Slashdot Mirror
Schwarzenegger's Appeal of CA Games Bill Under Fire
The CA games bill struck down last week to cheers is currently in a holding pattern as Governor Schwarzenegger works on an appeal. His decision to fight the judiciary is coming under fire from several sources. The ESA has mounted a campaign against the initiative through its Videogame Voters Network. Even the media is objecting, with an opinion in the LA Times telling the governor not to bother. "Having made a career off fantasy violence, Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger is an odd advocate for the regulation of violent video games. After all, his face (and, sometimes, his voice) helps to sell a number of electronic kill-fests. Yet there he was last week, pledging to appeal a federal judge's decision against a state law banning the sale of such games to minors."
In response to the bill being struck down Arnold replied with his trade mark line, made popular by the bloody Terminator Trilogy, "I'll be back".
"There are four boxes to be used in defense of liberty: soap, ballot, jury, and ammo. Please use in that order." -Ed H
I am consistently pleased that I do not live in California, their politicians only help stress that feeling.
"He who can destroy a thing, controls a thing." --Paul Atreides, Dune
One one article points out it's wasting tax dollars but is there anything you Californians out there think is more important than video game viloence in your state that tax dollars would be better spent fighting on?
Governors get paid with your tax dollars after all so isn't their time worth your money?
"Who's flying this thing? Oh right, that would be me." - Wash
Seriously, anti-video game bills are getting shot down left and right these days. With the media having a ball with Schwarzenegger painting himself as a hypocrite for casting in a number of games and local courts around the country refusing to even bother involving the Supreme Court, this bill is never going to pass.
"We attempted to reach Jack Thompson for his opinion on the matter but we were rebuffed as Jack Thompson was in the middle of beating the final level of the Left Behind game"
Seriously, let's ban video games and legalize chav hunting. It looks like much more fun, bebo has the video
"I vas just doing it for the money." Now he's a "public servant." Makes a big difference in attitudes.
Sponsor of this odious law. After writing the Gov, you should find out what you can do to get him out of office. If your partisanship allows.
This bill will NEVER work. Guns are banned from minors yet everyday children are killing each other all over the world( not just in California)! Arnie should be more concerned with Drugs, Prostitution..etc.. in his state than if little Johnny sees some animated blood in a game. Like I stated in a previous post on this topic" there is a lot of humor in video games. does that lead to humor on the streets?"
for every complex problem , there is a solution that is simple , neat , and wrong.
"Having made a career off fantasy violence,... I vas just doing it for the money." Now he's a "public servant." Makes a big difference in attitudes.
Wikipedia shows the Terminator games as being rated Teen or Mature. Restricting sales to minors based upon these ratings is no different than restricting a minor's entrance into a theater based upon moving ratings. The is no hypocracy here unless you find Arnold arguing that little kids should be able to watch the Terminator movie without a parent's approval.
When asked for comments the Governator's spokesmen replied: "He did it for the lulz".
"Bender should not be on TV!" - Bender
You gotta find first gear in your giant robot car
GOO-BAH-NAH-TOR-REEAL!
Mr. T pitied this fool on 27 July 1992.
"Restricting sales to minors based upon these ratings is no different than restricting a minor's entrance into a theater based upon moving ratings."
So you mean it should be a voluntary restriction enforced solely by the game retailers, with zero force of law? I agree completely. And in which case there's no point in the Governator even being involved. That's where the hypocrisy is. Call me when Arnold starts campaigning to make it illegal to let minors into R rated movies, then he'll be consistent. Until then, he's a hypocrite.
No, you are moving the goal post. In the post I responded to the original poster was saying that it was hypocrisy to "make a career off fantasy violence" and support this bill. As I pointed out there is no hypocrisy, he wants access to both violent movies and violent video games limited. Who gets to enforce things, theaters/retailers or law enforcement, does not change this underlying belief. You are merely bringing up an implementation detail, an important one but still only a detail. Which ever way this detail goes does not change the underlying belief so there is no hypocrisy here.
There may not have been much fuss when the film rating system was introduced; after all, it allowed more freedom of expression than the Hayes Code. There have been fusses of various sorts since. One of them replaced informal X ratings with formal NC-17s; this didn't destigmatize the rating. (X didn't start with a stigma, but after the mid-'70s, it got one.) PG-13 was invented because people were starting to make hard-PG films that were too close to the '80s R standard. And, for some reason, filmmakers want films to have as high a rating as possible that doesn't lock viewers out; people deliberately push ratings up to PG-13 and R, but push them down from NC-17 and R. G films are rare.
The Passion of the Christ got an R despite the goriness of its subject matter. It was determined then that, even when the ratings are being enforced, anyone can get into an R-rated movie as long as a parent comes along. Church groups took advantage of that loophole, and on occasion, younger members of the congregation suffered for it.
The governor has got to remember that videogames are like films this way: anyone can play as long as it's a grown-up buying. And it usually is--the ratings are usually enforced. So...
There is a fine line between recklessness and courage... -- Paul McCartney
As I pointed out there is no hypocrisy, he wants access to both violent movies and violent video games limited. Who gets to enforce things, theaters/retailers or law enforcement, does not change this underlying belief. You are merely bringing up an implementation detail, an important one but still only a detail. Which ever way this detail goes does not change the underlying belief so there is no hypocrisy here.
BS. He is not involved in movie violence at all. His "belief" does not extend to movies, as he is taking zero action to limit access to movies. Whereas for games he's going far past voluntary policies to a law barring sales to minors. A law that has been ruled unconstitutional, a decision which he is appealing. This isn't an "implementation detail", it's the difference between the government being involved and it being voluntary! The day he wishes to wield the power of law enforcement and challenge the courts to stop minors entering R rated movies, then he isn't a hypocrite. Until then, don't tell me he has the same "beliefs" about movies and video games when he clearly does not.
