CA violent video game law disputed
Posted by boomstick
Quoting Gamespot: As promised, the Video Software Dealers Association (VSDA) and the Entertainment Software Association (ESA) have jointly filed suit against California Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger and a handful of other state officials in order to have a recently adopted law restricting the sale of violent games to minors overturned.
The complaint alleges that the new law (which received a legislative boost earlier this year from the Grand Theft Auto "Hot Coffee" scandal and goes into effect January 1, 2006) violates the First Amendment by restricting access to games "based solely on their expressive content," and unconstitutionally compels speech by manufacturers, distributors, importers, and retailers by requiring them to label violent games with a two-inch-by-two-inch sticker of a solid white "18" outlined in black.
Furthermore, the complaint cites numerous precedents of video games being qualified as free speech in other circuit courts, and states that "Plaintiffs and their members, as well as many citizens of California, will suffer immediate, serious, and irreparable injury if the Act takes effect."
"We believe this bill will meet the same fate as virtually identical statutes that federal courts have routinely struck down in recent years," said ESA president Douglas Lowenstein in a statement. "It is not up to any industry or the government to set standards for what kids can see or do; that is the role of parents."
Very good point in the last sentence I think
Posted by SpeedfreakI don't see the problem, frankly. No one has a problem with it being illegal for kids to watch extremely gory or sexually explicit films, so why not games?
Posted by Aioros
Quoting Speedfreak: I don't see the problem, frankly. No one has a problem with it being illegal for kids to watch extremely gory or sexually explicit films, so why not games?
[COLOR="Yellow"]Because video games are still a relatively new media, the same thing happened when rock n roll and film were first introduced to the public.
That new law was flawed in the first place, because it's not like it would be illegal to sell M rated games to minors. It states that it would be illegal to sell "violent" games to minors. So, which games are too violent and illegal to sell to a kid? That opinion changes from person to person.
Arnold Schwarzenegger says "don't sell violent games to minors, take them to see a nice family movie like Terminator instead"[/COLOR]
Posted by Speedfreak[quote=Aioros][COLOR=yellow]Because video games are still a relatively new media, the same thing happened when rock n roll and film were first introduced to the public.
That new law was flawed in the first place, because it's not like it would be illegal to sell M rated games to minors. It states that it would be illegal to sell "violent" games to minors. So, which games are too violent and illegal to sell to a kid? That opinion changes from person to person.
Arnold Schwarzenegger says "don't sell violent games to minors, take them to see a nice family movie like Terminator instead"[/COLOR]
They obviously have some form of rating system that applies to the vast majority of that age group.
In England we've pretty much always had some form of legally binding game rating system. It's exactly the same rating system used on films, videos etc, so that's probably where we set our limits. Here it's not only illegal to sell rated games to anyone underage, but it's illegal for anyone underage to actually see that content. Unofficially, they let parents make the choice. The advantage of this is for someone underage to get some content they lawfully shouldnt, their parents end up having to know exactly what it is in order to buy it for them. Because of this my parents had no problem letting me see Starship Troopers when I was about 12 (the film was rated 18), or playing Perfect Dark (also rated 18) whenever it came out because they actually asked why they got their ratings. It ended up being a bit of blood and a pretty short sex and not very explicit sex scene. Conversely, they wouldn't let me see American Pie when I was 14 or something because the whole thing was about sex.
It's just occurred to me that the USs new system could be a little harsh considering there's no real middle point between teen and adult. Here the top 3 certificates are 12, 15 and 18, but the ratings for videogames are just from 13 to 18, right?
Posted by Drewboy64Our rating systme is E for everyone, E 10+, which is everyone except for lots of people, T which is 13+, M which is 17 adn up and Ao, 18 and up. Ao and M are only a year apart, although the content is usually alot different. Like R and porno movies.
"Arnold Schwarzenegger says "don't sell violent games to minors, take them to see a nice family movie like Terminator instead"" hahahahahaha
Posted by Mystic Hero
Quoting Speedfreak: They obviously have some form of rating system that applies to the vast majority of that age group.
