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.
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'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.
... 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();
I'm sorry, but how are the publishers not enforcing their ratings system? Except in the recent GTA "Hot Coffee" fiasco (which is still slightly silly since the game was already rated M for Mature), the game publishers have abided by the ESRB's rating system and placed the rating on the box and then give the box to the retailer. The retailers are the ones who sell it to the public, and so are the ones capable of enforcing the ratings.
If you talk with game developers, you find that a lot of changes are made simply to get the game into major retailers, like Walmart, who make a point of saying how family friendly they are and don't want to sell games that may offend families--that is, unless it's a runaway hit, like GTA, in which case all their family friendly arguments conveniently cease. Let's also not forget that they place violent games on the same shelf that they place kids games, unlike movies which are generally seperated.
But let's get this straight. While retailers could definitely do more to limit how easily kids get these games, the real issue is parents not being aware either of the games the kids are buying, or what they themselves are buying for the kids. Parents certainly have a challenge when it comes to being able to police what their kids do at their friends houses (which is actually the more common complaint I've heard from parents who are worried about what games their kids play), but frankly, that's not going to change once there's a law preventing minors from buying games since that's clearly a case where the other parents would probably buy inappropriate games for the kids anyway. In general, it's best for the parents to learn who their kids are playing with and don't let them play with the ones who aren't parented well.
And as far as this legistlation goes, it's clearly just a way for politicians to appear to be concerned for families. Notice how it doesn't make any effort to control what movies kids can buy? Arnold knows better than to mess with the movie industry.
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