California Legislator To Introduce Games Bill 63
Thanks to Reuters for their report that California state legislator Leland Yee will introduce two bills restricting sales of violent video games next week. According to the article, the bills will continue Yee's previously reported plans: "The first bill will expand the 'harmful matter' definition to include games where the player can injure another human character 'in a manner that is especially heinous, atrocious or cruel'", and "The second bill would require games with a 'Mature' rating from the Entertainment Software Ratings Board, meaning they are not intended for children under 17, to be stocked above children's eye level and separately from other games. Stores would also have to display signs explaining ESRB ratings." However, although Yee "has signed on a number of co-sponsors" for the California-specific bills, their passage into law is not assured, and the piece points out that "Federal courts have previously struck down laws in Indianapolis and St. Louis" drafted along similar lines.
Great! (Score:3, Funny)
Does it matter? (Score:4, Funny)
So all the good games are moved off to a single, special location in the store and high enough so that my 31 year old back doesn't have to bend over constantly like at Fry's. Yay!
As a fan of the goriest, most depraved, most offensive games made, I would view such a change as only a good thing. I'm already hard-pressed to pickup a box that doesn't have a "mature" label on the package much like many movie goers quickly dismiss any film w/o an R rating. I'd love it if all the Mature games were all in one spot, away from the unwashed masses of "Dear Hunter" and "Poker" games.
How could this be a bad thing?
Re:Does it matter? (Score:5, Insightful)
Well, imagine a society where instead of just all the "good" videogames being segregated to a single "special" location, that it was a society where all the "good" books were segregated to a single "special" location and the government kept records of who wanted to read the "good" books.
Slippery slope arguments are tiring and boring, but that doesn't make them any less valid. I'm against almost any form of government censorship, and that includes videogames, books, magazines, whatever. If an actual, living, breathing, real human being (and no, the pixelated Haitians in GTA:VC don't count) isn't harmed by some work of art or book or videogame or whatever, then the government doesn't have the right to tell me I can't see it, or restrict how it is available.
And I don't care about how it affects children. Children need to be protected by their parents, not by government. Parents who let television and an anthromorphic mouse raise their children while they go off telling me that the videogames I like to play are harming kids should have painful electrical shocks applied to their naughty bits.
Raise your kids the way you want to raise them, protect them from whatever negative and harmful influences you can. I applaud that, even. But when you insist on using the police power of the state to control my access to the books, movies, and videogames I want, then you've crossed the line - even if all you've done is move the "good" stuff to a "special" part of the store.
Re:Does it matter? (Score:5, Insightful)
On the contrary - the "slippery slope" is a recognised form of false argument. If the argument was valid, then America would still be a British colony, and by now you'd be laboring under 150% taxes - since the "slippery slope" that was started with the Stamp Act would obviously have continued, and of course nobody would ever have said "this far and no further" and actually overthrown the government that was trying to take things further than the people would bear.
Ratings are good. You're saying that parents should be the ones responsible for what their children play? You're quite right. Hey, guess what - that's what ratings are for! And arranging stuff on the shelves according to its rating is just a way of making it easier for parents to choose games that fit what they want their children to see.
Well, imagine a society where instead of just all the "good" videogames being segregated to a single "special" location, that it was a society where all the "good" books were segregated to a single "special" location and the government kept records of who wanted to read the "good" books.
Want to know where the mistake in your argument is? It's right there in the above paragraph. We're talking about a society where the "good" videogames are in a "special" location. I don't see anything there about "the government keeping records of who wants to play the 'good' videogames".
By the way, in case you hadn't noticed, our society already segregates books. Or did you think the "adult" section in your local bookstore was full of Thomas the Tank Engine?
Re:Does it matter? (Score:5, Insightful)
Ratings are good. You're saying that parents should be the ones responsible for what their children play? You're quite right. Hey, guess what - that's what ratings are for! And arranging stuff on the shelves according to its rating is just a way of making it easier for parents to choose games that fit what they want their children to see.