In England we've pretty much always had some form of legally binding game rating system. It's exactly the same rating system used on films, videos etc, so that's probably where we set our limits. Here it's not only illegal to sell rated games to anyone underage, but it's illegal for anyone underage to actually see that content. Unofficially, they let parents make the choice. The advantage of this is for someone underage to get some content they lawfully shouldnt, their parents end up having to know exactly what it is in order to buy it for them. Because of this my parents had no problem letting me see Starship Troopers when I was about 12 (the film was rated 18), or playing Perfect Dark (also rated 18) whenever it came out because they actually asked why they got their ratings. It ended up being a bit of blood and a pretty short sex and not very explicit sex scene. Conversely, they wouldn't let me see American Pie when I was 14 or something because the whole thing was about sex.
It's just occurred to me that the USs new system could be a little harsh considering there's no real middle point between teen and adult. Here the top 3 certificates are 12, 15 and 18, but the ratings for videogames are just from 13 to 18, right?
Hmm, same case with me. I saw Star Ship Trooperes when I was I think about 7 and yet my parents wouldn't let me see American Pie at a later age. To me it's all about what parents see fitting for their children to watch or play. Those that think that the violence and sex in rated M games aren't extrememly bad tend to let their kids play some of them while those that see them as horrible games that shouldn't be sold to even teenagers never let their kids even touch any of those games. It's all about perspective here. You would think that with all the rated R movies they let you watch they would lighten up and let you buy one rated M game, but from those that have the perspective of M games being horrible will never let their children buy one until they are eighteen or so.
Posted by GameMiestro10 year old kids should not be playing Grand Theft Auto, I dont care how "constitutional" it is. If parents are as responsible as the VSDA suggests, why are these groups complaining? They obviously want to target minors, plain and simple. It's no different than cigarette companies wanting to get rid of ID requirement to purchase their products. I do agree that the ratings system is often harsh. However, I do not think that there should be no guidelines at all. If kids are being taught how to lynch people in elementry school, imagine what they will do as adults.
Posted by FateParents ought to be parents, plain and simple. Kids are impressionable, whether or not the gaming community agrees on it or not. Personally, I do have a problem with kids giving the general gaming community a bad name when those kids just happen to commit a crime because "a video game told them to." It's absolutely absurd to think that kids aren't impressionable.
Complete psychopaths also give us a bad name. :(
Video games are just one of the many things that really ought to be taken care of by parents. I'm not one for sugar-coating a child's life, but there is an age of exposure that should be considered.
Posted by GameMiestroIn a perfect world, yes. However, there are many parents that are not responsible, and the video game industry should then step in.
Posted by boomstick
Quoting GameMiestro: In a perfect world, yes. However, there are many parents that are not responsible, and the video game industry should then step in.
As fas as I'm concerned if you aren't willing to take that amount of responsiblity as a parent then you don't need to be having kids or you should put them up for adoptation to someone who will, IMO.
Posted by GameMiestro[quote=boomstick]As fas as I'm concerned if you aren't willing to take that amount of responsiblity as a parent then you don't need to be having kids or you should put them up for adoptation to someone who will, IMO.
Video game companies should protest for that instead of against age requirements. However, neither will probably ever change.
Posted by AntI remember back in the day not being able to buy Conkers Bad Fur Day when I was 14. This was 4 years ago mind you. Well, I was fully aware of all the blood and **** that was going on. And after getting my friends cousin to buy it for me I was finally able to play the M rated game. It had no affect on me other then thinking it was one of the best games on the N64 not just because of the BLOOD AND BAD WORDS but for the good gameplay and funny(:p) put into it.
My point being, I can't walk around with a label that says "I'm mature enough to play this game even though I'm under the age that would be considered normal for me to play this game". So in all, they are just trying to scapegoat the video game industry for bad parenting and not watching what they're children are playing and whether or not they are mature enough to play them.
Posted by boomstick
Quoting Gamespot: The Entertainment Software Association (ESA) filed suit yesterday to overturn a law restricting California minors' access to violent games, and today state politicians came to the law's defense. California Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger, one of the defendants named in the suit, issued a statement to put the ESA on notice that he wouldn't let the law go down without a fight.
