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.

15 of 341 comments (clear)

  1. Ackkk I hate freaking subjectivity by technoextreme · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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.
    1. Re:Ackkk I hate freaking subjectivity by Coneasfast · · Score: 5, Insightful

      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.

      what mess are we in? are we still assuming that violent video games lead to violent behaviour in real-life? we've been over this argument a dozen times.

      --
      Marge, get me your address book, 4 beers, and my conversation hat.
    2. Re:Ackkk I hate freaking subjectivity by technoextreme · · Score: 3, Insightful
      what mess are we in? are we still assuming that violent video games lead to violent behaviour in real-life? we've been over this argument a dozen times.
      No. I was refering to the fact that everyone's definition of what is too violence is different.
      --
      Ooo man the floppy drive is broken. No wait. The computer is just upside down.
    3. Re:Ackkk I hate freaking subjectivity by compjinx · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Correct me if I am wrong, but this law simply restricts minors from purchasing/renting "violent" games without their parents' knowledge. This simply forces the parents to get involved. If a parent doesn't think that the game is too violent, then that parent can simply authorize the purchase (ie: purchase it for the child). This law seems to really be made for parents who don't care to get involved with their child; it simply governs the child when the parents fail to.

      --
      I will not lower myself to using a lame-joke sig... dangit!
    4. Re:Ackkk I hate freaking subjectivity by keraneuology · · Score: 3, Insightful
      How can somebody be "anti-family"?

      By undermining the concept that the parents are responsible for their children and what comes into their homes.

      And parents need a law to control what comes into their home?

      When merchants will sell anything to anybody, yes, they do. The government can't do anything about parents who give sips of wine to their kids at dinner but it can certainly prevent merchants from selling merlot to a nine year old. This law lets parents do what the parents want with their kid and seeks to ensure that the decision remains with them.

      How are the kids going to buy it unless the parents give them money?

      Um... maybe the kid has a job? A paper route? Mows lawns and shovels snow and is paid in cash? Perhaps the kid tutors other kids on the side? Maybe sells hacking services to a foreign government? You were kidding when you suggested that the only source of money for a 15 year old is his parents, right?

      My parents managed to have control without needing the state to enforce it for them.

      What was the equivalent of GTA:SA that your parents needed to worry about being brought into the home?

      This bill has nothing to do with parental control

      This bill has everything to do with parental control... please reconsider: a law that says that shopkeepers aren't allowed to sell things to minors that their parents don't want them to have certainly doesn't do much for anybody else...

      --
      If the g'vt kept the data on you that google does you'd better believe you'd be calling it "doing evil"
  2. Why, oh why.... by zappepcs · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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!

  3. Define irony by Pluvius · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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

    1. Re:Define irony by iDaZe · · Score: 3, Insightful
      Today, after sitting on the bill for nearly a month and constant political pressure ...

      It doesn't really look like he was too eager to sign it. Give the guy a break.

  4. Won't someone think of the children? by Raleel · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Like, the parents perhaps...

    --
    -- Who is the bigger fool? The fool or the fool who follows him? --
  5. juries on trial by moviepig.com · · Score: 4, Insightful
    According to the VSDA, [a game's violence] is decided] by juries, and different juries could have different opinions on what is defined as 'violent'.

    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
  6. Ignorant laws... by macshome · · Score: 3, Insightful

    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.

  7. What about sexuality? by Ignorant+Aardvark · · Score: 3, Insightful

    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!

  8. Blame the nannies in the legislature for this by John+Jorsett · · Score: 4, Insightful

    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.

  9. Re:Funny by MacFury · · Score: 4, Insightful
    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're not a slave, why should you care about slavery? Dangerous logic my friend.

  10. Strawman arguments against parents by inkswamp · · Score: 4, Insightful
    I love the logic as expressed by the average Slashdot poster (usually an AC, but not always.) You point to parents and claim that they are the ones with the responsibility and that parents shouldn't expect society to raise their child.

    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."