I don't take issue with the idea that ratings help parents pick out what children should see/watch/listen to/play. But current ratings systems (ESRB, MPAA, etc) are *privately* run. A goverment mandated ratings system makes content subject to the whims of special interests and big donors of elected officials.
We're talking about a society where the "good" videogames are in a "special" location. I don't see anything there about "the government keeping records of who wants to play the 'good' videogames".
That was a worst-case scenario thrown in for effect, and you know it. The problem is that once government assumes a power, they almost never give it back. Whether it's a new entitlement or a new regulation, once you create a law, it's really hard to undo it. The fact of the matter it is the tendency of government to become more tryanical with time.
By the way, in case you hadn't noticed, our society already segregates books. Or did you think the "adult" section in your local bookstore was full of Thomas the Tank Engine?
Snide comments don't make you any smarter. The classification of books into similar categories is done to make it easier to find those books (or, alternatively, to keep kids from finding them). Again, it's a service that private industry provides to their customers. When the government mandates it, it stops being a service and starts being an undesired form of control.
You mistake guidelines for rules. Guidelines can be ignored. When you break rules, you end up in prison. I think it's fine that society makes the guideline that some videogames are too violent/sexist/racist/whatever. But when government makes rules that prevent people from creating the works that allow them to express themselves, then a tragedy has occurred.
You can dismiss a slippery slope argument as false logic, and you're technically right. A does not necessarily always lead to B. But when the topic is the defense of our rights, why would you take chances? A lot of people like to quote Ben Franklin: "Those who are willing to trade liberty for security deserve neither liberty nor security." That is a *classic* slippery slope argument, but few Americans disagree with it. Look at the outcry over the Patriot Act, etc for details.
I don't disagree with the fact that the children are our future, that we should teach them well, let them lead the way, show them all the beauty they possess inside, give them a sense of pride, etc, but I will be damned if I am going to stand by and let my government supress the right that authors, artists, musicians, and yes, even videogame programmers have to create and distribute their work. It isn't the government's place to do so.
Re:Does it matter? (Score:1)
As I see it, this should have been done by games stores long ago.
Doing more then that and I completely agree that government would be interfering too much - but mandating higher shelves and that a sign gets setup is fine by me.
Thats pretty much like the warnings you read on tobacco.
Re:Does it matter? (Score:1)
I don't know about you but I know that when I go to the game store I want to be able to just stroll over and look at all the games without getting a crick in my neck because all the decent games are up near the ceiling. Also consider that when product is placed away from eye level it is probably not g
Re:Does it matter? (Score:4, Insightful)
There's nothing technical about it. A slippery slope argument is invalid; it proves nothing, and makes your argument weaker. Think of it this way: you're saying 'this isn't particularly wrong, but if it happens, *this* wrong thing could happen.' You've just said the thing you're arguing against isn't wrong. It's self-defeating. Of course, this doesn't necessarily mean your conclusion is wrong, but it does make you look foolish.
But when the topic is the defense of our rights, why would you take chances? A lot of people like to quote Ben Franklin: "Those who are willing to trade liberty for security deserve neither liberty nor security." That is a *classic* slippery slope argument, but few Americans disagree with it. Look at the outcry over the Patriot Act, etc for details.
This is, in fact, not a slippery slope argument. He says nothing about getting rid of one form of liberty leading to the loss of others. Rather, he makes a broad statement indicating that he values liberty over security. You may agree with this or not, but given the fact that there isn't even an argument to disprove, it's hard to call it a fallacy.
Furthermore, your mention of the Patriot Act would seem to be yet another logical fallacy: a red herring. The Patriot Act has nothing to do with the matter at hand (or if it does, you've certainly not shown any particular link).
For what it's worth, I disagree with both laws as well. I don't believe that giving the ratings of a private and unaccountable entity (the ESRB) legal weight is wise in general. Furthermore, I think that restricting the sales of certain things based on content is bad on its face, especially when there's no proof either way on whether such things are harmful to children. Finally, the definitions contained within the law are fairly nebulous and open to broad interpretation. That is likely to give them problems should they ever be reviewed by the Supreme Court. Of course, that may well be why this is two bills instead of one. It's very possible that the bill about 'harmful matter' will be struck down while the other one will stand.
