole guiding force in a child's upbringing. Each and every adult, including me, you, and everyone else, is responsible, either through action or inaction, for shaping the perception of the world of these kids. It is therefore ultimately the responsibility of all of us to ensure that these children don't grow up expecting other people to take care of their problems, because eventually the 'other people' will indeed be our government.
all that is not compulsory is forbidden!
I notice that nobody is bitching about the busybodies in the California legislature who actually wrote this bill. This is just the latest in their endless campaign to make us all Better People. No soft drinks or junk food in schools, no "ethnic" team mascots or names, feng shui in the building code, requiring vending machines to sell health food, banning GMail ("we think it's an absolute invasion of privacy. It's like having a massive billboard in the middle of your home"). These are all recent bills they've considered. These people, mostly Democrats, have an absolute mania to micromanage our lives in this state, and we somehow keep electing these radical loons.
A jury of 15 have found that Sylvester and tweety was too violene for anyone under 18. This Came about after the parents of the 8 year old heard that their 8 year old had watched The Warner Bros cartoon at a neighbors home. They are now Sueing for an unspecified amount.
Imagine reading that in the paper.
Don't you think it's kind of missing the point to proselytize via fear of going to hell?
Put more precisely, if you're a Christian because you're afraid of going to hell, you're completely missing the point.
People should become Christians if they want to follow Jesus and His teachings because they believe it's a better way. Christianity should be about love, not fear.
+++ATH0
You might wish to read the bill before determining that you "get it" based on the comments of the corporate advocacy group. There's nothing in the bill to suggest that you'll go to jail for letting a minor play a game; the law specifies only that the sale or rental of such a game is illegal.
If, by "imaginative" you mean "Rip off Tim Schafer", then yes. Yes it will.
-irb
No, the truth is that violent people seek out violent video games. Just as pyromaniacs seek out fire. Banning violent video games isn't going to do anything about violent people except force them to get their fixes some other way. If all else fails, they can create real actual violence.
protect children and strengthen families?
Well now we know the true cause of violence in America: Video games. What utter nonsense. America is a country that was founded on terrorism and violence. Violence in video games is just a reflection of culture not the cause of it.
According to Yee: scientific evidence linked the playing of the games by impressionable teenagers and preteenagers to acts of violence or hostile attitudes toward girls and women.
Most of this comes from bogus studies which basically find that people with violent tendancies also like to play violent video games. But they don't establish cause and effect and are mostly unscientific.
This is just a feel-good bill and will have zero affect on violence in America. These guys are truly misguided.
But thanks for playing!
(Oh, and it's "it's", not "its".)
Christianity should be about dead, not alive.
Schwarzenegger's "True Lies" has all of A through E. Any questions?
you're only a child for what, 10 years? 15 at most, really. assuming you're able to survive to old age, you're an adult for much, much longer than that.
by all means, protect the children, but don't do it at the expense of those of us who are able to survive past the larval stage.
First he should ban all his movies. They were qiute violent if my recollection is correct.
http://www.aethiamud.org/communist_mario/
"Depraved" means that the player relishes the virtual killing or shows indifference to the suffering of the victim, as evidenced by torture or serious physical abuse of the victim.
I think Mario shows a lot of indifference to the suffering of bowser when he drops him into the fiery pit of lava below. I mean, he doesn't even look back at the victim and feel bad before looking for the princess.
I think a fiery lava death should count as serious physical abuse. I'm going to look behind my back from now on, hoping a crazed, video game violent teen doesn't jump me from behind and toss me in lava!
I'm in total agreement. Except one little "nit-pick". Joining the EFF is probably the smartest move anyone can make with their campaign contribution dollars. But the ACLU? I hate to say it, but I think that group has a *lot* of people fooled. They're taking in huge amounts of yearly contributions, yet they don't seem to be able to show what they're doing with all the money. The causes they take up vs. the causes they won't pursue seem like they've got certain agendas besides just "ensuring every American citizens' civil liberties are protected". Sure, they do some high-profile things that I'm in complete agreement with - but it's telling which things they overlook too. (EG. If you're a typical middle class white suburban man and you get wronged by your local police because they choose to be lazy and not do their job investigating a crime committed against you, writing to the ACLU will get you nowhere. If, however, you happen to be an inner-city black woman who had the exact same thing happen to her, the ACLU is *much* more likely to lend a sympathetic ear and get after those police.)
