Slashdot Mirror
ESA to Sue California Over Violent Game Law
Advtg writes "In response to last week's bill banning the sale of violent video games (/. coverage),
the Entertainment Software Association has announced that they are preparing to sue the State of California. From the article, "The Entertainment Software Association is
planning to sue the State of California over the passage of AB1179, a bill that has outlawed the sale of violent video games to minors. President Douglas Lowenstein said that he
'intends to file a lawsuit to strike this law down,' and added that he is 'confident that we will prevail.' The article goes on to show how muddy the law is in comparison to other
laws meant to protect minors."
Regardless of whether one agrees with the banning of sales to minors or not, I think it is somewhat one-sided to only look at the relatively clear alcohol laws. Looking at the Children's Internet Protection Act, for example, reveals that such vague terminology is not unique to this act. CIPA includes language such as the following:
(2) HARMFUL TO MINORS.--The term ``harmful to minors'' means any picture, image, graphic imagefile, or other visual depiction that--
(A) taken as a whole and with respect to minors, appeals to a prurient interest in nudity, sex,or excretion;
(B) depicts, describes, or represents, in a patently offensive way with respect to what is suitable for minors, an actual or simulated sexual act or sexual contact, actual or simulated normal or perverted sexual acts, or a lewd exhibition of the genitals; and
(C) taken as a whole, lacks serious literary, artistic, political, or scientific value as to minors.
What is "political value as to minors"? Minors lack the right to vote, so political value to me is quite unclear. What is scientific value? Is breast cancer research of scientific value as to a minor, who is unlikely to contract such disease at a minor age? While slightly clearer than the California act, I think CIPA is a good example of the fact that laws protecting minors are often ambiguous, and that this is not groundbreaking legislation in terms of lack of clarity. Are we to say that all legislation must be binary? You're 21 or you're not? If so, we need to re-write a significant portion of our laws in the US.
The MPAA sues every country for not allowing minors to view rated R(18A) movies.
"WONT ANYONE THINK OF THE PROFITS!"
-EL
There's nothing in Grand Theft Auto that doesn't happen every day in Southern California.
If it offends you, do something about the real crimes that occur, don't take it out on videogame makers.
If you "get" pointers add me as a friend (116)!
Fuck the ESA. The law was passed by the elected representatives of the people of California. Are we supposed to let a corporate lobby group now determine what can or can't be lawful in this country. I have more faith in letting the people decide.
We MUST water down all entertainment to protect the children!!
Won't anything think of the Children???
Personally, I'd favor a law that enforced the existing video game ratings, instead of the vague "You could make a bland football game illegal with this" law California passed.
On the other hand, if they made it illegal to sell a video game to a 15 year old that's been rated as "Mature" then I'd consider that far more reasonable. The ratings tend to be a good way of estimating a game's age appropriateness, but they need some enforcement.
"Live Free or Die." Don't like it? Then keep out of the USA
They have to sue to overturn this. For one very major reason...
Most of the games that feature this stuff, that stuff isn't of major interest to most people playing it.
I mean, the "hot coffee" mod was pretty lame, all things considered. If you were tittilated by the poorly pixilated hanky panky that happened in that mod, you haven't seen a naked chick or had sex, and probably spank your monkey while sitting in a chat room.
It's time to take the government out of parenting. Let the parents screw up if they want. I'm tired of paying babysitter money for brats that aren't mine.
but heinous and sexual violence. If parents don't have the sense enough to not let their kids play games with that in them, then I wonder if the government should step in.
My son doesn't have any kids his age to play with in the neighborhood. I tend to relax my concerns when he does play with a neighbor kid who lives with his Grandmother when visiting his Father (divorced parents), who also lives at Grandmother's place. The father is never home, but buys his 7 year old kid any game for the PC or PS2, regardless of the ESRB rating.
It took me some time to explain to my son what it is he saw in the Grand Theft Auto game (knife weilding punks cutting off hands). The Grandmother understands my concern and doesn't allow T or up rated games to be played when my son is over there. The father couldn't care less. Eventually, the lack of parenting on his part will disturb the child mentally and I may find myself telling my son he can't play with the kid anymore.
Meanwhile, I try to learn more about what interests my son the most and have fun learning or trying new things with him to keep his mind off the other boy's actions. Things like real auto racing games that don't involve cutting throats.
I agree that some government intervention would work if it's not abused. The risk of abuse is still high, unfortunately. I can see someone turning in a parent out of spite on unfounded accusations.
I don't think it's that hard for most people to see that Mario and GTA are totally different things in the hands of a little kid.
