Proposed CA Laws to Reclassify Violent Video Games 62
cybermox writes "There are two laws (AB1792 and AB1793) up for committee approval next week in the California State Assembly that seek to reclassify violent video games in a manner similar to pornography (1792) and require retailers to display Mature rated games separately from other games (1793). The IGDA trade body has a document opposing the bill in its anti-censorship advocacy page." Update: 04/09 02:22 GMT by S : Reuters is also covering support for the bill among "elected officials, religious leaders and civic activists", who "rallied across California on Thursday" - we've previously covered the introduction of this proposed legislation.
Good. (Score:5, Interesting)
I am an adult, and a fan of violent video games. Rather than all the complaning and censorship, I would rather just see an adult video game section. And just like they do certain music CD's, I would also like publishers to sell two versions of games - once censored for younger consumers, and one explicit adult only version. For ex, the adult version of Medal Of Honor could have had blood then, unlike the version that shipped. You could even create dedicated online servers for adults, where trash talk is ok, vs family oriented servers.
Re:Good. (Score:5, Insightful)
Sure, for real ADULT games.
Do we need a separate section for R-rated movies? No? Then don't allow video games to be held to a different standard. Don't partake in the demonizing of games.
Re:Good. (Score:3, Interesting)
O
Re:Bad. (Score:3, Insightful)
Second, stores like Walmart, Target, and other wide-variety stores would just stop carrying anything they couldn't show to
Re:Good. (Score:2)
Because it's supposed to be up to parents to decide what is appopriate for their children at different ages. If a box says that the game includes nudity, a parent can decide if they think that's okay for their fifteen year old. If the box does says "contains content appropriate for ages 15 and up", t
Re:Good. (Score:2)
Or I just buy it online (probably from a store not based in California).
Can't we just get over this already? (Score:3, Interesting)
Video-Games can be highly social, skill-based, and excite learning about technology (c'mon, how many 20-somethings on Slashdot know Perl and never played a computer game for fun as a kid).
Violent or otherwise "objectionable" material is engaging. Not only that, but they can help children build "fantasy" scenarios, which, lets face it, aren't all that different from the things they might see in real life. I worked in a Day Care during highschool [before 9/11, etc, etc], and a kid in the room was lining up toy soldiers and playing "bombing Saddam" - *no joke*. This wasn't some abnormal kid, he was a 4th grader who had heard about this evil guy and made up a game to get rid of him.
Let face it, you wouldn't want your daughters growing up playing Princess, but you realize that there there's a point where children need to distinguish between reality and fantasy, and at a certain age, play-acting is play-acting.
And your point exactly is what? (Score:2)
In any case that is a choice that should not be left on young persons' hands (they are too inexperienced to make sensible decisions yet) but on their parents'. Rating is something that facilitates the task.
Re:And your point exactly is what? (Score:1)
Wow, life must be lonely up in that ivory tower, Rapunzel.
not all games are intended for kids (Score:3, Insightful)
it should be.. hmm.. common sense.
Of course, as on the previous thread about the suicide kid, someone said "common sense is usually not."
Not all games are intended for kids.
Re:not all games are intended for kids (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:not all games are intended for kids (Score:2)
You say the parent will it for them. In real life, the kid just goes and burns it from a friend or from warez.
Living here's worth it (Score:3, Insightful)
Still, though, wouldn't trade it. So you have to look somewhere else for the violent video games. Don't give me that, "One freedom at a time..." diatribe either, because it doesn't apply here. In the long run, making it harder to get games would probably be better for all the little chunkers running around, anyways. Go to the beach and {swim,surf,dive,fish,sail} for fuck's sake, it's a gorgeous day! Only pick the controller up when it's DARK OUT, kids. Seeing real bikinis is better than those PS2-generated-volleyball-whoores anyways. The physics of bouncing breasts just can't be simulated quite right yet.
And now I'm all riled up. Well, have fun picking this post apart, there's plenty of contention here.
Late.
More violence on the news (Score:5, Insightful)
- Parents complain about no rating systems.
- We got a rating systems.
- Parents complain about ineffective rating systems.
- We make the labels bigger and train EB employees better.
- Parents complain about 1 kid out of 100 sneaking out with a mature game.
- We make better rating systems.
We are fucking pilgrims. The news just showed a couple american contractors dangled and burned publicly in Iraq. Where's the damn label for the news. Parents blame rock music in the 70s, then video games in the 80s, then internet in the 90s.
Re:More violence on the news (Score:1)
Re:More violence on the news (Score:5, Interesting)
The question is, once all the regression is achieved, what will these people do? They certainly won't be living in bliss, that's for sure; they'll still be dealing with the same problems, only they won't have their favorite scapegoats around anymore.
I don't live in California, but I sure wish I could talk some sense into these people, because I know it'll only embolden their peers elsewhere. I don't want to live in a society that is afraid of itself.
I also do not want to be guilty of a crime by association, which is where this is heading. Make it "Adult-only" now, so that you can control it, then move to eliminate it by criminalizing it.
I read, recently, that the DoJ is looking to tear into the pornography industry. I read that, not satisfied with attacking the "extreme" of pornography, the DoJ is going to go after some of the "plain vanilla" and softcore mainstream pornography. First they seized control of it by limiting access to it, and now they are moving to eliminate it by criminalizing it. Evidently, some people take offense to other people seeing a naked human being in private.