I had this great idea for a kids game:
:-(
You are a killer robot from the future.
Your task is to systematically kill people by their phone-book entry.
During the game you run into a lot of trouble, and have to take out an entire police station single handedly.
Now this law will ruin all my plans
This seems competely out of sync with the movie rating system. Granted, IANAL, but it looks to me like a 17 year old is allowed to go see the latest violence packed "Terminator 15" feature film, but then isn't allowed to subsequently go across the Mall and buy the video game that was released with the movie.
I've never understood this kind of thinking, and often wonder what rules like these are really supposed to accomplish. What do the law makers expect these laws to achieve? Do they honestly think that assuming all
RFC2119
i am a 16 year old, and i think this is absurd. i dont live in cali, but i dont have violent tendencies and i am addicted to games. certain games are great, like counterstrike you can buy online, so to buy it you need you parents, or buy it in store. but games like battlefield 2 cannot be kept from us because they are ranked T for teen. if they restrict that game, i will sue, and i am not from cali. i mean, it is rated T, and it doesnt show blood, it even teaches us how to revive an falled friend or fly a plane or helicopter
Yeah, except most white middle-class folk can hire their own lawyer, whereas poor, inner-city blacks couldn't. The ACLU works pro-bono FYI.
If they don't care ("uncaring") why would they do it? Perhaps they abhor stupid laws. Is there evidence that the parents of the "Greatest Generation" (WW2) gave a rat's ass about their sons playing cowboys & indians or riding bikes without helmets or beating the snot out of each other at school or date "rape" or "accidental" gun deaths? Why does so much of this group-think crowd equate "caring" with good? Perhaps just as it is thought that every new generation of kids is corrupted (a POV as old as written history) it is also a common POV to blame parents of the same generation.
Violations carry a fine of up to $1,000.
Repugnicans do not tax, they punish. This bill gets to punish and tax something that will not change. Win-win for an authoritarian police state. Lots of money and ways to screw the people out of money and/or liberty.
The parents will still be the final arbiter of what games their kids play in the home.
Doesn't anyone find it ironic that a man who made his fame and fortune on depicting blood and death should be signing this bill?
A people that values its privileges above its principles soon loses both. Dwight D. Eisenhower
Precisely! But some of you are clearly not experienced enough to know what the hell you're even talking about or how complicated that proposition gets.
I am a parent. I don't want society raising my children. In that regard, I don't want society shoving overtly violent or sexual imagery into my childrens' faces at every turn. I want to raise my child... not society and not corporate entertainment industries (that includes video game companies.) I want to make decisions about what imagery and content is appropriate for my child. I don't need advertisers, movies and video game companies deciding what's appropriate to put out there for my children.
So, when you say you don't think "society should raise your child," I agree.
And if you think video game companies are all about over-the-counter game sales, then you're fooling yourself. Look around. Violent video game imagery is gradually saturating our society and I don't care to be pummelled with that at every turn. Even now, I have to keep my kids away from the video games in most movie theater lobbies because some of them are ridiculously violent--more violent than some of the crap on the movies playing there. I have to carefully watch what games are demoed at Toys-R-Us. I have to keep a close eye on what my kid sees on the covers of the game boxes.
It's not all just parents monitoring what their kids are buying and playing. I wish that's all it was. That's the easy part. That's not what inspires this kind of legislation. If you think that's all this is about, then get outside more often. And stop griping at this strawman argument about inattentive parents you've propped up. That's not even the half of it.
--Rick "If it isn't broken, take it apart and find out why."
We're just not allowed to enjoy it?
...honestly.
I don't understand why so many people here are opposed to this type of law.
Is it really that much different than restrictions on selling alcohol or pornography to young people?
And for those who will say that the industry is self-regulating (ala the ESRB): the recent situation w/GTA would seem to indicate that self-regulation isn't enough.
Also, for those who say that the bill is too vague in its definition of "violence," I think the following definition (excerpted from the bill) is pretty clear:
(d) (1) "Violent video game" means a video game in which the range of options available to a player includes killing, maiming, dismembering, or sexually assaulting an image of a human being, if those acts are depicted in the game in a manner that does either of the following:
Enables the player to virtually inflict serious injury upon images of human beings or characters with substantially human characteristics in a manner which is especially heinous, cruel, or depraved in that it involves torture or serious physical abuse to the victim."
