Slashdot Mirror
CA Officials Respond To Lawsuit
Gamasutra is reporting on Yee and Schwarzenegger's response to the lawsuit brought in response to the violent games bill passed recently in California. From the article: "History has proven in cases of child labor and physical assault on children that we can and should pass laws to protect them. I am a strong believer in the First Amendment and in free speech, but when a game allows a player to virtually commit sexual assault and murder, as a society we must do what we can to protect our children, as we do for alcohol, tobacco, and pornography, among other items," We've previously reported on the passing of the bill and the filing of the lawsuit.
And if this is true, then what about your movies, Mr. Terminator? Completely innocent? Sure, they can't see them in the theaters, but kids can buy or rent them whenever they like.
And what games allow the player to virtually commit sexual assault??
useless sig advice - Read Nabokov.
"the kid who swallowed too many marbles doesn't grow up to have kids of his own!".
Lower your torches please. I don't feel like igniting a flame war about whose responsibility it is to protect 'the children', but I just had to point this out. He says that they have a duty 'as a community' to protect children. (I could go on for days ranting about problems in parenting, that aside) Couldn't they 'as a community' protect thier children without passing laws, if they are indeed acting as a community?
This just proves who's fooling who.
Perfecting Discordia
www.stevenvansickle.com
"when a game allows a player to virtually commit sexual assault and murder, as a society we must do what we can to protect our children, as we do for alcohol, tobacco, and pornography"
Where's the direct correlation between virtually committing murder and physical violence among children? Consuming alcohol and tobacco physically affect people directly. People are afraid virtual violence leads to real violence, but where's the proof? Especially with the rates of reported crimes dropping I'd like to see politicians showing evidence before passing laws.
Developers: We can use your help.
"when a game allows a player to virtually commit sexual assault and murder, as a society we must do what we can to protect our children, as we do for alcohol, tobacco, and pornography, among other items..."
In making this statment he is basically equating video games that contain violent or sexual material to alcohol, tobacco, and porn. The problem is that in order to make such an absurd claim hold any weight, you would have to assume that any form of media or literature that contained violence or sexuality, would have to be held under the same light. So how is it ok for Fox to display sex and violence everynight where children are most certainly watching, but then its not ok for these things to be in videogames? Give me a break, this law will be smacked down for sure. You can't censor one form of media just because its the new kid on the block. And whats with the lies about being able to rape in a video game? There is no game where you can do that. Just goes to show they are resorting to sesationalist tactics to try to make an impact. What a bunch of clowns.
"When the going gets weird, the weird turn pro" -Hunter S. Thompson
"in cases of child labor and physical assault on children"
If that was the logic used in writing and passing the law, then the goals of the law should have been satisifed with a single state-required disclaimer attatched to all video games: "No children were harmed in the making of this video game."
Seriously, kids don't go out and say "Yippie skippie, I wanna work in a coal mine for 12 hours a day!" or something similar.
This whole thing makes me sick. People are constantly making a huge deal out of how big a problem it is that kids can buy M rated games, etc. Yes, this is a problem, with a simple solution; the same one that DVDs use.
Oops, problem solved!
However, why is it that your 10 yr old nephew doesn't just want but NEEDS to play GTA? What are the demographics for gaming mags and gaming websites? Who spends more time viewing the commercial content there - 10 yr olds or 25 yr olds? Who screens the marketing materials for all these sources?
If you want to actually FIX the PROBLEM here, do something about the kids knowing about and wanting to play these games in the first place. Crap like these laws just distract from a very real and very bad problem. Worst of all, cockbites like Jack Thompson actually claim to be fighting the marketing of this material to children! MARKETING DOES NOT HAPPEN AT THE CHECKOUT COUNTER.
NB: Obviously, kids will always find out about this stuff. Especially unsupervised, poorly parented kids. But come on; magazines, tv and websites literally force ads for the latest, greatest, goriest M-rated shootfest down the throats of elementary and middle schoolers all the time. Is it really necessary? "Really, this is rated M, its not suitable for most 13 yr olds, however we are going to do everything we can to make them want it anyways!" Just doesn't seem right.
"So how is it ok for Fox to display sex and violence everynight where children are most certainly watching, but then its not ok for these things to be in videogames?"
;)
IMO, it's not. I think the FCC should get off their collectively paid off asses and slap the $hit out of FOX and the other broadcast channels for BROADCASTING unexceptable content. Cable on the other hand, I feel should be free to do as it pleases.
