Slashdot Mirror
CA Game Bill Struck Down, Governor Vows Appeal
GamePolitics has the full story today on the removal of California's violent games law. A judge has found it unconstitutional after a protracted legal battle. The law was originally passed back in 2005. "The bill, championed by then-Assembly Speaker Leland Yee (D) was signed into law by Republican Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger (left) on October 7th, 2005. The video game industry filed suit to block the law 10 days later. Judge Ronald Whyte issued a preliminary injunction on December 22nd, blocking the California law from its planned effective date of January 1st, 2006. Since then, both sides have been waiting for Judge Whyte's final ruling. Today it has come." The law's sponsor Leland Yee is quite disappointed by the ruling, of course, and Governor Schwarzenegger plans to appeal the decision.
The man has been a total tool at least since he sold out to the "family friendly" wackos with Last Action Hero...
Is it just me, or does it seem hypocritical that Arnold Schwarzenegger opposes this? He's been in some incredibly violent movies, after all.
Why do people see the two mediums as being so distant? What passes as an R for a movie, would be an AO for a game, like Manhunt.
I believe that people of earlier generations do not understand games - they see an interactive medium and believe that the interactivity somehow makes it more personal, or influencial. Yet I think any well adjusted person who plays video games know they're just that - games.
the laws got one right for a change. Let parents and consumers decide what's right, not overly conservative right ring politicians. I have one set of parents, I don't need the Governator as another.
Every time these stories about videogame laws come up someone asks what is wrong with having laws like this.
Here's the problem:
In the USA no other medium has its ratings enforced by the government. Not the music industry, not the comic book industry, not the internet, not tv, and not the film industry. The MPAA ratings are self-enforced. If someone under 17 isn't allowed into an R-rated movie without an adult it is because the movie industry is inforcing those rules, not the government.
Therefore, if the videogame industry were to be singled out as the only medium to have its ratings enforced by the government there would have to be a mountain of evidence suggesting that violent videogames were harmful to minors. No such mountain exists. As such, these laws are misguided at best and hollow attempts on the part of politicians to appear "pro-family" at worst.
http://www.popularculturegaming.com -- my blog about the culture of videogame players
These bills have failed in enough States now that it must be 100% clear that they are never going to stand up to legal scrutiny and their passage can be nothing more than a political statement. Is there no way that the administrative cost of drafting them and the legal costs of defending them in court could be inflicted directly upon the legislators who still insist on trying to drive them through?
from Governor Conan. He didn't crush his enimies, see them driven before him OR hear the lamnentations of the women. *sigh*
I'm sure that some people in the Comic Book industry could tell you about self enforcement of social standards. The thing is, it's just not that relevant these days.
The simple truth is that interstellar distances will not fit into the human imagination
- Douglas Adams
That's not the reason the bill is unconstitutional. It is because video games are a form of speech and as such are protected under the first amendment. Even if there was a massive indication that video games were harmful to children (and no such evidence exists), it would still be unconstitutional to put in place any sort of ban or restriction by the government.
your post is interesting and the following thought occured to me: since other media aren't so heavily regulated could they be used as some sort of delivery mechanism? e.g. buy Manhunt 2 the book and by the way get a free shiny disk that allows access to bonus material when inserted into certain computers with specific requirements.
it's clearly not a solution to the true problem though, but it would be interesting to see how the censors would respond when the freedom of speech issue is so clearly highlighted.
That's why these laws are so popular amoungst spineless democrats and republicans. It appeals to the soccer mom's and the "do something for the children" sets on the moral right and paternalist left.
It costs nothing but money for the legal fights and the vote makes for great bullet points come election time, even if it never becomes laws.
P.S. You would never see this story as "Democrat-sponsored censorship law fails." Slashdot always seems to minimize the democrat portion of this bipartisan circlejerk we've been getting. Republicans have been an epic disaster, but it a real shame that Democrats will get rewarded for this disaster, because they have been such a part of it. Go Patriot ACT! Go endless undeclared war! Go spying!
As far as I know, this isn't something that happens often. A judge looked at the law, the facts, etc, and said "Hey, that just doesn't make sense." My most sincere thanks to the judge.
Yes, I am a smart ass; it's better than the alternative.
I'm not legal expert but I believe that showing that there was some sort of legitimate harm would overcome the first amendment.
Regardless, when people simply say that it is unconstitutional on first amendment grounds there are always those who are under the mistaken assumption that film ratings are government enforced and so this law and others like it would simply bring videogames into line with films. My perhaps poorly worded post was an attempt at cut off those kinds of posts.
http://www.popularculturegaming.com -- my blog about the culture of videogame players
What about porn, though? Isn't the sale of pornography to minors regulated by some states? I'm not asking this as a point, I really just don't know how all this works.
Is it just me, or does it seem hypocritical that Arnold Schwarzenegger opposes this? He's been in some incredibly violent movies, after all.