Personally, as a game developer and as a (very involved) parent of three young children, I support this bill which will punish anyone who rents/sells inappropriate material to my children.
I'm glad that I will soon no longer be a minor, and thus not have to worry about this type of thing so much... Worst. Legislation. Ever. (well, in regards to video games...)
If you can't convince them, convict them.
Are you serious? They HAVE. Long ago.
It's called the Entertainment Software Ratings Board, ESRB, you can find them at www.esrb.org. They are a non-profit ratings group started by the games industry to rate games. Developers submit games for ratings, the ESRB rates them based on known criteria, and then returns a rating. You may then place that rating and ONLY that rating on your game.
It's those little stylized black and white logos. They have a letter, tilted to the left in them. They are located on the lower left or lower right of the front of the game box and are clearly visible. On the back, there's a clarification of why the game got that rating. So, go to a retailer some time, and look at the games. See how many you find that don't have an ESRB rating. My bet? You'll find none. Nearly all games are submitted for ratings (all large publishers submit all their games) and most retailers will not carry unrated games (even retailers that carry unrated movies).
They already have a very effective regulation system in place, that is just like the one the movie industry has. The logos and ratings are trademarked so you cannot use them without the permission of the ESRB, and they only grant permission for the rating your game actually recieved (same way the MPAA does it for movies).
So get off your high horse. The game industry has done a great job of regulating itself. If you can't control your kids and won't take the time to play the games first and see fi they are acceptable, that's not their problem. There are plenty of adult gamers out there and we don't want you telling us what we may and may not play.
This law seems to serve no purpose other than to let bad parents lash out at retailers and distributors when they fail as parents and their kid does something wrong. HAte to break it to you but if your kid does a drive by, GTA did not make him do it, he had much deeper problems.
I would just like to say, that as a Californian who voted for Arnold, I am sorry.
I thought having him as governor would bring nothing but bazookas and women and cuban cigars to us all.
Well I guess I was wrong. I'm not a minor, but out of memory I can totally relate to minors who this will effect.
Crappy crappy governor.
So that when their kid goes and does something bad, because the kid has never been taught morals or boundires, they have someone to blame. They can scream about "The evil video games corrupting my kid's mind" and go after the developers and distributors. I'm sure the groups pushing it see it as only the first step, really they want to totally ban the production of violent games period. It's a wonderful new scapegoat. Society has problems, real problems, and there's no easy solution. However you get plenty of people that want to feel like they can make a difference, so they latch on to a scapegoat and act as though it's the cause of society's ills.
Sigh... Why does the gov have to be parents for everyone?
News today says that someone is starting a recall effort to get Schwartzenegger out of office. I still can't believe they voted "the groper" into office. California is supposed to be so liberal and progressive, yet they put him in power.
Advice for my fellow geeks: before seeking out that threesome you dream of, you might see what a TWOsome is like first.
Why do video games need such a law when movies don't?
FC Closer
For a more accurate idea of what the bill will do. Since almost all games may be construed as too violent by someone.
"Today, after sitting on the bill for nearly a month and constant political pressure, Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger signed Assembly Bill 1179, the bill that would prohibit the sale and rentals ofWith the possible exception of some cheesy puzzle games and other miscellany designed for pre-schoolers.
The end-result may just be kids can't buy their own games -- many weren't anyways (as if their parents know much about video game violence). Unfortunately for the kids, the world is full of parental rights and moral rights / hide-the-entertainment-from-the-kids activists, but you won't find many kid's right to choose their own entertainment or child liberties activists -- ... but think of the children is often said, but in actuality, this is something patronizing like ...aww, look ad the pretty baby... , and baseless assumption the kids don't understand, and need to be prevented from seeing violent content.
Not many care about what rights the government affors children, the excuse being -- they will reach the age of adulthood eventually. In actuality, this is oppressive -- kids are made second class citizens without having to have committed any crime.
Prisoners often have more privileges.
If a 12 year old is mature enough and able to well handle all the violent and gruesome/other content in the world, and these people exist, Then the government's restrictions are something like a 5 year prison sentence with house arrest.
Think of the children, dammit :)
Why can't we just allow kids to go and buy video games like they have for about 15 years? Won't somebody please think of the children and their rights!?
