Slashdot Mirror
CA Violent Games Bill Comes Under Fire
Gamespot is reporting that the VSDA and the ESA have filed a suit against the California governor in response to the passing of that state's violent games bill. From the article: "The complaint alleges that the new law violates the First Amendment by restricting access to games 'based solely on their expressive content' and unconstitutionally compels speech by manufacturers, distributors, importers, and retailers by requiring them to label violent games with a 2-by-2-inch sticker of a solid white '18' outlined in black."
The article doesn't cite any sources. I guess gamespot got a copy of the "complaint"? I'd like to know more about the "numerous precedents of video games being qualified as free speech in other circuit courts and states" (quoted from TFA).
Arguing about vi versus Emacs is like arguing whether it's better to make fire by rubbing sticks or banging rocks.
What if you are a parent who does not want his kids renting Christian video games? Why are they only protecting kids from becoming violent and sexually active when some parents worry more about their children becoming part of a religion that typically distances themselves from non-believing family memebers?
An Education is the Font of All Liberty
A) How does barring minors from such games violate free speech? Last I saw free speech just allowed me to say whatever I wanted, not do whatever I wanted. B) I don't see anybody complaining about the fact that minors aren't allowed int an R[+] rated movie. In my mind games kind of fall under the same category.
DxBlog - It's where you want to be
...that requiring a sticker warning people of vulgarity, sexual content, violence and/or other 'adult' themes a violation of any amendment? I for one appreciate the warnings, because I would lament if I were to give a 10-year old child a game with an unassuming name that is filled with all of the above.
Erutangis ym si siht.
don't hear them complaining about the ratings... they just cut the film to get in under the particular age rating they're going for... even going as far as shooting different scenes several times with different states of dress for different markets... so if they can cope with the ratings, why should games be any different???
Donald 'Duck' Dunn: We had a band powerful enough to turn goat piss into gasoline.
Now, either way, this is bull. For the first argument, most stores have an internal policy to not allow minors to buy/rent most R rated movies. The only thing that would change is that these policies would be constantly and lawfully enforced.
The second I could understand if the sticker went directly onto the cover art or something like that, but I doubt it will. It'll sit on the plastic, preserving the insides just as well as any plastic wrap can.
This sig isn't original enough, it's time to come up with something witty...
It's just the "nanny state" stepping in to do the job parents should be doing. Granted, judging by the quality of children I see nowadays, parents aren't doing a very good job. However, I don't step in to parent my neighbors kids unless there's child abuse. So why should the govt. be entitled to "parent"?
What they should legislate is that parents are responsible for their children, i.e. if a kid is caught breaking the law the parent should also be held accountable. Of course I also believe each person is responsible for his/her own actions, but parents should be held accountable for not parenting to society standards.
I'm sure if someone tried to pass a law requiring responsible parenting it would get screwed up. But at least a law that says, "If a parent buys a rated MA game/movie/music for his child, the parent will be charged w/ contributing to the delinquency of a minor." This would apply to that stupid grandmother that bought GTA:San Andreas for her 14 year old grandson and then wanted to sue everyone in sight when "Hot Coffee" came out.
Free Programming BookLearn to program
This is basically the same thing that happened back in the day when they put the parental advisory stickers on cd's. It helped for about a year and now no one really cares that much anymore. Basically to me the only people that are against this are people under the age of 18. And if you think its infringing on freedom of speech my question is how? They aren't saying the stores can't sell the games. And anyone younger than 18 is not qualified to vote therefore do not recieve the full benefits of the bill of rights. Anyways this is my opinion and if you don't like it, good, thats your right.
A man who has made some of the most violent movies of our time (and makes a fortune marketing them to children) becomes governor of california and produces legislation against companies that produce violent videogames and market them to children; I believe we have a word for this that begins with Hippo
So their case is that video game violence and sex should be protected by the first amendment (presumably the freedom of speech bit)
I assume there are laws, other than the first amendment, that restrict access to sexual movies to adults.
The big question is, why do these same laws not apply to the gaming industry? Of course you have the right to file a suit against this, but I give them a very slim chance.
