Interview with 'Anti-Gamer' Senator Leland

strwrsxprt writes "Game Almighty recently had the chance to speak with Senator Leland Yee about his views on the validity of California Assembly Bill 1179, which was designed to criminalize the sale of Mature rated games to minors and require retailers to keep Mature games separated from other games. He also shares his thoughts on everything from the effectiveness of the ESRB and the place AO games have in the market, to the movie industry and their rating standards in relation to games. His answers might just surprise you."

Comments

Smarter replies than I expected

[Sciros]

I wonder if that's a good thing, though...

As reasonable as many of his answers were, I disagree with the entire notion of "sheltering" kids from the very real and ubiquitous violence around us, whatever form it's in. On top of that, you will end up with the *wrong* people in prison if you criminalize something like selling ESRB-rated M games to kids 17 and under.

Somehow I wish this guy was as loony as Jack Thompson so he'd be easier to debunk and toss to the wayside. There's nothing more dangerous than someone who can think [somewhat] logically and still pushes for harmful policy.

Re:Smarter replies than I expected

[everphilski]

As reasonable as many of his answers were, I disagree with the entire notion of "sheltering" kids from the very real and ubiquitous violence around us, whatever form it's in.

You read his answers, but not well enough. He said parents can decide for their children if they want them to be playing violent video games. Parents can purchase games that their children cannot purchase, and let them play them. Nothing wrong with that. The laws he proposes only affect the point of sale.

In all honesty I think he hits it right on the money.

Re:Smarter replies than I expected

[cowscows]

I think this guy is mostly right though. Parents have a difficult balance to try and manage between monitoring their kid's activities and allowing them some freedom to grow. A law that doesn't have any direct effect on the existence of certain video games, but merely restricts the sale of them to children doesn't seem particularly problematic to me. It's up to people with a better understanding of legalese than I possess to decide if a specific law is properly written to accomplish only that, but I have no problem with the idea of it.

I guess I don't see the policy as being particularly harmful. It's not saying that these games are illegal, it's not even saying that letting a child play the game is illegal. It's just about making a small part of parenting a little bit easier. It's not about pretending that violence doesn't exist, it's about helping parents control how their children are exposed to and learn about that violence. I don't think that violent video games, movies, or even porn will have a serious negative impact on your average well-adjusted child, but at the same time I would appreciate the ability as a parent to somewhat control how my child gets introduced to these things. The ESRB is a start, but unless game retailers really start enforcing it, then it's not really having much of an impact. It's probably easier for the movie industry to self-regulate, because there's relatively few theaters out there compared to stores that stock games, but I'm still surprised that the game industry and the retailers don't have their act together a little better on all of this. Maybe the threat of these laws will move that process along.

At the end of the day, I don't think this law accomplishes all that much. Most kids don't have the resources to go buy a $50 video game on their own. An adult likely helped out somewhere along the way, either knowingly or not. This law won't eliminate bad or indifferent parenting. I doesn't seem like a "slippery-slope" issue to me, nor should it make games any harder for adults to get their hands on.

Re:Smarter replies than I expected

[Sciros]

.. Because this legislation CRIMINALIZES the sale of games to minors. *Criminalizes* is the key word, and you have to think about what that means. Your addition problem analogy is indeed appropriate here, because I simply cannot see jail time being a fitting penalty for selling a minor an M-rated game. To attempt to make a point with an extreme (bad tactic but I'll try it) why don't we just propose a law that states "if you sell a minor a game, you get lethal injection" because yes without that law it would be a lot easier for a child to bypass parent concerns. However, who is to say that parent concerns include making sales of violent games to their children a felony? Imagine if you are a parent whose child (18+, under 18, whatever) works at a game store in Cali? Now you have to worry about him accidentally screwing up, selling something like Gears to a high school junior, and facing prison time for it!

This is "quite valid"?!?

Reasonable, Articulate, and Restrained

[Elemenope]

Clearly this Yee character is from an alternate universe, where politicians consider policy with a decent amount of reflection and don't feel the need to demonize the horreur de jour.

He makes an especially interesting point in that, unlike movies, it is unrealistic for parents to provide guidance for their children throughout the entire gameplaying experience because games are pretty damn long-playing compared to comparable media.

Re:i agree

[Qzukk]

I have yet to see any store not sell a rated M game to someone who wants to buy one.

Of course you haven't. "Minimum wage clerk obeys store policy and doesn't sell an M-rated game to a minor!" doesn't exactly scream for front page news.

Re:Surprise surprise

[AmaDaden]

The bill is still bupkus and he is still an anti-gamer.

This is this kind of attitude that the gaming community needs to avoid. If we are going to get anywhere with this dispute on how adult games should be dealt with we need to listen to both sides. It sounded like the Senator was being honest and logical. Even if he was lying about his plans we would be able to call him on it if he changes his tune latter. The bill does not look like it was out to stop games dead in their tracks but to prevent the sale of adult games to minors. That's not all that bad of a thing. We do it with drugs and alcohol. I don't think that it is a necessary restriction, but that is my opinion. Instead of foaming at the mouth every time a law maker tries to pass a misguided law we need to explain what is wrong with it. I don't think we want to be as loud and stupid as Jack Thompson.

Re:Surprise surprise

[dal20402]

No mainstream vendor will want to have to be responsible for training their employees to accurate sort between who are the under-18 minors and who are the 18-and-older adults. Not the technical training of checking IDs and spotting fakes, and not for absorbing the penalties if they falsely identify a minor as an adult. You don't find stores that sell video games also selling tobacco (same age restriction in the US).

Oh, please. If gas station and convenience store employees can do it, game store employees can do it. It won't cost retailers nearly enough to make selling games (or movies, for that matter) unprofitable. There are plenty of good reasons for opposing a bill like Yee's. This is not one of them. Use your strongest arguments.

Personally, I'm more concerned that the bill would help propel us into a situation like we have in movies, where even the best NC-17 movies are considered "porn" and ghettoized, resulting in a bunch of watered-down pabulum.