It's not hypocritical, but planned: After the children are deprived from videogame violence, they will crave the violence so they'll rush to the cinema to see his newest action film: "Governator 3: The judge's day". However, they'll be terrified when he says his last line on the movie: "I'll be back."
I've not read the text of the proposed law but unless it requires all games to be rated then the simple solution is to not submit a game for a rating. Of course, that would probably prevent most stores from carrying it.
When there are things like Steam, Gametap, X-Box live and other less legal online methods of game delivery, these types of laws are becoming increasingly meaningless anyway.
http://www.popularculturegaming.com -- my blog about the culture of videogame players
The only bad thing about these laws is that they typically go against the constitution. The biggest problem is that there is no MPAA equivalent in the gaming industry. There isn't a need for the government to regulate the movie industry.
If the ESRB had the same power there wouldn't be any need for the government to regulate the video game industry. The problem is how can you do this effectively, especially now that online digital distribution of games is becoming so popular. The next generation of consoles and games might be predominantly sold online. One only needs to have access to a credit card or buy a game card at the store to purchase games online.
You may not think that there needs to be regulation. The problem is that younger kids may not be able to differentiate reality from the virtual world. This may not lead directly to violence, but there could easily be other psychological problems associate with it.
There is obviously no perfect way of regulating any medium when it comes to children being able to handle the material. It all comes down to good parents, knowing that their child can tell right from wrong and reality from fiction. Unfortunately in our society there are many parents who don't do it, or can't for some reason. That is why there does need to be some sort of regulation (not necessarily from our government) that is fair and flexible.
If you have something that you dont want anyone to know, maybe you shouldnt be doing it in the first place -Eric Schmidt
Earler varieties have tried to ban, as immoral, Waltzing, Louie Louie by I believe the Kingsmen, Comic books, books (several), stand up comedy, a Birth of a Nation, movies like The Moon is Blue. I recently saw La Beste, that was .... interesting, and much banned.
But can you blame them old people think all kinds of stupid things, such as Graham Crackers will help prevent young boys from masturbating. In not too long, I will be old, and will beging thinking stupid things. It is the way of the world.
The law requires games with adult content to be labelled as such, the same way it's done with movies. I for one don't like having to search for Silent Hill games near the Pokemon crowd.
And making sure we don't have another toddler wetting his pants because he played Manhunt or the like is good. We don't need the media hounds calling for a ban on videogames in general. Would you be OK if you could buy a Silvia Saint movie in DVD no matter the age? Pretty soon you couldn't buy an adult movie anywhere because they would have been banned to "protect the children".
Once you're 18 you can play what you please.
Yes but porn is a genre and not a medium. Those laws are on state or local levels. Sometimes it is something as vague as "material harmful to minors." It seems like at least once a year a comic book store will get busted for selling a comic book with depictions of sex or nudity in it to a minor but even in those cases it is often the case that the court has to determine if the comic book in question is "pornographic" or "harmful to minors."
I"m not a lawyer though so if someone who is an expert in this would like to chime in feel free to do so.
http://www.popularculturegaming.com -- my blog about the culture of videogame players
The state/federal government regulates all things "obscene".
Obscene (sexual or violent) content in film, books, magazines, tv and video are all regulated. There are limits on how you can sell them, to whom you can sell them, where you can sell them and in the case of television, what time you can show it.
The MPAA and other self-enforcing bodies were created to keep government from setting up regulations. In that light, I find it a bit disengenous to make the argument that "the movie industry is inforcing those rules, not the government". The rules were coming, because portions of the public were loudly demanding them. The industry decided it's better to do it themselves rather than have onerous government mandates handed down. Therefore, if the videogame industry were to be singled out as the only medium to have its ratings enforced by the government there would have to be a mountain of evidence suggesting that violent videogames were harmful to minors. No such mountain exists. As such, these laws are misguided at best and hollow attempts on the part of politicians to appear "pro-family" at worst. See: Pornography
[Fuck Beta]
o0t!
In the USA no other medium has its ratings enforced by the government.
Someone hasn't heard of the FCC. "Ratings" are enforced, when was the like time you watched a MA television show on NBC or CBS at primetime? When was the last time you heard the "F" word on KROCK or whatever your local radio station is. By not allowing the 'adult' or 'R-rated' material they're effectively enforcing it.
They'll keep trying to pass laws like this because they've succeeded in passing laws that prohibit selling pornographic material to minors. Restricting the sale of "violent video games" is just seen as an extension of that, and it isn't a difficult task to convince U.S. government lawmakers that controlling a virtual character to chop another person's head off with gallons of blood flying everywhere is more or just as harmful to children as seeing a pair of exposed female breasts. Lobbying dollars are not required. After all, if the "think of the children" mantra didn't work, politicians wouldn't use it so damn often.
However, this law was not about obscenity was it? It was about ratings.
Moreover, there is no definition of obscenity but rather a test and as such things are declared obscene on a case by case basis.
Yes, the MPAA rules were set up to cut off government enforcement. However, so were the videogame ratings.
