Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

ESA to Sue California Over Violent Game Law

Posted by Zonk on from the finally dept.

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."

7 of 347 comments (clear)

  1. Clarity is not the common case by Agelmar · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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.

  2. I don't see the big deal by Punkrokkr · · Score: 5, Interesting

    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"
  3. Videogames reflect life by Work+Account · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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)!
  4. This just in... by Mike+Keester · · Score: 5, Funny

    The two parties just announced that they will work out their differences over a cup of hot coffee

  5. Porn maybe a better parallel by Nerdposeur · · Score: 5, Interesting

    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?

    1. Re:Porn maybe a better parallel by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

      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.

  6. The law is a complete waste ... by fuzzdawg · · Score: 5, Insightful

    ... 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();