Agreed.
Violence in GTA clearly has consequences, at least for the victims, and it's evident from public reaction that people empathise with the victims in GTA.
In Mario the violence is presented almost whimsically. All fun, no blood, no consequences. It's obvious from the lack of public reaction that people don't empathise with the victims in Mario and are happy to slaughter at will - but that's okay because the victims are different from us. Bad evil different things.
It's clear that one of these games carries a moral.
I dont think its illegal for anyone to let minors into R movies, since here anyway, R movies are 17... Its just internal theatre/video store policy, the industry policing itself, as it should, and as it does in the case of video games! Most stores have a policy that they dont let minors buy M games, much the same way they dont let them buy R movies. Nobody's clamoring for laws to make it illegal to sell R rated movies to minors, since its not a real problem! The real problem is mommy and daddy buying their 10 year old GTA, and it would be the same problem with them buying him *glances at DVD collection* uh, fight club or pulp fiction.
"Sic Semper Tyrannosaurus Rex."
I'd rather kids see porn than senseless killing and violence.
I'd rather we have a bunch of horny kids out there humping than have a bunch of violent ones out there killing each other.
And don't give me the crap about porn leading to rape. There's a lot of soft core porn out there where the man puts the woman on a pedastel and respects her while he makes love to her.
09 F9 11 02 9D 74 E3 5B D8 41 56 C5 63 56 88 C0
Is it really the minors that are being "protected?" Or is it protecting outdated/outmoded thinking by a large portion of the population in the state? Or is it protection the public's "right" to not have to think about what their children are doing?
Come on, people... you can't legislate morality. It didn't work in the Prohibition Era, and it won't work here either. Young people, regardless of what the "moral high ground" would lead us to believe, don't require such close supervision regarding their entertainment choices. For the most part, kids are a little more astute than many people would give them credit for. Yes, for the extremely young children (under 10) there should be close parental supervision while online. Older children start understanding the difference between reality and what is portrayed as entertainment.
This isn't to say that some kids will never grasp the concept that GTA or UTx or other games are not meant to be practiced in the real world, but those children require professional assistance, and not from a lawyer either.
Government shouldn't be a substitute for common sense and good parenting, but it's trying too damned hard to be that way.
Parents, not all, but enough of a count to be represented, believe that child care consists of televisions and/or video games. No one is saying that games shouldn't have the content that they do, so put your flag waving ideals back in your pocket, first of all.
If more parents were involved in there children's life in more than a cursory fashion, this would largely be a non-issue. Since it is obvious that some parents just do not care what their children do, however, it is the responsibility of the government to protect them. This is done through laws. Having a subjective law that is widely open to interpretation does nothing except extend the debate to another group of people.
Would you sell a child porn, or a copy of Faces of Death? Even if you wanted to, chances are that you couldn't. Content is protected through a ratings system which is enforcable by fines and/or jail time. How is this different that what they are doing in California? Instead of having a "review board" determine what is write and wrong, it is left to individual judicial review. Twenty different cases, twenty different judges, twenty different opinions on what constitutes "values".
If you honestly think that nothing should be done to protect the innocent victims, then you are the one that is denying reality. The reason that age restrictions exist is because there is a collective group as a whole that understand you don't give a copy of Playboy to an eight year old and an NWA CD to a preschooler. Maybe you see nothing wrong with those examples, which would make you part of the problem.
I could honestly care less if you work in the video game industry. Did you want a cookie? Just because someone stabs people on the subway doesn't mean that we need to turn it into a form of entertainment that young people can desensitize reality with.
You are in a maze of little twisting passages, all different.
No doubt. When I went and picked up my copy on release day I saw some little kid, and I mean 8 - 9, waiting in line with the game in hand. I thought to myself "No way this kid is going to buy this game, the shop keeper will stop him." Then, little man's Dad comes up when it's his turn and buys it for him. When he passed me I asked him if he knew what was in the game, and told him it was generally out of bounds for what most younger children can digest with complete comprehension.
You know what he told me.
Fuck Off.
I look forward to shooting that kid when he tries to rob me. Which I am going to increase my likelyhood of doing by playing SOCOM 3 right now.
One of the problems with this approach is in the details.
Age verification is workable for adults, because the vast majority of them have a driver's license, or some form of photo ID that lets people feel as though there's some official stamp of approval on the ID, that the birth date there is what it's supposed to be, and the store clerk's backside is covered.
For minors, though - considering that in most states, a teenager has to be at least 15 to get a full driver's license - the matter is stickier. What ID can a 12-year-old get that verifies his/her age?
