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.

Comments

Ackkk I hate freaking subjectivity

[technoextreme]

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.

Re:Ackkk I hate freaking subjectivity

[Coneasfast]

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.

Re:Ackkk I hate freaking subjectivity

[compjinx]

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.

Why, oh why....

[zappepcs]

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!

Define irony

[Pluvius]

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

Won't someone think of the children?

[Raleel]

Like, the parents perhaps...

juries on trial

[moviepig.com]

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...

Blame the nannies in the legislature for this

[John Jorsett]

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.

Re:Funny

[MacFury]

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.

Strawman arguments against parents

[inkswamp]

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.