Re:Does it matter? (Score:2)
And this is different from the MPAA's ratings
Just because something isn't government-run doesn't mean it's impervious t
Re:Does it matter? (Score:1)
In essence, while it is quite easily for a group with interests to try to 'buy' a lower rating, it would more than likely come back to bite them in the ass w
Re:Does it matter? (Score:2)
What's your definition of "harm"?
Me, I take it to mean, "If a [child isn't molested/Haitian killed/bunny stepped on] while making this media, it's okay." I completely disagree with the idea that media can cause harm by viewing/li
Re:Does it matter? (Score:2)
Re:Does it matter? (Score:2)
But then again, if I heard about a grassroots organization trying to go after the people doing the buying and selling of children for sex, I'd gladly pony up a couple bucks. Hopefully others would too; perhaps there's a business model in that? (I'm too busy and besides, my skills are tracking bugs, not humans -- so I won't start it, but if you hear of such a thing let me kno
Re:Does it matter? (Score:5, Insightful)
It just kills me when people say the government shouldn't be involved, this is an issue for parents. Hello, brainiac: that is what the law DOES, it puts the parents in control.
I love GTA: Vice City. I plan to get the next installment when it is released. I am an adult, I can make that choice. Kids can't make that choice responsibly, because kids are little piles of stupid. I was a kid once, I remember what it was like. Don't pretend you were/are any different. Parents exist because kids are stupid. You don't like it? I don't care.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Does it matter? (Score:2)
Absolutely. I don't think parents are always right, just that they are the ones who are charged with the responsibility for the kids' decisions. And when enough of society thinks something is not appropriate for kids, then they say, "OK, let's make sure that if a kid is using this, that it is with the parents' permission, by making it legal only for adults to purchase it." It's not a perfect
Re:Does it matter? (Score:2)
It would seem that you are the one who is missing the point here. This law does not "put the parents in control", it does nothing of the sort. Currently the parents are in control, they are just failing to exercise that control in a responsible fashion. On the other hand, this law is just another example of parents who don't wan
Re:Does it matter? (Score:2)
Yes, it does. It disallows the child from purchasing it for himself. It gives the parents control over that purchase. How do you not get this? 20 points higher than me, and he thinks a big guy like that can wear his clothes?
There is no reason for this law, if you don't want your kids playing 'M' rated or violent games, then don't let them; but let's not go and expect the government to play nanny for everyone.
You are ignori
Re:Does it matter? (Score:2)
No, it just gives either the government, or a private organization, control over what a child can purchase, but does nothing to represent the parent's views. Now, these views will often line up, as most people will agree that a child shouldn't be playing "Debbie does Dallas: The Vide
Re:Does it matter? (Score:2)
I never said the purchasing itself represented the parents' views. It can't. It only puts the decision to purchase directly into the hands of the parents.
In fact, a child may still end up getting a hold of games that the parents find objectionable.
Yes, but that is not an argument. We have laws against killing, and people still kill! OMG!
If y
Re:Does it matter? (Score:2)
As I attempted to point out, it still fails to do so. It will do so on those titles which the government has deemed "unsafe", but will not do so on other titles, which may be just as objectionable. The only way you're ever going to really get that type of control into the hand of parents, is to deny kids access to all video games, without parental con
Re:Does it matter? (Score:2)
I didn't say it disqualifies you or that you cannot have an opinion, nor did I imply it. I meant only that your judgment is clouded by having a lack of understanding.
And I don't see how tax dollars are relevant: it's not like this requires significant public monies (or any monies at all) to implement. Sure, there's the issue of enforcement, but that's rarely sig
Re:Does it matter? (Score:1)
I can see a few problems:
1. The first bill describes violent games as "games where the player can injure another human character 'in a manner that is especially heinous, atrocious or cruel.'" But what is a human character, and what is heinous, atrocious, and cruel? The wording is a bit vague, as is the case with most censorship laws.