And I'm personally okay with this bill (from what I know of it). All it is (so far as I know) is a legal representations of the maturity rating on the box. It would be similar to a law that banned anyone under 18 from seeing an NC17 movie. So far as I know, there is no such law, just an accepted standard at (most) movie theators and rental stores. The only concern I have is who decides the video game rating? A government body? ESRB? Publishers?
The government already has laws barring the sale of pornography to minors. Which is what this seems to most closely related. I mean, if someone went out and made a high quality movie version of GTA, it would be hard pressed to get under a NC17 rating.
To reveal any bias I may have, I'm in my mid twenties, loved GTA and it's spin offs (Vice City was my fav!), and have a 2 year old son. If I as a parent feel my son is mature enough to saftly enjoy GTA, I'll buy him a copy. If I as a parent feel my son is mature enough to saftly enjoy an alcoholic beverage, I'll buy him one. But I don't want my son running out and buying his own alcohol, porn, violent movies and video games on his own. Atleast, not in America, our mind set is way to #$@!ed up for that kind of responcibility.
-Rick
"Most people in the U.S. wouldn't know they live in a tyrannical state if it walked up and grabbed their junk." - MyFirs
guess the kids will have to go back and commit REAL rape and murder. Obviously that's the less offensive of the two. Sure is in the East-Bay area anyway.
Eat the fucking children. They plump when you cook them. Soft on the outside and crunchy on the inside.
Or you could just keep your drooling spawn away from my entertainment before I smack the fucking little dears, or is it ok if I project slasher, porn & snuff films on the side of my house every night for them to fall asleep to?
Not being able to play Grand Theft Auto if I were 12 years old again would drive me insane... But, i felt that way about watching R and XXX movies and buying Playboy and drinking and smoking, etc, etc. (i of course found my way around the law for most of them anyway).
I DO think that video games need a rating system and sales limitations, though they should at least make it consistent with the movie industry which is pretty much the same issue. I DON'T think it should be totally open since it seems pretty degenerative to allow your 5 year old access to XXX or R movies OR GAMES. same thing. I do think though that a 11-15 year old can handle much more than the state/govt thinks they can.
If you think your 5 year old is ready for that then you are probably letting him sip off your beers, too, yeah?
It's probably NOT a good idea to display sex and violence on tv for any pre-teen to see.
In any case, its ultimately up to the parent to educate and/or prevent there kids from seeing or doing something. If they want it bad enough, kids are smart and will find a way around most things anyway. And if they want something that bad, we should probably ask ourselves why that is, too.
Also, another thing to ask yourself... how long will it be before there IS a game where you can full-on rape someone? It's all a gray line, but i'm pretty sure if i had an 7 year old boy, i wouldn't want him playing a game where he can rape or . Even if you educate them, exposure does have an effect.
There is no perfect solution, but there are good comprimises. The bill is probably too harsh but not far off.
"And whats with the lies about being able to rape in a video game? There is no game where you can do that."
You have obviously never played the Japanese import, Battle Raper.
Why not just turn on the VChip in your TV?
(insert "warming up" sound effects here.) "I raped and then strangled the puppy. Then I used the puppy's dead body to bludgeon a little old lady to death. After that, I walked across the street and flung both bodies on somebody's lawn."
There. I have "virtually" committed bestiality, animal cruelty, elder abuse, murder, jaywalking, trespassing, and littering, using technology that is readily available to children, with no more effort than it takes to post to Slashdot(tm)!
How many more will have to suffer before computer keyboards are outlawed for minors?!?!? WON'T SOMEBODY THINK OF THE CHILDREN???
Hacker Public Radio is our Friend
I most certainly agree that Fox gets away with way too much, and dislike the content that is made available for viewing durring hours when young children are awake. I was merely trying to point out the double standard that video games face.
The government already has laws barring the sale of pornography to minors. Which is what this seems to most closely related.