Since every culture has a slightly different view which 'content' is appropriate at what age, I say leave it to the parents, but label the product accordingly.
In the UK all the games ratings that are done by the BBFC (Half-Life 2, Doom 3, Manhunt are the ones that spring to mind) are enforced by law. Does this stop me walking into a shop and buying a game that is rated too high for me? No. I have got games that I should be too young to buy, and I know that several other people I know do it as well. Quite a few parents are even happy to help out if the shops won't see games to minors.
Since not all games are violent enough to earn a rating by the BBFC that also might have a rating by the ELSPA, PEGI and I think I have even seen some with ERSB ratings on them. Most shops won't sell those to people under the recommended age. Does it stop me buying them? No.
I think that at th end of the day if someone wants to buy a game which by law (or recomendation) they cannot buy then they will still get it. There will always be shops that will sell to obviously underage people. There will also be copying of games from someone who might be old enough to buy and there will still be downloading off the internet. I think that all the restrictions will do is cause a bit of grief for minors trying to buy them, and anyone that wants one will still be able to get ahold of one.
Children have the right to not be abused, and the right to a state funded education. They do not have the right to vote, or the freedom of speech for that matter.
/^([Ss]ame [Bb]at (time, |channel.)){2}$/
I think the fact that most people think the same thing is why they can pass laws like this ("Hey, if movies have to follow these rules, shouldn't games?").
Spell cheek you've failed me four the last thyme!
Today's games already have a much better rating system then any movie or music CD. Why do we have to add another one?
Spell cheek you've failed me four the last thyme!
> I assume there are laws, other than the first amendment, that restrict access to sexual movies to adults.
>
Don't assume, look it up. I think you will be surprised.
Spell cheek you've failed me four the last thyme!
What is so wrong with this? Every time you go to buy/hire/see a movie you fall under the same or similar classification scheme. Nobody has complained about it and it's worked reasonably well as a guide for as many years as I can remember. Movies with extreme graphic violence, sex, drug taking or a myriad of other things deemed unsuitable for immature audiences are rated M15+ or R18+ and kids aren't allowed to see them.
How is it a breach of First Amendment rights to free speech and unconstitutional? The recent banning of GTA San Andreas was a breach of those rights (even though it was subsequently allowed to be re-released with a warning on the box). That was about silencing the producer of the game because some fucking twat didn't like what it contained.
This labelling scheme is about giving the consumer information so they can make a choice, not banning the producer from having their say.
Again, this just gives parents a choice over what they let their kids play. It stops the kids going out and buying games that, like most porn (they're not allowed to go and buy porn), they probably shouldn't be allowed to play. There's nothing stopping the parents going out and getting the game for the kid and letting them play it. This way at least the parents have some control and knowledge of what their kids are playing.
I drink to make other people interesting!
I was just watching Anderson Cooper, and they were doing an "exclusive" on Blitz: The League. It's an M-rated football game. Why on earth is this newsworthy? Because it gives them an excuse to interview Jack Thompson.
He spoke at length about how stores like EB will happily sell M-rated games to any kid that has the money. This "fact" was not challenged by anybody on the show. None of the controversies surrounding Thompson were mentioned. Now, I can't quote any studies but I can remember EB employees telling 14-year-olds to come back with their parent or guardian... in the Pre-Hot Coffee Era!
What does this mean? Well, the Slashdot and Penny Arcade readers may know both sides of this issue, but the other 99.98% of North Americans get the CNN version. That includes lawmakers.
In the long run I guess I'll be expected to pass some sort of psychological test and register my purchase with the government before being allowed to buy something like Metroid Prime 3.
The US Army: promoting democracy through unquestioned obedience
Um, this is one of the first generations where we have seen athiests and other non-believers have their children become Christian in large numbers. IMHE, the born again and first generation Christians in my family especially do not associate their children with known marijuana smokers in our family even if they are PhD scientists. One of my first generation Christian cousins during Christmas a few years back called the cops on her 14 year old Nephew for smoking a joint outside his own house. It seems they believe more in an all encompassing Christian family than they care about mantaining a real one.