2. Putting games in a special section away from other games costs money. Who do you think will ultimately pay those costs? Hint: Not the
Re:Does it matter? (Score:1)
Sounds reasonable (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Sounds reasonable (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Sounds reasonable (Score:1)
A minor correction, speaking from a CA district near Yee's - Yee is a no-name nationally, sure, but that doesn't mean that he can't do bad-for-your-freedom stuff that sets a precedent. He got a column into the San Francisco Chronicle [sfgate.com] recently, hyping his bill and peddling the same disgusting "Videogames turn children into copycat killers!" tripe that's been going on for years. Bloody idiots. The paper published a couple of follow-ups - one gamer defending the right to imagine, and one sort of half-and-ha
Re:Sounds reasonable (Score:1)
Self-policing (Score:2)
That said, laws such as the proposed one are sometimes meant to merely "encourage" an industry to self-police. An industry announcement or two and the bill conveniently dies.
Re:Sounds reasonable (Score:1)
makes sense (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:makes sense (Score:5, Insightful)
No, they don't. They already display signs detailing the ESRB ratings-- little itty bitty Extra Fine Print ones-- but there's no policy in place *enforcing* the "under 17 + M rated game = no sale" guideline. At least, when I quit EB a year ago, there wasn't. It's there but never really enforced, kind of like hand-washing in a factory men's room.
Re:makes sense (Score:2, Insightful)
yeah, it's easy for the clerk to just not check, but having the law behind it allows for the state to set up sting-ops and assess a fine rather than it go unchecked as before.
Re:makes sense (Score:2)
"Sell a M-rated game to a minor,and you WILL be fired."
Define 'cruel' (Score:3, Insightful)
Though, really, they could probably still see it by craning their neck. Not to mention that if a 10 year old kid is playing M-rated games already, his parents are probably being irresponsible and buying the games for the kid, so putting them higher will just make the 'parents' complain that they have to lift their kids up to let them see the 'good' games.
As for the first bill, that should be shot down PDQ. The reason is of the extending of the definition of 'harmful matter' to "games where the player can injure another human character 'in a manner that is especially heinous, atrocious or cruel.'"
People can interpret that in various ways. I would hope that most of America (and the world) would take games like Manhunt to be in that definition. But there are people out there (both crazy and non), who think that it isn't cruel or heinous at all. Instead of describing one's feelings about something, it should list specific acts (i.e. cutting off a head with a butcher's knife, repeatedly stabbing a man with sharpened bat, forcing people to watch Richard Simmons tapes, etc.) that can be easily identified, so there would be no question.
Re:Define 'cruel' (Score:3, Insightful)
what exactly is a human character? (Score:1, Insightful)
Separation and enforceability (Score:3, Interesting)
stocked above children's eye level and separately from other games
Two things bother me about this:
Of course, reality says to me it doesn't really matter since I don't live in California and I won't live in California. Even if they try to ban such games here (Minnesota), unless they ban them in all 50 states, which would never be held up under First Amendment legislation, trying to keep me from ordering them from elsewhere would violate interstate commerce, which is under Federal jurisdiction, not state.
Cracking the ESRB code (Score:3, Insightful)
Teen
Blood
Mild Violence
Strong Language
Suggestive Themes
Do parents continue to view this as some crazy code they need a big banner to decipher? Maybe a bill to force parents to actually look at the game they buy their children would be better.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
This is basically what you're saying: (Score:1)
2. The best solution to this parental irresponsibility is government intervention.
Are you sure you've analyzed the situation properly?
BTW, the reason why movie theaters have enforced ratings is because children can watch movies in the theater, without their parents being able to do much about it. You basically have to bring video games home, on the other hand.
Rob
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Cracking the ESRB code (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Cracking the ESRB code (Score:4, Interesting)
That's what this bill does. Kids can't legally buy M-rated games (under the bill), forcing parents to buy it for them. And while that doesn't force them to read the label, at least they might give it a glance.
Personally, I wish the ESRB had the ability to crack down on dealers who sell M-rated games to minors. The ratings are there for a reason. They aren't working right now because nobody can enforce them. (and honestly, do you think that EB and company will turn down a customer's money if they don't have to?) This bill would make them enforcable.
