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 law doesn't say that it will ban the sales of games with just violence in them, 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. We are talking about minors here.
On the other hand, maybe there should be two different levels of minors. Minor minors would be under 12, regular minors would be 12-17. Regular minors could buy these games, minor minors could not.
There's no emoticon for what I'm feeling! -- CBG, "The Computer Wore Menace Shoes"
Clearly parents aren't responsible enough to make sure their kids aren't deranged, and that they do not feed their psychoses with violent video games.
The only solution is obvious, let a government entity dictate it for us! They've clearly demonstrated tremendous judgement, and organizational skills!
My ZooLoo
The fact that the law mentions "standards" and "values" in determining which video games qualify really lead me to believe that this is just a "feel good" sort of law that is there to appease the people who want legislation, without actually having any sort of enforcable merit.
And no, I am not a lawyer. But I did stay at a Holiday Inn Express last night.
You are in a maze of little twisting passages, all different.
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.
It's the parent's responsibility to say what their kids should and shouldn't buy. If I feel that I can give my kid $50 and know that he's not going to buy something stupid (drugs, etc.) then I trust that he knows right from wrong enough that some violent game won't make him decide to go postal in the real world.
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
It was found unconstitutional, but not because the wording for what it blocked was vague. It was found unconstitutional because current filters (NetNanny etc) are rather lacking, have too many false positives, and would therefore filter out legitimate pages. And apparently school libraries are still covered under the CIPA provisions.
The two parties just announced that they will work out their differences over a cup of hot coffee
After seeing the wild-eyed look kids get after they squash an innocent mushroom or turtle, after seeing the sadistic glee they obtain from causing Sebulba's pod racer to crash, I fear for our next generation.
My question is, what are they going to do about black trenchcoats?
Step into a huge movement. Don't Tread In Me.
Selling porn to children is something most of us agree is Bad. But porn could be as hard to define as video-game violence. The famous quote is "I know it when I see it."
Violence is hard to define, if you're trying to separate the "squashing goombas flat in Mario" type from the "setting people on fire and laughing at their cries for help" type. It's going to take some subjective words like "sadistic" and "intentionally causing suffering."
But if it's hard to define legally, 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. The question is: can we make it legally clear?
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.
There is no law preventing minors from going to see or buy R rated movies, and there's no rating on books either. That's part of the point of objecting to this law.
Schwab
California Resident
Editor, A1-AAA AmeriCaptions
..... Maybe a BFG9000 would be more effective?
This is my opinion. To make sure you don't steal it, it's covered by the DMCA.
...want to KILL somebody.
W..w..W - Willy Waterloo washes Warren Wiggins who is washing Waldo Woo.
Seems to me that the bill in question would have been a lot easier to police (and would make a lot more sense) if it had banned the sale of ALL video games to minors. I'm not suggesting that kids shouldn't be allowed to play Super Julio Bro's, but that little Timmy should have to take "Dad" to the store with him if he wants the new release of "Patricide II - Daddy's Back".
I'm not a proponent of censorship in general. I just happen to think that there's nothing wrong with preventing children from having access to gruesome violent content *on demand*.
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();
They are right, this bill is trying to clearly define things that are subjective.
What happens when laws like this pass? We start making borderline games that will pass for sale to minors, but are just as bad AND large software companies will push a little cash one way or another to get their game an "okay."
They should really ban the sale of electronic games to minors. If they want them, relatives can purchase for them. Unfortunately, the idea of a game is almost as vague. "Mouse Trap" is obviously a game, and it's probably not electronic, but what about "Operation?" What about today's fancy graphing calculators?
Let's look at what the electronic violence bill hopes to do:
-involve parents
-prevent children from buying and playing "violent" video games that do shape their developing perspectives
As for the arguments, here are some pre-argument questions:
What part of growing up requires children the ability to play games?
-look back a few generations to the people who grew up before video games existed
-think third-world children
Is it some sort of torture to disallow children access to games?
-stop thinking about third-world children
-think about children doing something that provides intellectual stimulation, like chasing each other or playing tag
-if a child is tortured by their lack of playing, couldn't we call it an addiction?
-the only time this will be torturous is if one child is allowed to play while another one watches
Do video games have any truly positive impact on the development or well-being of a child?
-so-called hand/eye co-ordination
-entertainment
-stress coping (fantasy worlds; places where they are in control of things)
-keeps kids out of trouble (mischief and even drugs)
-potential for learning something
-potential for work creating or playing games (I'm stretching)
Some negatives?
-time consumption (starting a hobby young grants the hobbyist a grand advantage)
-physical strain (hand, eye, and postural)
-artificial reality during development can lead to psychological problems/disorders (ADD, addiction, and [meh]violence)
-overload of entertainment may lead to disinterest in reality and a lack of motivation and inability to self-entertain
-reliance on external device for stress coping
I was even being pretty modest about the negatives.
As well you should - it's the shame of Comp Sci departments across the nation that so many graduate with programming-related degrees and no clue about what's really happening. You know how it goes: one student leaves his trash all over the heap, and no one will admit to making the mess, so the teacher takes pointers away from the whole class!
Socialism: a lie told by totalitarians and believed by fools.
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.