Strike while the irony is hot! -- The Freethinker
Brooklyn girl, 9, admits killing playmate, 11
Now do you think violent video games or violent media helped perpetuate this?
Personally I think the latter. This little girl probably didn't play Halo, GTA, Manhunt, Splinter Cell or Metal Gear Solid. But probably watched some shooting and killing that's on broadcast TV. The parents probably didn't have parental controls on any of the channels and could have let her watch HBO or other movie channels.
What do you think?
Causing Chaos Everywhere,
Nik J.
The strange world of a loner, in a populous city, drowning in society
"the people" are very often wrong.
... of taxpayers dollars and time.
While I worked at Gamestop, we couldn't sell M rated games to minors, but that sure as hell doesn't stop us from selling it to the parents who are standing right there with the kids that are playing the games.
Besides, if the kids want the games they will get them whether there is a law slowing them down or not. Kids drink alcohol before they are 21, they smoke before they are 18 and get porn before they are 18 too.
If it's a "knee jerk reaction" to the so called "Hot-Coffee" mod, the government is really out of touch more so that I thought before. Worrying about some lame-ass "porn" like that in GTA is retarded when the whole point of the series is shooting cops and selling drugs.
Lawmakers really need to get in touch.
Sig* sig = theOneSig();
Many of the above are bipartisan, as well. I'd bet money you can find a lot of decency laws encapsulated in common law as well. It's nothing new, nor is it strictly a Democrat thing.
You better watch out, there may be dogs about . .
I'm agreeing with the Dad in this case.
1. It's none of your business what he buys for his son.
2. It's not your job, nor anyone else's to declare what's "generally out of bounds for what most younger children can digest with complete comprehension". That's his job.
3. There is absolutely no direct coorelation between playing violent video games and real crime. As a matter of fact, it's been shown that over the past 20 years, violent crimes performed by minors has gone significantly down.
4. He's probably sick and tired of everyone else in the country trying to be the parent for his child, including you.
Sounds like a law written by people who never played video games being fought by people who want to sell them to minors. Maybe they should be told about other games. Return to Castle Wolfenstein teaches kids to set fire to Nazis. Freedom Fighters teaches kids to hate commies. C&C Generals teaches kids to fight terrorists. Doom 3 teaches kids to fight hell. Final Fantasy 7 teaches kids to fight city stomping monsters. It's all about context. Kids under 15 probably shouldn't be allowed to play GTA, the lesson there is that you can get away with crime. But there are other games containing violence they should be allow, SWAT3 allows you to be violent but encourages you not to.
Is the Video Game publishers and stores not actively enforcing their Voluntary ratings system. The government gave the industry a chance years ago to leave it in their hands.
But, as always, greed and making a buck in the short term won out and the industry ignored the potential consequences of what they were doing. The precident is already there...the movie industry is enforced already by a similar set of laws.
All that needed to be done here was simply rate the games fairly, then don't sell the games with a certain rating to someone not the appropriate age. That's it.
Yes, proper parenting is the most important thing here. Parents should be aware of what their kids are doing and take an active role in their child's life. But, all normal parents want(not the generation gap fanatics) is a rating system that gives them an idea of what they are buying, and a system that prevents children from buying stuff under their nose to make their job as parents easier so they don't have to worry about kids hiding stuff(we all know they do).
That's all, and no the government doesn't need to be enforcing this, and I wish they weren't trying. But, it still is the publisher and retail seller's fault for blowing the chance they were given.
You are who you are, let no one tell you different. But, never close your mind to a new point of view.
Oh please! Children learn to differentiate between fantasy and reality. You learned to right? The content of their imaginations doesn't affect that process. It's part of developmental biology. Besides, it sounds to me like HE's the one doing the parenting, and you're just letting the ESRB parent for you. Playing GTA is nothing more than a modern cowboys and indians. And kids know this.
Being a parent, I've always wondered about this. If we hide everything that is bad from our children, how will they learn what is bad and what is good?
Concider alcohol, It's illegal for anyone (in most of the US) to have any amount of alcohol until they are 21. However, at 21, they are expected to already know how much alcohol they can handle before becoming drunk. How do they gain this knowedge? I know how I did it. I ignored the law and had my first drink at 14. However, I can hardly advocate breaking the law as a parent.
Request a Linux Shockwave player here: http://www.macromedia.com/support/email/wishform/
I'd say that most people are a little irrational about good and evil.