--Jeremy
Re:Cracking the ESRB code (Score:1)
It should be the parents who need to take more responsiblity instead of blaming every thing else
With their track record? (Score:1)
Anyone want to trust this to the 9th circuit? I surely dont.
Re:With their track record? (Score:1)
Sounds like a great idea (Score:2)
now if they'd only put the sucky games on a different shelf than the games that are actually good, this would be nearly a perfect world.
they'll just buy online (Score:3, Insightful)
Whether this is a good cause or not, it won't work. In the US, minors can't get credit cards without a cosigner, but they can get debit cards. Since these work just as well when buying things online, "underage" video game buyers will just order online with debit cards.
Kids will go a long way to avoid censorship. When stores made a fuss about selling "dirty" lyrics to minors, they went online to download it instead.
more power to them (Score:2)
If a minor asks you to help him buy a violent or othewise blacklisted game, it is your duty as a citizen of a free nation to help him purchase it.
Any store clerk that refuses to sell such an item to a minor is a Communist spy, to be dealt with accordingly.
the mccarthy part was a joke (Score:2)
GTA vs. KOTOR (Score:2, Insightful)
I'm glad that a newer, objective system of rating will be introduced soon. I recently purchased Knights of the Old Republic, and found that it is a horrible and terribly violent game, bound to corrupt our youth with its lack of morality and suggestions of genocide and hate.
While playing this game I realized I was berating people, abusing them, manipulating them with my Jedi mind tricks, stealing from them, and ultimately murd
Self Regulation (Score:3, Insightful)
Right now parts of the software engineering segment of the defence industry (including his employer) are working on certifications for software engineers equivelent to those for structural engineers. The reason for this self-regulation? They realize that it's only a matter of time until a tragic loss of life occurs due to a software bug, what if Columbia burned up due to a software bug on the re-entry trajectory calculations? So, they self-regulate now in order to avoid gov't regulation later.
The game industry tried and failed. Whenever I hear some story about some kid going off and their parents blaming music/video games my first 2 questions are 1) What was the rating on the package, and 2) Did you watch/listen/play the game yourself before you let your kid play (or at least when your kid started playing. Now that's assuming it really is the music/video games' fault (a whole other can of worms I won't get into here).
We (I'm in the game industry) have the ESRB labels and such, but they were unenforced. Maybe there was no way to really get BestBuy, WalMart, ElectronicsBoutique, etc. to enforce them.
So now the gov't steps in. Now they will be enforced.
Personally, I wouldn't mind it if they took it one step further and locked up the Mature games like alcohol and tobacco products rather than just putting them out of sight. Sure, it's a pain in the arse when I want smokes at the grocery store and I have to hold up the line while the manager goes and grabs me some smokes, but at my local target all but the bargin bin of games is behind locked glass already anywho.
My figuring is, people who want the games and should be buying them will still buy them. The already messed up kid who's going to play my game for a 4 day bender before blowing away his english teacher , ex-girlfriend, her new girlfriend, that kid that picked on him in grade school, etc. will now have to ask his mommy to buy the game for him. If mommy buys the game, she should be accountable to read the ESRB rating (which would now be posted, I'm seeing something similar to the "We Card" plaques at convinience stores).
So now, when I'm taken to court for making a game that "made" Billy go on a rampage my lawyer can rip into mommy with this line of questioning: "How did Billy get this game?" (I bought it for him), "Did you see the ESRB sign on the shelf, register and your recipt?" (Uhm... I guess so), "Did you check the label on the package after reading the sign?" (I might have), "And you gave him the game anyways?" (Yes, it was his birthday), "Did you watch him play at all?" (No, he plays up in his bedroom with the door closed), "Can you honestly say that you, as Billy's mother, took responsibility and due care regarding what content he was exposed to, even after being exposed to the ESRB information on the shelf the game came from, the register where you purchased the game, the back of your recipt, the pamphlet inside the game and the label on it's packaging?" (Uhm... ), "No further questions, your honor."
Anywho, I've degraded to rambling and I have a new blood and gibs particle system to write!