"I will do everything in my power to preserve this new law and I urge the Attorney General to mount a vigorous defense of California's ability to prevent the sale of these games to children," Schwarzenegger said.
Under the new law (which goes into effect January 1, 2006), retailers that sell violent games to minors would be subject to a $1,000 fine. It will also require violent video games to bear a 2-inch-by-2-inch sticker with a "solid white '18' outlined in black" on their front covers.
California Assemblyman Leland Yee, the original drafter of the law, noted that the law was drafted "with the help of constitutional experts" to withstand the ESA's challenge, and chastised the organization for suing in the first place.
"The $31 billion video game industry is not concerned with the health and welfare of our children; they are simply concerned with their own financial interests," said Yee.
Both camps claim to have judicial history on their side. The ESA cites similar legislation that has been declared unconstitutional in other parts of the country, while Yee's statement today referenced Roper v. Simmons, a child death penalty case earlier this year in which the Supreme Court ruled that children are different in the eyes of the law due to brain development. Yee went on to place the gaming industry in less-than-savory company.
"History has proven in cases of child labor and physical assault on children that we can and should pass laws to protect them," Yee said. "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."
Hmm, I hope this doesn't start to get messy.
Posted by FateAnt: It could very well be a scapegoat. Personally, I'd rather keep the media out of this messy business in the meantime.
Posted by Speedfreak[quote=Fate][COLOR=skyblue]Parents ought to be parents, plain and simple. Kids are impressionable, whether or not the gaming community agrees on it or not. Personally, I do have a problem with kids giving the general gaming community a bad name when those kids just happen to commit a crime because "a video game told them to." It's absolutely absurd to think that kids aren't impressionable.
Complete psychopaths also give us a bad name. :(
Video games are just one of the many things that really ought to be taken care of by parents. I'm not one for sugar-coating a child's life, but there is an age of exposure that should be considered.[/COLOR]
That's the crux of it. Most people are s[COLOR=lightgreen]h[/COLOR]it parents, which is why I totally believe in govornments doing this crap for them. Better do it that way then have generations of badly-brought up people. Having the government control it actually forces parents into the issue, wheras before they would just ignore it and let their kids do whatever the heck they want.
Posted by Lord of Spam
Quoting GameMiestro: In a perfect world, yes. However, there are many parents that are not responsible, and the video game industry should then step in.
What you are proposing is not only ludicrous, but unconstitutional as hell. You cannot impinge on my freedom of expression (via playing the video games) just becuase some idiots dont want to take care of their kids.
Posted by SpeedfreakFreedom of expression in the US, hah! Your crap gets more censored than ours.
Posted by Jak Pattinsonno mater what they do, there's never gona be a way to prevent a child from getting his/her hands on a video game with a big age rating. it realy does come down to how responcible the parents are.
Posted by KMFDMCome now even if the parents are responsible and doesn't get there kid a M or higher game the kid will steel find a way to play it Like go to a friends house were the parents don't care. I'm not saying the government should tell us what to play or anything I'm just saying that maybe the game developers should keep in mind that kids will find away to play these games that way the government doesn't have to go that far.
Posted by GameMiestroThats a good point too, though, that kids will probably get the games anyway. That also proves that parents are not doing their job. However, saying that "people should be better parents" is like saying "kids should be better kids". Its never going to happen, and the ERSB ratings have been effective in preventing 90% of kids 10 and under from playing R rated games. That is good news.
Oh, BTW, we DO have freedom of speech. However, we DO NOT have the freedom to listen to everything people are trying to say. We never have, and never will.
Posted by Prince Shondronai
Quoting GameMiestro: Thats a good point too, though, that kids will probably get the games anyway. That also proves that parents are not doing their job. However, saying that "people should be better parents" is like saying "kids should be better kids". Its never going to happen, and the ERSB ratings have been effective in preventing 90% of kids 10 and under from playing R rated games. That is good news.
"Never," you say? Never is a very long time, and humanity has come a long way in less. It may get a whole lot worse before it gets better, but eventually Earth's most intelligent race will either figure out how incredibly stupid that still is, or it will destroy itself. Either way, I intend to sit back and watch the fun from a nice, safe corner of the afterlife.