Evidently, some people take offense to other people playing video games in private.
How long before the moderates speak out against this assault? How long before they act?
~UP
Re:More violence on the news (Score:2)
You'll be waiting for a lot longer than you want to, because moderates are moderates. Moderates are people who generally want to get on with their lives and don't want to have to deal with politics or politicians. They just want to be able to do their shit and not get in anyone else's way, or have anyone get in their way. You'll never see a moderate organization going after something because that would require them b
Re: (Score:2)
Woohoo (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Woohoo (Score:1)
Hmmmm...This will work how??? (Score:3, Insightful)
How about spending money to promote the development of more interesting, challenging, educational games rather than to spend money to enforce such legislation.
Provide a more interesting alternative without letting the kids know that it is good for them.
I said it before, I'll say it again (Score:4, Interesting)
The sponsor of the bill has been going on and on about how he believes that Arnold will sign his bills into law, even though Arnold hasn't taken a position one way or the other(although Arnold being in a few games suggests that he will veto it) and also knowing full well that similiar bills in other states have been ruled unconstitutional because the First Amendment protects video games just as it protects movies and music. The sponsor also seems like the type of guy that wouldn't just stop at video games and would start going after Arnold's movies if given the opportunity. Again, if the Supreme Court handles any of the cases whether it's this one or the one in Washington state, I truly believe that the Supreme Court will rule in favor of this industry, not just because of the First Amendment, but also because they silently agreed with the lower courts' ruling when they rejected Indianapolis' appeals.
Another point of interest: Recently, Gov. Schwarzenegger has stated that he wants the California State Legislature to go from a full-time legislature to part-time like most other states. On vacation in Hawaii, Arnold was quoted as saying that the legislators had too much time on their hands in coming up with "strange bills".
Hmmm, I wonder if he directed that comment towards this particular bill?
Straying a little off-topic, the soccer moms that cry about this topic will soon be crying about the FCC going after their daytime soap operas and Oprah Winfrey for "indecent" content, if one FCC commissioner has his way.
BearDogg-X
Just video games? (Score:5, Insightful)
I mean, take the bible. Some of it's pretty gruesome. I would NOT want my kids reading this kind of stuff.
Oh, I know. It's because video games weren't around when these people were growing up, so they have no idea what they are.
Why just games? Why not movies? (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Why just games? Why not movies? (Score:2)
Graphic, yes. Mind warping, could you please explain how?
I know quite a few non-theistic parents who for psycological reasons are really against violent video games. There is no need to turn this into a religious issue--the debate on whether or not animated and/or interactive violence carries with
Re:Why just games? Why not movies? (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Why just games? Why not movies? (Score:2)
I suppose it's because games are interactive, but that's just thinking with the limited imagination of adults.
Re:Why just games? Why not movies? (Score:3, Insightful)
They realize that the movies clearly are not significant factors in causing someone to kill someone, but they don't have a similar experience with video games.
Re:Why just games? Why not movies? (Score:2)
Uh, what? (Score:5, Insightful)
The bill would exclude from this definition any game in which the visual depiction of violence occurs as the result of simultaneous competition between 2 or more players.
So beating up the representation of a real person that you know is better than beating up a completely fictional being?
Rob
Re:Uh, what? (Score:2)
I bet this is to exclude sports games.
-
The more laws and order are made prominent,
The more thieves and robbers there will be.
Lao-tzu (604 BC - 531 BC), The Way of Lao-tzu)
Re:Uh, what? (Score:2)
Goddamn, legislators are dumb.
Rob
My thoughts... (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:My thoughts... (Score:1)
Re:My thoughts... (Score:2)
Re:My thoughts... (Score:1)
They don't seem to have any problem carrying M rated games (I'm pretty sure those are..I know damn well GTA is, but I'm just guessing on the others)
They do, however, carry the censored music.
Re:My thoughts... (Score:1)
...come on (Score:1)
Let's take it one more step further.... (Score:3, Funny)
Wait, you mean that's illegal?
Its not censorship for crying out loud... (Score:1)
Now, some of the long reaching and indirect effects would mean a shift in what is generally considered acceptable on the developers end. Psychologically this law would actually stop sales of a significant number of units simply because it raises awareness. This wou
here we go again (Score:2)
What these guys are not considering is that in certain movies the perspective of the hero inviting the audience to take the role of that character SO is basically the same case scenario, yet we dont see anyone accusing Rambo 2 of being a "murder simulator" why? because that arg
Just what gamers needed... (Score:2)
I've just wondered something: have these politicians took into consideration how would this move ultimately affect sales and then estimated the percenteage of M rated games being made in California at this day? and how much of that income comes as taxes for the state? also have they considered M rated game players actually have voting age?
Prohibition (of commercial speech) works. (Score:1)
When people say that Prohibition doesn't work, they are talking about alcohol, not entertainment. Anyone can make alcohol. I could buy some apple cider, and after some experimentation make it turn into alcohol. There are monkeys who get drunk off of berries that ferment by themselves in the wild.
Comic book censorship in the 50's, on the other hand wo
America goes Overboard: Part 731 (Score:2, Insightful)
Correction (Score:1)