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.
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.
"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
Man, I just read about Jack Thompson saying something very similar to this. His complaint was that video games get advertised in comics. When asked what comic, he had no idea and took a shot in the dark with Spiderman. What concerns me about this is, just like video games, there are comics that are meant for adult audiences as well. I wouldn't give my child a copy of sin city, it's to graphically violent.
Magazines are the same thing. You said that we shouldn't advertise M games in gaming magazines because children may read them. How about bill boards, can we still advertise there? Children may walk past them. If that is the case does that mean that there should be laws in place that insure that video games can not be advertised in materials or places that people under the age of 18 frequent. So you can't advertise on television, comics, magazines, or billboards near schools.
When things like that start to occur can you really say that there is still freedom of speech with video games? If you really want to protect the children fine, get out there and protect them, but when you start taking away venues of speech from adults to do it you really are crossing a line for freedom of speech.
I wouldn't be upset if they wanted to keep M and Ao rated games out of the hands of minors. The problem is, they (CA government) wants their own rating system. So, if the ESRB says a game is rated T, and I sell it to a 16 year old, their parents can say "This game is too violent" and I'll get sued.
Spell cheek you've failed me four the last thyme!
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
yeah, real rape and murder certainly gets less press, so it must be less important.
"When the going gets weird, the weird turn pro" -Hunter S. Thompson
So you're saying that *all* advertising for "adult" material should be outlawed in venues that children have access to?
That would mean no commercials for rated R movies/DVDs during "prime time", no pg-13 during the hours that even younger children are watching TV, especially on the weekends. Oh, and don't forget alcohol ads on before 10pm, yes, even during the sunday afternoon football games.
A quick flip thru just about any magazine in the country shows numerous movie advertisements for movies a child shouldn't see and tobacco ads. And these are magazines that any 9yo can pick up at 7-11. Not just gaming mags. And all readily available at the 'checkout counter'.
Let's not forget about the Evening news. Nobody's regulating all the sex, violence, drug use, violent sports, etc. shown to children on all the major network 2-3 times an evening. Are CNN, FOX-news and MSNBC regulated by the vchip? Better call your congressman.
Forget the fact that the Justice Department data shows that Juvenile Violent crimes are at an all time low and have been dropping steadily since the mid 90's. Some kid with emotional and mental problems stole his dad's gun and shot another kid in school someplace in middle-america. Since the news media found an X-box in his bedroom, there *MUST* be some correlation, so let's ban video games.
Idiots
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.