I fail to see what about GTA would even get it an NC-17 rating. The worst thing you could even see beyond violence would be the hot coffee mod, which shows two blocky cartoon charaters, with clothes on, engaging in consensual sex. You can't even see any sexual organs. Hardly relating to porn. Nothing that you couldn't see in an episode of the OC, except for maybe the cursing. Definately nothing here that you wouldn't see in any R rated movie. The point is, the government doesn't exert any control over who see's what movies, or reads what books, so why should they control who plays what games? They are trying to make the argument, without any evidence, that this kind of content is more damaging in video games. But if that were true, why has youth violent crime been dropping for the last 10 years, while video games sales have skyrocketed? This is issue has almost nothing to do about protecting our youth, and has everything to do with political sensationalism. If they were really concerned with protecting kids from this stuff they would be going after fox as well, but they won't because there is no perceived political gain from doing so. I think that a few years from now, we'll look back on this the way we look at people like Tipper Gore who were trying to protect our youth from the evils of Twisted Sister. What I wonder is, will this cycle keep on repeating itself forever? Will every new form of entertainment undergo this type of censorship by the older generation that is out of touch with the modern world? I sure hope not.
"When the going gets weird, the weird turn pro" -Hunter S. Thompson
Is smacking kids illegal in California?
Repton.
They say that only an experienced wizard can do the tengu shuffle.
My TV doesn't have a V-Chip. and broad cast TV is a public medium. Try performing acts like those seen on FOX at prime time in front of your local elementary school. -Rick
"Most people in the U.S. wouldn't know they live in a tyrannical state if it walked up and grabbed their junk." - MyFirs
We also have a duty to protect our nation against Communism. And thus it's entirely reasonable to have a law that requires citizens to register, in advance, for each and every piece of Communist literature that comes to them through the mail.
...or at least, that's the argument being put forward. I guess it depends on who you view a great big 18 sticker on the front of every box. Or, more tellingly, how 12 people who've been forced to do jury duty can be made to see it.
Except, as the judge found in that case, such a "protection" creates a "chilling effect" upon free speech and thus is unconstitutional.
A requirement for videogame stores to respect ESRB ratings is one thing. That has no "chilling effect" upon publishers creating new works.
Demanding a 2inch by 2inch bold logo on the front of a game stating it's 18 changes not just parental awareness (which can be covered by ESRB information displays) but serves to villify such titles, embarassing legitimate customers who don't want to be perceived as "bad" for purchasing them.
Similarly, it is reasonable to ask that publicly displayed adult magazines are placed out of children's reach and have either a non-sexual cover or that that cover is hidden. It is unreasonable and has a "chilling effect" to demand that adult magazines have a bright neon slip cover advertising "ANYONE WHO BUYS THIS IS A SEX ADDICT!" One protects children, the other has a chilling effect on the entirely legal sale of the product to those legally allowed to buy it.
The California law's problem is that it oversteps from being truly about protection of children in to "chilling effect" territory.
And one that wouldnt require all this new extra effort is to just require that all games rated by the ESRB as M or AO are not available to minors.
Problem solved WITHOUT the need to stick big "adults only" stickers on the boxes.
As was pointed out in the current PC Gamer, during an interview with Ye...
Ye "As a trained psychiatrist, I know how important it is to not expose children to these kinds of things. Many studies support this."
PCG "What about the many studies that show absolutely no correlation can be proved."
Yee "Statistics can be manipulated. I know how important it is. Many studies support this."
PCG "What about the fact that the violent crime rate in teenagers has dropped every single year since the release of the PlayStation and is now at half its peak ten years ago and the lowest it's been since the 70s."
Yee "Statistics can be manipulated. I know how important it is. Many studies support this."
In other words, he's formed his opinion and, whilst quoting statistics that suit him, has absolutely no interest in even exploring the massive weight of evidence to the contrary because statistics can be manipulated.
The amazing thing is he doesn't even seem to be embarassed to feed such a load of clearly self serving bull.
Tipper Gore, now there was a wack job. I think Anthrax summed her up the best in their song "Starting up a posse"
And I agree completely with your point, I don't think that video games should be accused of unproven and even refuted statistics. And I definately don't think they should be used as a political agenda.
But at the same time I wouldn't allow my child when he turns 10 to watch COPS (violence, blurred out nudity, cursing, prostitution, drugs, etc) which is pretty comprable to the content of GTA:Vice City(More violence, less nudity). Most movies with COPS like content are rated R, or atleast had been until the rating institute started schluffing off. For reference, The 1970's classic "Stand By Me" (a great movie about 4 early teen boys walking the rail road tracks) is rated R. There is one or maybe two cuss words, and an extremely obscured dead body. Compared to "Dude, where's my car" (a crap tastic story about two losers looking for their car) which is rated PG-13. There are many curse words, drug paraphinalia, drug glorification and instruction, gratuitous panty shots, etc. Now, that movie had some pretty funny parts, but it's nothing I'd want my child to see when he is 13. And PG-13 movies don't usually card kids, so anyone could pretty much walk into that one.