Well, I'm glad it's just the state and not the federal government stepping in, making some bullshit commerce clause argument to justify their jurisdiction.
It took all of five seconds on their site to find the ACLU Annual Report.
If you're a typical middle class white suburban man and you get wronged by your local police because they choose to be lazy and not do their job investigating a crime committed against you, writing to the ACLU will get you nowhere.
Please cite references.
Yeah, and I suppose the Law-Breaking Fairy gives you a quarter when you violate a statute?
She does! So fuc.k off!
It's much easier to bribe a bum a couple bucks
...if John Carmack wrote it.
I've got a better idea. Just like movie theatres and video stores card some people when they try to rent R rated movies, why not card people when they try to buy/rent M or AO rated games? Is that so hard? It wouldn't even put that much of a strain on the retailers. These would be laws similar to those related to the purchase of alcohol and tabacco.
-illumina+us "I put on my robe and wizard hat..."
Instead of looking for someone to blame in the California legislature, we should take action. Just add the following clause to the EULA of any software you write: "this software can not be sold, purchased, or used in the state of California." Sure it's a big state, but it's full of communists who won't want to pay for your games anyhow, so your revenue loss ought to be negligible.
Different juries have decided in courts of law for the same crimes for centuries now. Do you have a better system? I don't many on this site are minors anyway, so the story is pretty irrelevent.
...the bill is faulty in that a game is decided whether or not it is 'violent' by juries, and different juries could have different opinions on what is defined as 'violent'.
This is the way the legal system works. We have exactly the same approach with, say, occupational health and safety. The Tasmanian Act (Australia) (and probably most others in the world) always refer to the term "reasonable". By leaving what is reasonable up to the courts means the legislation does not need to be modified as technology and social values change with time.
I don't make predictions, and I never will.
This, from a guy whose violent "Terminator" movies are so popular among the youth? I hope this bill will be struck down and Governor Schicklegruber...oops, I mean Schwarzenegger...won't be re-elected. Of course, this law applies to those who are too young to vote. I think the average game-playing teenager can tell fantasy from reality better than the average politician.
We had SCHWARZENEGGER MOVIES.
you can have my violent video games when you pry them from my cold, dead hands.
Prime UID Club
Just to put things in perspective :
In 5th century *BC*, in ancient Greece, there have been account of dispute about violence in theater, the action of lots of drama being centered around murder or so.
Can you just imagine today preventing kids from watching theatre play because of *violence* ?
If parents don't take their children, it's mainly because kids are going to get bored from too much *intellectual* art and fall asleep.
2500 and nothing got solved, only the target changed.
In 2500 more years, people will laugh because, in the past, boring things like movie and video games were considered to be too much violent, and will concentrate their hate angainst the then-moderne new media that'll be elected scapegoat for all-bad-things-that-kids-do.
"Sufficiently advanced satire is indistinguishable from reality." - [Tips: 1DrYakQDKCQ6y52z6QbnkxHXAocMZJE61o ]
Stragegy for video game profit:
1. Take any game you're developing, and add just enough sex/violence/drugs/etc. to make it onto the "banned" list.
2. Since any game on the "banned" list is immediately desirable to all teenagers, sales will skyrocket.
3. Profit!!
I see you've played Grim Fandango.
Violent crime in America is at a 30 year low. And that's how long they've been keeping track of it. In other words, there is reason to believe this is the least violent our country has ever been. Now, I know all about correlation and causation and all that... but doesn't that lean very heavily as evidence that violent entertainment does not increase violent behavior? Because violent entertainment has certainly been increasing in the past 30 years, and has reached fever pitch in the last 10. Heck, one could go further and argue that reduces it, but then you'd be overreaching a bit.
But unless one is arguing that violent crime would have fallen off even more dramatically (based on what?!?) then I would say we can safely assume violent entertainment is not causing the problems that it's opponents think it's causing. They've got no evidence in favor of their stance and there's the 30 year low to explain. Why can they keep successfully harping on this?
Oh yeah... I forgot... nobody in the mainstream understands even the most basic tenets of logic or science any more. Hell, let's throw away our cell phones and automobiles and go back to burning witches and bleeding people for health.
Cheers.
