Slashdot Mirror
Judge Blocks Ban on Violent Video Game Sales
dada21 writes "SFGate is reporting that a federal judge recently blocked a new California law that would have banned the sale of violent video games to minors. From the article: 'Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger had signed the bill by Assemblyman Leland Yee, D-San Francisco, to ban the sale or rental of especially violent video games to children under 18 years old unless there is parental approval. The law was to take effect Jan. 1.'"
Arnold Schwarzenegger is annoyed because of his films sales are proportionally inversed to violent videogame sales.
This is about deterring the production of said games. If they can't be bought by minors, then they will be pirated. This destroys the revenue stream, making it unprofitable to make such games.
Evil, huh? This is the premise of much of the censorship we see today, controlling speech through the 'think about the children!' impulse.
HBI's Law: Frequency of calling others Nazis is directly correlated with the likelihood of the accuser being Communist.
Out of curiousity, how do you feel about the RIAA suing the parents of kids that have downloaded music for free?
Personally, I don't agree with the tactic (and have dealt with the issue personally). However, I often see some of the same folks that argue for parental responsibility in gaming solidly against holding parents responsible for things like music swapping.
This isn't meant as a troll. I'm sincerely just interested in how this squares up against another aspect of parental responsibility.
I tried to write a legnthy reply to this -
But how are they analogous - Under this law, the stores that sold to the kids without permission would get fined, right? Or, would the parents get fined/sued for their kids buying a video game underage? Or both?
Vs the RIAA - Kid engages in illegal activity (regardless of parental sanction) and parents get owned.
http://www.TheGamerNation.com/Forums
What sorts of fines are retailers currently assessed for sale of rated R movies, CDs with "explicit lyrics", pornography, and other adult material to minors?
The bottom line is that parents should be the ones regulating what their children are doing. If you don't know what games your child is playing, what music they are listening to, or magazines they are buying, then you need to get more involved with their lives.
Stop blaming retailers, game companies, cable tv, and generally everyone else. Do you job as a parent, discuss with your children why the material is unsuitable for them. Heck, buy it and interact with them.
"The more you suffer, the more it shows you really care, right?" -Offspring
...no State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges and immunities of the citizens of the United States --U.S. Constitution amendment XIV
;)
The states cannot take away rights that originate from citizenship.
Now I'm about to be corrected by someone who really knows what they're talking about
Shh.
Reno v. ACLU
"In sum, the District Court found:
"Even if credit card verification or adult password verification were implemented, the Government presented no testimony as to how such systems could ensure that the user of the password or credit card is in fact over 18. The burdens imposed by credit card verification and adult password verification systems make them effectively unavailable to a substantial number of Internet content providers." Ibid. (finding 107)."
Now...this finding would also have ramifications on selling games online. How do you verify age? You can't.
... otherwise, this law would have burst into hellish flames of contradiction when signed by the lead in Conan, Commando, Eraser, Predator, Red Heat, Running Man, Terminator 1/2/3, Total Recall, True Lies and (Not) The Last Action Hero.
--- Attorneys Assisting Citizen-Soldiers & Families -
just create a law banning the sale of video games, marked rated M or Adult, from being sold.
They can't do that. That would be giving legislative powers to a non-governmental agency, which is illegal.
Try buying a powerstrip that's not been tested by Underwriters Laboratories. All sorts of crap I buy in Europe has US safety and compliance marks on them, all put there by labs independent of the US government, but to comply with sundry US laws.
In fact, having a third party give out ratings, and having a law requiring ratings, is a shade more constitutional (in theory) than the government itself outright banning games. Just like the V-chip, for example. It's required to be there, but its use isn't filled in by government itself.
The V-chip doesn't convey legislative powers to the National Association of Broadcasters, the National Cable Television Association and the Motion Picture Association of America.
SCO employee? Check out the bounty
You people are quite crazy. Why in the world would you allow teens to have access to pronography or alcohol. It is absolutely nuts. If you are worried sbout your individual children's access to violent video games, pornography, tobacco, etc ... THEN ... you can go but that stuff for your child and give it to them.
As a rule though, the community should not sell those things to children.
It is just absolutlely silly to suggest that because some kids can buy tobacco or alcohol or attend Rated "R" or "X" movies in some (illegal) locations that we should just get rid of those laws. Poppycock
It is also silly to suggest that children have full freedom of speech OR should have ability to view other people freedom of speech. Childern are not adults ... they are children. For goodness sakes people.
Passing community laws that prevent selling items to children and things like the v-chip that help block negative content, and other things are our responibility as adult to protect children.
Children need protecting ... and they need good parenting ... AND ... good parents need help in the way of community laws to prevent selling items to children, that provide software for filtering internet content, and that provide items like the v-chip for blocking movies.
Certainly, not selling "R" or "X" rated movies to kids is a good idea as a general rule. You can then rent that movie and allow your children to watch it, if you deem it wise. The only argument then becomes one of Freedom of speech / expression and freedom of actions. Children are not wise enough to fend for themselves and they need parents ... so they don't have those freedoms.
Now I think the MPAA system is technically voluntary, but it would seem to have pretty much the same effect as European rating systems which are mostly enshrined in the law.
If this was a general ban or censorship, I would completely agree. However I really don't get the problem with restricting the 'rights' of minors, this coming from a country where most states don't let you purchase alcohol until the very late age of 21 (which to a European seems _far_ more bizarre.)
I see a lot of people who continue to say that it's up to the parents to keep their children from playing games that arn't acceptable. These are the same people who either don't work, or who don't have children themselves.
Look at the cost of living these days. In many places, paying rent or a mortgage costs over $2000 per month. With phone bills, cable bills, electric bills, water bills, car payments, credit card payments, and so on, in order to afford all of this and have a parent able to stay at home to watch the kids, the parent that is working would need to be earning at least $80,000/year in order to stay on top of it all. Considering that most people are working in jobs that pay $45,000/year or under, it's no wonder that families need to have BOTH parents working in order to stay on top of costs. Oh, I forgot that with a child, it's idiotic not to have health insurance, and MOST jobs out there don't provide health insurance as a part of the job.
Until the overall cost of living is reduced, there will be NO chance for many families to have someone stay at home to watch what children are playing and doing. I don't see a push by government to help REDUCE costs. Gas prices are up which raises the prices on everything. Electric costs are going up and up with nothing being done to lower the prices. Preventing prices from going up isn't the same as lowering them.
The economy isn't in good shape right now. Consider that while prices arn't going up TOO fast(except for gas and the side effect of gas prices), people arn't getting paid much more each year. That's a problem. If you make $25,000/year, and prices go up by 5% across the board, but your paycheck only goes up by 3%, you have had life become much harder. If a family has a single income of $45,000/year, but rents and utility bills go up more per year than your income, you have less of a chance of doing well overall. Taxes are also going up in many places, so if you managed to buy a house and could BARELY afford the payments, the increase in taxes will force you to move out eventually because wages arn't increasing.
These are just some of the facts that involve the whole "parents should watch what their children are doing". If children get out of school three to four hours before a parent gets home from work, of COURSE there won't be anyone there to watch what they are doing, they are too busy trying to earn a living. Only the wealthy who don't work, or those who can work at home can possibly watch their children properly.