Me personally, if the box says Graphic Violence, Drugs, Nudity, Sexual Content, etc... I'd prefer to have it rated R. That way the parent can purchase or acompany their child for the purchase of the item.
-Rick
"Most people in the U.S. wouldn't know they live in a tyrannical state if it walked up and grabbed their junk." - MyFirs
Where ar ethese games that let you commit sexual assault? I don't want to play them, but we hear so much about them they must be in every Wal-Mart and Best Buy, right?
Let's see, even in GTA3, where there are prostitutes, that sex is consentual. Sure you can run them over, but you can do that to anyone in the game and that isn't sexual. Even with the Hot Coffee mod, it is also consentual.
Aside from old Atari 2600 games like Custer's Revenge, where are these sexually deviant games???
It couldn't be that the people who are saying these things are horribly uninformed or ill-informed???
http://www.popularculturegaming.com -- my blog about the culture of videogame players
Ahnold is doing the right thing. He just needs to get what he is doing refined. He is not Jack Thompson, he is not saying "OMG GAMES ARE BAD WE SHOULD BURN THEM IN A GIANT BONFIRE." He is saying that the games sold to little Johnny should be restricted. 8 year olds don't need to be playing games with a four letter word in every sentence. Also, parents need to PAY ATTENTION TO THE GODFORSAKEN RATING SYSTEM. Yeah, it sucks. Super Smash Bros shouldn't be rated teen, but hey, it's better than nothing.
So the reason we want to prevent violent crime isn't that we want to protect the victims from harm but the children who typically commit that crime from getting corrupted? WTF?
Free as in mason.
And now, I'm sure we'll se a long, stupid flamewar along the lines of 'Guns don't kill people, people do'.
Firstly, children should be protected - that anybody can even appear to reject that thought is deeply worrying. Protecting offspring is so fundamental to the survival of most species, that only the most primitive animals don't do it.
Secondly, as for who should protect our children, I think this is the responsibility of all - the parents, obviously, but society as well, and not just 'the government' (as in public services), but all ordinary people. We all have a duty to protect all children.
Finally, trying to deny that what you do in a computer game will influence what you become as a person, can only be the result of massive ignorance. Playing in any form is the natural way of learning about life, by simulating real-life situations in a safe setting. If you play computer games you will learn whatever is 'the spirit' of the game. A game that is constructed in such a way that you have to kill without a shred of remorse in order to succeed in the game, will influence your personality in the direction of accepting that kind of behaviour as part of what you are as a person. As an adult, perhaps you can keep your 'game-personality' apart from your 'real-life personality', but as I said, children form their personality from playing games. It makes perfect sense to me that there should be restrictions on violent games, and that it should be enforced by the authorities.
And, just to return briefly to the 'Guns don't kill...' - that people don't just dismiss that notion out of hand strikes me as being self-deluding - guns are made for killing. Yes, you can say 'I only have it for self-defence', but that only works because 1) its purpose it to kill and 2) you are willing to do so. By that same sort of argument you could say 'Cocaine/heroin/whatever doesn't destroy lives - its people that use these things that destroy themselves'; yeah right. Guns kill - that's their purpose.
Here if I go to Saturn to buy an GTA (since we keep talking about it), it won't just have an 18+ sticker on it, it will actually be put in a big red playstic box that I have to take to the cashier. And last I've heard, it had no "chilling effect" on their sales or anything.
Yes, that big red box means "it's an 18+ game!!" Well, blimey, and I'm well over 18. That's a fortunate coincidence, eh? Yes, I'm buying a game that's deemed not suitable for children. And I'm not a child. The problem is...? Why should I be ashamed of that?
Maybe it has to do with the culture here being less hypocritical, and less stuck on trying to _seem_ like upstanding and moralistic citizens.
A polar bear is a cartesian bear after a coordinate transform.
I once knew a girl who was this sweet southern bell who moved to the northeast. You would think she was the sweetest person in the world until every now and then she would open her mouth and say something horrible. I recall one time I was standing in line with her. There were some irritating loudly black kids standing in line in front of us shouting at the top of their lungs. She turned to me and goes, "I don't mean to sound racist," and I winced, because I knew the next thing out of her mouth WOULD be racist, "but I fucking hate black people. They are so god damn loud."