The Below was quoted from the bill in an above post. Bolded ones which apply to sylvester and tweety
(A) "Cruel" means that the player intends to virtually inflict a high degree of pain by torture or serious physical abuse of the victim in addition to killing the victim.
(B) "Depraved" means that the player relishes the virtual killing or shows indifference to the suffering of the victim, as evidenced by torture or serious physical abuse of the victim.
(C) "Heinous" means shockingly atrocious. For the killing depicted in a video game to be heinous, it must involve additional acts of torture or serious physical abuse of the victim as set apart from other killings.
(D) "Serious physical abuse" means a significant or considerable amount of injury or damage to the victim's body which involves a substantial risk of death, unconsciousness, extreme physical pain, substantial disfigurement, or substantial impairment of the function of a bodily member, organ, or mental faculty. Serious physical abuse, unlike torture, does not require that the victim be conscious of the abuse at the time it is inflicted. However, the player must specifically intend the abuse apart from the killing.
(E) "Torture" includes mental as well as physical abuse of the victim. In either case, the virtual victim must be conscious of the abuse at the time it is inflicted; and the player must specifically intend to virtually inflict severe mental or physical pain or suffering upon the victim, apart from killing the victim.
So yes, a Sylvester and Tweety game would be covered under this in a rule-of-law system. Thank goodness the juries are there to tell us that THESE horrific acts are appropriate for children because they make it out to be funny rahter than horrible...
What advocates of this bill want is not
- "the right of parents to control what comes into =THEIR= homes"
but rather
- "the right of a handful of unelected moral zealots to Control what comes into =YOUR= home".
No thanx, keep your child-molesting priests and lunatic evangelists the hell away from MY family. =I= decide what's suitable in MY home, NOT YOU.
If they're old enough to work they're old enough to play a violent video game in my book.
The U.S. doesn't coddle it's children...it's disempowers them.
You probably shouldn't assume this man is over 30. If he's my age, his parents might have been worrying about Vice city, or GTA3, or Quake 2, or Doom (came out over 10 years ago).
The whole problem with the recent witch hunt of video games is that they have been as violent as they are now for quite some time. Lawmakers are just now starting a war against video games to get parental approval while they are passing non-parental notification for abortions, or skewing the definition of a "family" by allowing civil unions or marriages for non-traditional relationships.
Your representative is no longer serving your interests, why cant you see this?
"And we have seen and do testify that the Father sent the Son to be the Savior of the World"
1 John 4:14
You mean, THE Schwarzenegger who plays in Terminator, Predator, Conan the Barbarian, Commando, and all those blood-bath movies ?
Well, he's growing old.
Hope he'll be back, though.
This reminds me of what happened to the film industry. When the movie ratings started, older audiences felt that a G rated movie would be too immature for them to watch, and the younger audiences saw the R rated movies as forbidden fruit. The smart producers saw this and started adding content to hit the right rating for their target audience. Hence movies that perhaps would have a G rating are made more "inappropriate" so that more people would attend them, and adults attendance shifted more towards the R end of the spectrum. In the end there is a gain in "inappropriate" material to meet this demand.
So all this business makes me wonder, are we inevitably going to make more offensive games to meet the demand? This would be a sad outcome for the gaming industry.
How come people can't prevent purchases from black people but not young? Does young mean stupid? Does old mean smart?
How can a law be passed by people to affect people without representation?
Does that fact that they are young, any arbitrary age depending on the gov't, mean they don't deserve rights? What if the age were set to 30?
Why is this discrimination good but others bad?
What discrimitation good and what is bad?
Why don't you guys have friends or journals?
I just don't understand why this is news? Why do we care what kids can buy and what they can't buy in CA? F-em.
Some parent(s) are to busy to interfere with their kids lives. How many parent(s)even know the names of the kids? Or better yet, How many busy parent(s) actually know their kids?
Someone has to step in and make sure violent games do not fall into the hands of children who is incapable of handling them.
\
(1) Last time I took civics class, I was told a bill had to be passed by the state legislature (both senate and assembly) before the governator (terminator) signs it. Well guess who voted for the bill in the senate and assembly? Democrats, that's who! Those same hippies that Slashdot thinks is going to save the country are actually the ones who are taking your liberties away! Gasp! Look at the votes in the link, all those mean and stupid conservatives voted AGAINST the bill and all those fucking smart and worldly knowledgable fucking hippies voted FOR the bill! Explain that one away...