A *lot* of people (anyone that describes themselves as a moral absolutist is a good candidate, but most people probably vaguely have some opinion along these lines) feel that we order society based on morality.
I'd say that morality arises to address social problems. Something causes major social problems? It becomes "bad". Sure, sometimes government or other social structures can solve social problems, but making people irrationally do something because it's "good" or avoid it because it's "bad" is a pretty effective fix in a lot of ways.
I'd say that a concept of "good" or "evil" may even be important to a learning organism like a society. As Turing theorized (and seems pretty plausible), the way to build a learning system is to build a simple system that has the ability to learn, and then give it a "teacher". To avoid pure trial-and-error learning, you want to get the learning system to tend to treat the "teacher" as a significant factor in seeking out that-which-the-mind-seeks (the combination of positive external stimuli and positive internal feedback).
If you believe that "good" is a pretty stable, simple reduction of social fixes to solve otherwise-difficult-to-fix social problems, then you want everyone in a society to follow "good". If you can establish that "good" is associated with that-which-the-mind-seeks and then build a widespread concept of "good", then you have your teacher (well, a teacher) capable of bootstrapping a stable social system.
Because, frankly, I understand how annoying it is when someone says "we're going to ban this because it's *bad*", but you have to figure that if everyone just suddenly went entirely amoral, maybe society wouldn't be stable. Even if it's in people's interest to act in a fashion that mimicks how they'd act if they were acting based on a moral code, you can make mistakes in rational thought -- "maybe it's beneficial to kill this person that makes me angry". It seems like a simple moral code could solve this.
The time I'm most suspicious of people trying to apply morality inappropriately is when it relates to new technology or a wildly new environment. If you believe that morality is a set of societal-level knowledge, then morality is only well-adapted to deal with the past and continuing conditions that accurately reflect the past. So, for example, when it comes to genetic engineering, I'm exceedingly dubious that morality is worth a tinker's toot when it comes to deciding what to do...because moral codes weren't built up in an environment *containing* genetic engineering.
This is your random dose of philosophy for today.
Any program relying on (nontrivial) preemptive multithreading will be buggy.
But can said Most be able to explain Why? It harms children? How? I've yet to see a satisfactory explanation
The best counter argument I've seen was in a TV program called "The History of Pornagraphy" (something like that). The introductory episode was enough to really put it all into perspective for me.
Pornography, it seems, was invented in Victorian England. No, not erotica, pornography. Erotica titillates and has been around since... well, as long as people's arms have been long enough to reach their genitalia. Pornography is a specific notion that erotica is defacto harmful to women, children, and less than serious minded men.
For some reason there's a general notion that persists in English culture today that it's Bad for people, and especially children, to get too excited. Stimulating wallpaper should never be used in a child's room, nor should they be fed spicy food. I first heard this from someone who was born in the US but her parents emigrated from England. I thought she was joking.
It's all really too bizarre. And since I don't have my references handy, I'll just have to stop here.
"Where's my other sock?" - A. Einstein
Besides, it sounds to me like HE's the one doing the parenting, and you're just letting the ESRB parent for you. Playing GTA is nothing more than a modern cowboys and indians. And kids know this.
I should get a second cup of coffee because maybe I missed something. You conclude that the other kid's father is doing the parenting by buying his kid whatever game he wants, regardless of voilence content, and letting the grandmother babysit while he's away all the time?
Please explain the logic underlying that conclusion.
We're talking seven year old kids here. The ESRB rating isn't perfect, but it's a guideline to use without needlessly restricting my kid's enjoyment of videogames. Since new games are always arriving at the neighbor kids house, I don't get a chance to learn what they are until after my kids played them. I'm certainly not going to demand that I see all games that come in. That's just plain rude. The grandmother respects my wishes to restrict the gameplay to something less than T rated games. When I hear of a new title that they got, I ask to borrow it or I go to Blockbuster to rent it and try it out myself. This way, I keep informed.
I grew up with shooting games myself. Remember Combat? Or maybe GunFight? Blocky graphics do little to desensitize a child. But today's near real graphics can be traumatic for a seven year old. It's just something I can't risk, becaue I AM PARENTING. There's a lot of pre-teens that cannot distinguish between reality and fantasy. Who cares what anyone else thinks. That's my stand. I'd rather explain the concept of violence at a reasonable pace while their growing up instead of sorting it all out at once because they've been exposed to a large amount of it in a short time. Especially when it's still within my power to limit their exposure. As they build up more common sense and understanding, I can relax my restrictions. Besides, as soon as I feel like introducing him to Halo, he'll probably kick my ass in the game...