I'm really not convinced you understand the distinction between voluntary corporate policy like MPAA ratings, and a standard enforced by rule of law, like France's anti-Nazi-memorabilia laws. It's not a matter of implementation. It's a matter of government imposed penalties for violating the code -- that is to say, government censorship. This is exactly as the courts have ruled, and have ruled time and time again. Arnold is fighting them and all of the other court decisions, while not even suggesting that movies be subject to the same regulations, but he has the same "belief" about them? Yah, right. One is a convenient bogeyman, the other was his bread and butter. He knows this game with the courts is one he'll lose, but it's great "save the children" fodder. But dare threaten his political "base" with legislation? Never.
The enemies of Democracy are
My objection to the law, and to Arnold's appeal of the ruling, is that the law doesn't do anything about the problem it purports to address. Sure, it bans the sale of certain games to minors. As a practical matter, most stores won't sell those games to minors anyway. And in every case that's come up as the motivation for these laws, the stores didn't sell the games to a minor. They sold the game to a legal adult, most often a parent of the minor involved, and that adult then gave the game to the minor. Now, what's the store supposed to do when a legal adult comes in to buy those games? They aren't a minor, the store doesn't know what they're going to do with the game after they buy it, on what grounds is the store supposed to refuse to sell it to them?
And I notice the people pushing these laws aren't also pushing to punish the parents who bought the games for their kids. If the stores aren't supposed to sell those games to minors, why are adults who give the games to minors exempt?
How can you actually be against that ? i am not american, but damn, when i was a kid my DOS games were cool, TV was cool, and at the end we were not attacking "grown-ups" in the street with a knife. Strangely i was living in a rough neighborhood though. Nowadays.... woah. Kids are more and more violent, those living in villages talk about the "hood" and their "homies".
:O
And, btw, just spending time in front of a video game, violent or NOT, makes you physically nervous, so potentially violent. Some kids nowadays seem to live only to get the next playsation
He is not involved in movie violence at all. His "belief" does not extend to movies, as he is taking zero action to limit access to movies.
Access to movies is already limited, people perceive no need for action.
Whereas for games he's going far past voluntary policies to a law barring sales to minors.
That is not hypocrisy, that is overzealousness. There are many valid criticisms of this overzealousness, you offer some of them, but your emotions seems to have made you get hung up on an inappropriate person attack. "Hypocrite" is an erroneous label, there is a consistent belief that access to film and games should be limited. You may write volumes criticizing the overzealousness of government enforcement but that does not change the consistency of the underlying belief. Calm yourself and consider this. If there were a compromise and the implementation was left to the retailer the outcome would be the same. A child attempting to buy a Mature rated Terminator game would be turned away, just as he would be at a theater. Same underlying beliefs, same outcomes, no hypocrisy.
What would happen to a retailer who refuses to comply and whether the specific legislation is constitutional or not are tangents. They do not affect the underlying belief nor the outcome for the child. They merely show an overzealousness with respect to implementation, a secondary issue.
"Schwarzeneger's official response to the criticism was, 'I'll be back'"
"Access to movies is already limited, people perceive no need for action"
h tm
What country are you living in? Here in the US, movies are NOT restricted when it comes to minors.
Even the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) found children were far more successful in getting their hands on R rated DVD movies than M rated video games. Please educate yourself before claiming "Access to movies is already limited, people perceive no need for action" because not only does it make you look simple-minded, but it helps give politicians, who receive campaign contribution from Hollywood, the excuses they need to not attack the movie industry (Yes, Leland Yee, author of the video game bill, received campaign contribution from the MPAA).
Here's the link to the FTC report:
http://www.ftc.gov/opa/2007/04/marketingviolence.
Access to movies is already limited, people perceive no need for action.
Right, people see a voluntary rating system that anyone with two brain cells knows is barely enforced as being completely adequate. Access is not limited in any realistic sense. But when the subject is games, then suddenly you need laws on the books where the government defines what is suitable for minors and punishes retailers for violating those standards.
That's blatant hypocrisy.
Calm yourself and consider this. If there were a compromise and the implementation was left to the retailer the outcome would be the same. A child attempting to buy a Mature rated Terminator game would be turned away, just as he would be at a theater. Same underlying beliefs, same outcomes, no hypocrisy.
Engage your brain and consider this: When a child attempts to buy an R-rated ticket for Terminator, and the theater sells the child a ticket anyway... nothing happens. When a child attempts to buy an M-rated Terminator game, and the game retailer sells the child the game anyway... then that retailer would be liable for state-imposed legal penalties if Arnold had his way.
What planet are you on where that's the "same outcome"?
It's not the same outcome at all, and it's hugely hypocritical. I repeat: It's not a matter of "implementation", and it's not a matter of "overzealousness". It's censorship vs no censorship.
Just because he says he feels the same way about games and movies means nothing. Actions speak louder than words, and he is doing nothing about movies, and trying to enforce government censorship of games. His actions say that he only actually cares about limiting minor's access to games. His actions say that he doesn't really mind kids watching his R-rated movies, but keeping kids from playing violent games is so important it requires government intervention. His actions say that his "underlying beliefs" about games and movies are completely different.
The Courts agree that this is not a matter of zealousness, but a matter of kind. Yet Arnold fights on, proving that he views games as something which require government censorship, while movies do not need anything of the sort.
Arnold is a hypocrite, and so is anyone who thinks voluntary MPAA movie ratings are fine, but games need a law banning their sale to minors.
The enemies of Democracy are