PS: Arnold should not have been such a girly man and signed this legislation, but just think of the press he would have gotten if he DIDN'T sign it. All the union ads would have put every soccer mom on TV to cry "think of the children"...
(2) The bill states it's against the law to sell a MINOR a violent game. The law does NOT prevent the PARENT to buy the violent game for the child. The law does NOT prevent someone over 18 to buy the game. Therefore, the law only only affect kids who's parents don't give a shit about them. If you're a parent who cares and doesn't feel the game is healthy for them, they shouldn't get the game anyway, right? If you're over 18, then this law doesn't apply to you.
What the fuck is this hypocritical bullshit about "well, caring parents shouldn't let their kids play the game" and then spew "well, that's infringing upon my rights". No it doesn't, unless you're a minor who's not supposed to play the crappy game in the first place, right? Kids can't buy cigaretts or beer, and a bunch of hippies decided that they should not play violent video games as well. So what's the problem?
I work for an unnamed company that is merging with GameStop very soon. I also am a manager that has to sell these games on a daily basis. Here Is scenarios of what I go through all day long. (Note our company has had a policy of no M rated games sold to under 17 on penalty of termination for quite some time).
10 Year-old child brings up a copy of Grand theft Auto (any version). I Want to buy this, the child states. I reply, Do you have a parent with you? One second s/he is out in the car.
Adult (not nessesarrily parent) walks in annoyed that they have to enter our store. What game did you want? they ask the child. This one! This one!
Sir/Ma'am just so you know this game is rated M for Graphic violence, offensive language, Sexual situations, blood & gore, and is not appropriete for most minors.
Responses: 90% s/he has played games like these before, or has seen worse on T.V.
8% Thanks, I'll make decisions about what my child should be seeing.
2% Really... No you aren't getting this game.
Over any given day I could expect to have at least 10 -30 of conversations like this in an 8 hour shift. Note we are open 10 - 9pm and I'm in an hour early to open.
Another scenario:
The 16 year old goes out gets one of his 18 year old buddies who comes in gets id'd and buy the game. No sooner than the sale is done he give the game and the change to his younger counterpart. Since the person we sold the game to was of age there isn't a damn thing I can do about it except ask them to leave.
It gets worse when I have parents of one of the kid's friends vouching for one that isnt their child and then getting the game. We then see the parent come back in 22% of the time screaming about how we could sell crud like this to their impressionable youth.
A law like this...
All its going to do is make it a gamble for retailers to sell games to anyone.
Those CA hippie Democrats (you know, the ones who are suppposed to save the country from those nasty conservatives) are the ones who voted for the bill! Both the senate and the assembly!
I keep reading on Slashdot how we need to be saved from those stupid and mean conservatives. Yet, they voted squarely AGAINST this bill, and those smart and worldly knowledgable hippies voted squarely FOR this bill! Is what I've read on Slashdot not true?
PS, if you're going to knock on the girly man Governator (as he didn't have the guts to veto this legislation), also give some time towards the sponsers of this bill as well: AUTHOR(S) : Yee (Coauthors: Coto, Leslie, Levine, Mountjoy, Mullin, and Vargas) (Coauthors: Senators Florez and Kuehl). All smart, in-the-know, liberal Democrats if I'm not mistaken.
Hmmm... Maybe those hippies aren't so much for your rights after all...
Swarzenegger against violence in games... Isn't that just tad hypocritical?
Visit http://ringbreak.dnd.utwente.nl/~mrjb/growingbettersoftware to download your free copy of the book
California: "Violent Bill Games passes..."
The irony of Arnold , an actor having acted in movies not exactly known for their shunning of violence , passing such a Bill almost made me laugh out loud .
Am I the only one who thinks children shouldn't be playing violent games?
If parents like this one get to decide what is and isn't appropriate for other people's kids, gaming is in serious trouble.
-Eric
SJW: Someone who has run out of real oppression, and has to fake it.
-Eric
SJW: Someone who has run out of real oppression, and has to fake it.
Look, who gives a damn whether the games influence people's behavior? Parents are worried about it, you're talking about minors, and no one should be expected to monitor their kids 24/7.
In high school my brother smoked pot. Mom hated it, but my Dad had taken off and short of pulling him out of school and shackling him up in the house or turning him in to the cops, there's not a lot she could do.
