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
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)!
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
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.
Schwab
California Resident
Editor, A1-AAA AmeriCaptions
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();