The point of that little anecdote? Every time someone opens their mouth and says, I am a strong believer in the First Amendment and in free speech, but...I know the next thing out of their mouth is going to prove otherwise. I know the next thing out of their mouth is going to be some exception where THEY don't think free speech is really all that important.
Personally, I am completely baffled as to how the first amendment got so thoroughly trounced. Granted, it seems to hold off the worst of the insane attempts to limit speech, but I thought the "shall make no law...abridging the freedom of speech" is pretty clear. It almost reminds me of that Onion article where during an interview with God he expresses how utterly dismayed that the 10 commandments are not followed. In particular, god thought the "Thy shall not kill" was pretty damn clear, yet people kept making up exceptions to the rule.
Karem
When all is said and done, nothing changes...
I was amused at some of the respones. "Oh! I guess that means space invaders is bad. blah blah blah..." Tell me the last time Space Invaders involved murdering innocent people. Tell me the last time America's Army involved raping women. Tell me the last time Link was just killing the monsters because they were too cute and cuddely? GIVE ME A BREAK!!! You guys know full well that there is a difference between those games and Grand Theft Auto or Bully. Your arguments are rediculous. It can be a safe assumption that the 1st ammendment was created to allow people to speak negativly about politics, go to church without fear, and write the truth in the press. I highly doubt that right was there so that people could have sex on their front lawns, make "curtisy calls" while I'm trying to sleep, or remove parents rights to make legislation that protects their kids from total garbage.
I love videogames. I'm not sure why you guys want to ruin the industry by turning it into garbage. The NES was found in many homes. Families played together. Now parents don't even want to touch a PS2 or XBox controller. It's too bad.
"History has proven in cases of child labor
Physical act that harms someone
and physical assault on children
Physical act that harms someone
a game allows a player to virtually commit sexual assault and murder
Virtual act where nobody is harmed
alcohol, tobacco
Physical items with harmful effects
, and pornography, among other items,"
At last, the only thing that actually compares! Wow, yeah!
Now, hang on. What did we do about porn? Yes, we passed laws that allows only adults to buy them.
So we need a law that allows only adults to buy violent titles, like GTA. Say, people over 17? Hey, wait. We already have these laws, you fucking idiot!
Assorted stuff I do sometimes: Lemuria.org
I think the problem have been pointed out already and resides in the justification itself: "I'm for freedom of speech and the first amendment, but we have to protect children from.... " In the name of the children we demand either: a) more legislation in the quest for ethics which inevitably results in a loss of liberty of thinking or b) more censorship in the name of the freedom of speech. This is not very different from saying: "I'm for freedom of speech, but there's this book here which talks about communism and we must protect democracy! We can't allow people to read that!" or how about a book which says god doesn't exist, i'm all for freedom of speech you know, but if my child where to read somewhere that there is no god, think of the damage that could do! Inquisition used to use the same kind of arguments to burn books and people. I'm sure they used the save the children argument in those days also. Rating games is as efficient as rating movies or music, shich is close to none. Children will still play them, maybe even more because of the attactiveness of the forbidden. It's censorship disguised as a benevolent measure to better society. State never should decide what you should see or read, that only leads to state deciding what you should think or vote.
SimTouchLittleSuzy 2K6.
I would have thought you were making a joke, had you not been like the 3rd person to mention that title, and I'm not even halfway scrolled down.
Anyway, statistics about dropping teen crime rates aside, I have no problem with the law either. It's pretty lame to whine about lost profits because you cannot sell ultraviolent bloody games to a 14 year old, then to feign some freedom of speech issue. (Which it may be, but it's a stretch that freedom of speech extends to adults pushing such things on children without the parents' permission, for profit purposes.)
(-1: Post disagrees with my already-settled worldview) is not a valid mod option.
As with most everything in life, the truth lies somewhere in the middle. In a perfect world, family values may suffice. But when the parents are negligent or abusive, then community values should be there providing a safety net to protect children and spouses.
Abstinence is a government conspiracy. www.SafeSexZone.co
Abstinence is a government conspiracy. www.SafeSexZone.co
I understand the value of this, but my point is that if his misuse of the word 'community'. The community is obviously not doing enough (in his eyes) so the government has to step in. When it comes to raising children, there is a big difference between community values and legislation (more often than not).
Perfecting Discordia
www.stevenvansickle.com