Was he right that it wasn't going to ruin his whole life or make him into some kind of psycho? Apparently. But that's beside the point - she didn't want him doing it and couldn't stop her whole life to police his every move, nor should she have had to.
If enough parent's don't want their kids buying certain kinds of games, or soda's at school, or just stupid beanie babies without their permission, in a democracy they have a right to pass laws that force retailers to get permission first. Or what, you want to live in a world where at every single person with a buck to make can sell your kid any thing they damn well please so long as you aren't standing over them to tell them little Johnny can't have that? For some things permission can reasonably be assumed. For others, it really shouldn't.
Just so we're clear here, this isn't Arnold pushing this bill. He sat on it for over a month before he caved to the pressure. And as to the "Anti-family" is a republican buzzword. I live in the Bay Area (in CA), where Rep. Yee is from.
This entire movement is because alot of his constituants (sp?) have been screaming at him because he botched an education reform plan recently.
This isn't a case of "lets save the kids"
this is a case of "Man, my ratings suck with women between the ages of 32-56, I need to do something NOW to make it look like i'm doing something useful.
I'm all down with blaming the republicans when its their deal, but this was a DEM bill.
So, just because some laws can be circumvented under certain circumstances, are you suggesting we shouldn't have laws at all?
Hey, let's sell automatic weapons, people can get them anyway if they look hard enough.... etc.
Your argument is flawed.
There was a time when smoking epitomized the high point of coolness.
/. crowd, but clearly I don't agree that simulating mass murder is a well adjusted passtime.
Just watch a movie prior the 1980 and most likely the hero or cool characters are puffing smoke liket ehre is no tomorrow.
Violence as an entertainment activiy should follow the same path that smoking is following.
People relishing entertainment portrying mass or serial killing of people highly virtualized should be seen as what they are: somebody that should check what issues they have.
Many people are sying here that they are perfectly adjusted individuals. I beg to ask, what is well adjusted about spending your free time dreaming up ways to kill and maim people in a game?
Obviously my definition of well adjusted is out of touch, at least with the
IANAL but write like a drunk one.
That's certainly taking my argument to its bizarre conclusion. I am, however, suggesting that controlling any kinds of products by age is stupid and pointless, including alcohol and tobacco: people should be free to make a bad choice.
your a sad troll aint ya cyric, almost a twitter.
can't wait to jump in with mindless comments and off topic wingeing. Unfortunately I have to share a country with you.
which also would suggest you know very little about the governer of california. next thing you'll acuse him of unrealistically developing koffice for windows.
check his posting history and see his crap fest in all its glory folks.
btw cyric you shouldnt go linking threads just because you got told by a developer that you talk out your arse. your a little underachieving worm which probably explains your penis envy in relation to programmers.
or maybe you should try a rod up your own dick to see how anxious you are now. how the fuck you spew so much crap in less than 24 hours and still have karma...
yes in case you havent guessed i've taken a severe dislike to you...
"According the the VSDA, the bill is faulty in that a game is decided whether or not it is 'violent' by juries, and different juries could have different opinions on what is defined as 'violent'."
In other news, the criminal justice system is faulty in that the decision to decide someone is 'guilty beyond a reasonable doubt' is made by juries, and different juries could have different options on what is defines as 'guilty beyond a reasonable doubt'.
Seriously, I'm not fond of the bill, but allowing a group's consensus judgement is way more consistent than having decisions made by various individuals, who may be having a bad moode one day or personally object to something. If you want a system to rate games imposed by government at all, this is a better way to go than many alternatives.
"Pulling together is the aim of despotism and tyranny! Free men pull in all sorts of directions" -- Havelock Vetinari
This is just the latest example of politicians pndering to special interests by passing laws that they know will not stand up in the courts. How can it be up to a jury to decide if a gave is violent? The penalties should be based on selling "Mature" or Adults-only" rated titles to minors. The retailers have to have some clear way of identifying titles that are illegal to sell to minors. Leaving the determination up to juries is ridiculous.
From the guy who brought you Commando, Conan the Librarian, Predator and Terminator, a banning of violent videogames is application of double standards. Why are these games not R rated ?
but once I thought about it, maybe I would play more of these violent games again if there were less 13-year old asshats on all the public servers. Maybe there is a silver lining after all :>)-