An Education is the Font of All Liberty
Are the lawyers just more proactive in California, or is the law bent towards the ability to sue immediately after a law is passed? I sort of thought you had to wait until someone is charged under the law, then defend them and take the case as high as you can- or perhaps that's just the way to do it and actually succeed, because you can show real damages?
From the ACLU
Yes. In 1969 in Tinker v. Des Moines Independent Community School District the Supreme Court held that students in public schools - which are run by the government - do not leave their First Amendment rights at the schoolhouse gate. This means that you can express your opinions orally and in writing - in leaflets or on buttons, armbands or T-shirts.
You have a right to express your opinions as long as you do so in a way that doesn't "materially and substantially" disrupt classes or other school activities. If you hold a protest on the school steps and block the entrance to the building, school officials can stop you. They can probably also stop you from using language that they think is "vulgar or indecent," so watch out for the dirty words, OK?
Also, school officials may not censor only one side of a controversy. If they permit an article in the official school paper that says that premarital sex is bad, they may not censor an article that says premarital sex is good.
From the ACLJ
Tony from Virginia asks: My son is in elementary school, and at school one day he was talking to another student about God. It was during a time where the students were free to talk about anything. His teacher told him that he's not allowed to talk about God in school. We know that's not true, but we were wondering if there's something I can take to the teacher, because we've explained it to her and she still says, "No, he's not allowed to talk about God."
Jay answers: The Supreme Court's decision in the famous Tinker case* said that students possess the rights of freedom of speech. They don't surrender them at the schoolhouse gate. That includes recess time, on the playing field, in the classroom, as long as it's not disruptive to the school environment. And in a case that I had at the Supreme Court of the United States just about a year and a half ago, we won unanimously the rights of mi
You'll have to excuse me for starting a flamewar. I don't mean to disagree with you. My original point though, since I did not state it clearly to begin with... Children's actions are censored every day, because someone decides for them what is right and wrong. Which means an adult has to exercise that right for them. Children don't hold any exclusive rights or freedoms because there has to be a guardian responsible. Like I said before, they have the right to not be abused (or the right to a responsible guardian).
So as long as it is not vulgar, indecent, or disruptive, then they have freedom of speech. As soon as a parent or school official gets offended by evolution, religion, or "Harry Potter" the subject matter becomes indecent or vulgar to the beholder. The modern day example of course is Evolution vs. Intelligent Design. In addition to deciding what actions of children are appropriate, adults often decide what content is appropriate for them. Which is more on topic than actually censoring them or a child's freedom of speech. See how those are exclusive?
Ok, so I will give you and the ACLU this. Schools shouldn't have to censor or dumb down things for kids if they have educational value. Something being offensive is too vague, because of political correctness.
Seriously, do you see putting a bold 18 sticker on the game Grand Theft Auto having anything to do with anyone's Freedom of Speech? What educational value does Grand Theft Auto have? I suppose beating a prostitute to a bloody pulp with a golf club could be used to teach them a lesson about biology or perhaps anti-social psychological disorders.
How does preventing minors getting a hold of a game designed for adults infringe on the freedoms and rights of children? Isn't this in the same ballpark as Big Tobacco marketing the cartoon camel to children? If the game is designed for adults, then only adults should be permitted to purchase it. If the game contains gratuitous violence then maybe it should be illegal to market it to young children.
/^([Ss]ame [Bb]at (time, |channel.)){2}$/
And more importantly, surely the "18" sticker should only be applied to games rated AO (which are reccomended for ages 18+) rather than all violent games (including M and T rated ones)? With the vague wording of the law, it's no wonder this is turning into a farce.
No kidding!!! What do you say at this point?
(Anon because I modded)
A video game based on the non-nice aspects of the Bible would be awesome, and educational to those with blinders on.
If there was an effort, I would attempt to join whole-heartedly. Not to piss off Christians, but to illustrate how much modern Christianity has cherry-picked its dogma.
1. hypocrite is the word you were incorrectly refering to. Notice the 'y' and single 'p'.
2. Legislators produce legislation. Basically, the governor signed it into law but did not write it.
Other than that, yeah. It seems that he doesn't recognize what built his career.