I fail to see what any of what you wrote indicates that I have a limited understanding of the situation. The situation as I see it is about government regulations of ratings and not obscenity. Nor is it about a genre such as pornography but rather a medium. Please feel free to correct me.
http://www.popularculturegaming.com -- my blog about the culture of videogame players
There are, however, decency guidelines for programming broadcast over the public airwaves. These, as the name would suggest, are guidelines and not specific rules. Why are they guidelines rather than specific rules? Because the FCC feels that spelling out specific rules would be censorship.
It is a matter of semantics but the fact is the television ratings are voluntary
From the FCC's website
http://www.popularculturegaming.com -- my blog about the culture of videogame players
What does the MPAA do that the gaming ratings and review board doesn't?
Both mediums get ratings, and the retailers are on the honor system to enforce them.
Maybe the problem is the stores selling the games...
Blar.
FCC has control over the limited public resource of the broadcast spectrum. They have no right to limit cable, private satellites, movie theatres, etc.
If there is harm done in the creation of the content, usually the act displayed itself is already outlawed. But so far, I don't see how in a computer game a real life law could be broken (other than in real movies, where you can technically film a real crime).
Other than that, I do not see a reason why content should be forbidden. Kept out of the hands of minors, or (better) left in the discretion of the child's caretakers, but outlawing content is a surefire way to go head on with the 1st amendment.
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
Thank God for that. I don't want every video game to use Steam. I want to play w/o the internet thank you.
- None can love freedom heartily, but good men; the rest love not freedom, but license. -- John Milton
You know ArnHold is sitting in his office, playing Orphan Feast as we speak! http://www.adultswim.com/games/orphanfeast/index.h tml
Yeah, but that's the point. Let me draw the analogy if I can. Pornographic movies are a subset of a larger movie industry. The government, at least on a state level, has for years regulated the sale of pornographic movies to minors even though it doesn't do it on a industry wide basis. AO rated games are a subset of a larger game industry. So why is it unconstitutional for state governments to regulate the sell of AO rated games to minors when regulating only AO rated games would not be an industry wide regulation. Now I realize that most of these proposed laws apply to M rated games, which are more analogous to R rated movies, but that point still doesn't address the legality of regulating M rated games. I'm not saying that its right, but legal and right are two entirely separate concepts.
I could be wrong, but I think that in terms of both picture and print, there are government laws controlling the sale and public display of pornography? Not that it makes the game-violence bill any different, and it still makes games the only legislation-enforced anti-violence medium.
This is why it was such a huge failure of the ESRB when the ESRB rerated San Andreas as AO. Suddenly, mainstream stores found themselves carrying an AO title (even if only for a short period while they scrambled to get it off the shelves) and it was material far tamer than the latest from Ms. Audrey Hollander and her peers. However, if you are completely ignorant about games and their contents, you might believe that the two things are similar. Those are the really politically dangerous people, the ones who think someone hid a Jenna Jameson movie as an easter egg on GTA: San Andreas.
How could the ESRB have handled this better? Well, they could have issued some sort of recall notice stating that games with unrated material were on store shelves and therefore were not allowed to display the ESRBs copyrighted 'M' rating on the box. If the stores wanted to continue to sell the title, black sharpies to black out the ESRB rating along with warnings to all customers that "This title is unrated by the ESRB" would have sufficed.
Or they could have reviewed the content and said that it still fell withing the 'M' rating. (More courageous and accurate, but probably not politically wise.)
Most likely, Rockstar and Take Two would have done the same thing that they ended up doing (recalling and reissuing the game with the non-rated content excised) and the ESRB wouldn't have ended up with a watered down AO rating that is now pretty meaningless. (Seriously, no one is going to stock AO - San Andreas along with that game Asia Carrera did unless it is an Internet retailer that stock mainstream titles along with adult fare.)
The fact of the matter is if mainstream retailers are expected to handle AO titles, and AO titles are going to cover a spectrum from PG - XXX there is indeed a huge can of worms with obscene content laws. But that's a problem with laws that are already on the books, not with new laws which if they dealt only with obscene content would be redundant and which if they deal with non-obscene are unconstitutional.
"MIT betrayed all of its basic principles."
You think that an unrated game is going to make it onto Steam, XBox Live, or Gametap?
Hell, all of the classic games being released on the Wii virtual console are being submitted for ESRB ratings.
About the only way to distribute a game if it's not rated is to post it on your own website.
--Jeremy
Jesus was a liberal
And realistically violent videogames are a genre, not a medium.
That goes back to my original point that it would take a mountain of evidence for videogame ratings such as and including AO -- for violence -- to be government regulated. Until such a mountain exists then there will be no basis for treating violent videogames differently than violent films or even non-violent films.
If a game is rating AO for sex, then I would assume that existing local or state pornography laws would already apply so no need for a new law.
http://www.popularculturegaming.com -- my blog about the culture of videogame players