Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments
Search

News for nerds, stuff that matters

Slashdot Log In

Log In

Create Account  |  Retrieve Password

California Legislature Passes Violent Game Bill

Posted by Zonk on Sat Sep 10, 2005 04:23 PM
from the no-love dept.
Censorship Entertainment Games
404Ender writes "In a move similar to the passage of a law designed to restrict the sale of violent video games to children in Illinois, California is now awaiting only the signature of Governor Schwarzenegger before a similar bill becomes a law. Does this action signal the start of a disturbing trend of the restriction of First Amendment rights? How can we as gamers fight back against this type of government action?"
+ -
story

Related Stories

[+] CA Game Bill Struck Down, Governor Vows Appeal 106 comments
GamePolitics has the full story today on the removal of California's violent games law. A judge has found it unconstitutional after a protracted legal battle. The law was originally passed back in 2005. "The bill, championed by then-Assembly Speaker Leland Yee (D) was signed into law by Republican Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger (left) on October 7th, 2005. The video game industry filed suit to block the law 10 days later. Judge Ronald Whyte issued a preliminary injunction on December 22nd, blocking the California law from its planned effective date of January 1st, 2006. Since then, both sides have been waiting for Judge Whyte's final ruling. Today it has come." The law's sponsor Leland Yee is quite disappointed by the ruling, of course, and Governor Schwarzenegger plans to appeal the decision.
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.

California Legislature Passes Violent Game Bill 50 Comments More /

 Full
 Abbreviated
 Hidden
More
Loading... please wait.

  • Restrict the sale to children? (Score:5, Funny)

    by Rayonic (462789) on Saturday September 10 2005, @04:26PM (#13527868) Homepage Journal
    So only children can buy violent games in Illinois? Neat.

  • 1st Admendment Rights lost? (Score:3, Interesting)

    by gameboyhippo (827141) on Saturday September 10 2005, @04:28PM (#13527882) Journal
    Adults will still have rights to play games. It's about protecting the children. I think there is an implied right for parents to protect their kids and if a State wants to reinforce this, then they should.

    • Re:1st Admendment Rights lost? (Score:5, Insightful)

      by Retroneous (879615) on Saturday September 10 2005, @05:37PM (#13528268) Homepage
      Absolutely agreed there. Everybody's crying about a loss of some sort of right, and there's no right going missing anywhere. The government is simply "protecting" kids from stopping them buying violent video games, the same way it stops them from buying adult movies.

      In other words, stop being so damned critical, just because the big, bad government made a new law that doesn't actually affect any of us, unless we're 12.
      • The government is simply "protecting" kids from stopping them buying violent video games...

        That's the job of parents. Don't want your kid buying certain games? Great. Don't give 'em the money to do so, and tell 'em they're grounded if they do. Hey, you could even take the game console away if theybring in verbotten games.

        Having the state threated to lock people in cages seems a much poorer remedy.

      • In other words, stop being so damned critical, just because the big, bad government made a new law that doesn't actually affect any of us, unless we're 12.

        This is Slashdot, right?
        • You are wrong about porno thing. The government can regulate the sale of porn to minors as pornography falls under the legal definition of obscenity, and obscenity isn't protected by First Amendment.
          I totally agree with what you said otherwise.

    • Re:1st Admendment Rights lost? (Score:4, Insightful)

      by John Hasler (414242) on Sunday September 11 2005, @01:36PM (#13532762)
      If you don't want your children to play such games don't let them do so. They are your children. You control them.

      If I had any children I might want to permit them to play such games. You would deny me the right to decide what is best for my children, just because you are too lazy or inept to control yours.

      Such laws do not affect only children. They make selling the restricted items much more difficult and risky, thus increasing cost and decreasing availability.
      • Why can't I protect my kid from your kid? Your kid is playing a harmful game that desensitizes him to killing. He pulls the trigger in the videogame (unlike a movie). Thus he is desensitized faster. Why does my kid have to be murdered by your child?

        Just because you want to sit on your hands and treat him like a knowledgable adult, doesn't mean that you have the right to make other people suffer at your ignorance. Ever hear the saying, "If only I knew then what I know now." That's what it's about. G

      • yes, it's absurd (Score:5, Insightful)

        by rebug (520669) on Saturday September 10 2005, @04:57PM (#13528055)
        Why can't my five year old drive himself to school? Why is he not allowed to spend his allowance on handguns and alcohol?

        Oh, that's right, because he's a child. Is the adult/child distinction unclear to you for some reason?
          • "How about, why can't my *fourteen* year old drive himself to school?"

            If you need an explanation for this, you're either trolling, making a joke or need to get your head examined.

            We have enough problems on the roads currently with supposedly mature, otherwise-sensible grown adults who drive stupidly, drive drunk, drive without insurance or in unfit vehicles, and your solution is what, to open up driving to people even less mature and sensible?

            And that's leaving aside the implications of putting half a ton o
      • >> So where do we draw the line between rights that
        >> only adults can have and rights that everyone can
        >> have?

        I know. Every child should be allowed to own a gun, too. Get with the times.

      • As you have (parenthetically) noted, many laws already exist that restrict the rights of minors. Hey, I wish we could change some of them too. Society has decided, for example, that people under age 18 are not capable of knowing what love is and expressing that emotion through sex--at least with another individual who is over age 18.

        I agree with you that this one is wrong. This seems to be a kneejerk reaction to an industry that older generations do not understand and want to control. It smacks of conserv

      • Why is an effective distinction not made between the direct application of substances (alcohol, other drugs) and indirect application (pornography, violent video games) through natural processes?

        If it is insisted that access be restricted, surely there is some more finely grained way of going about this, is there not?

  • California? (Score:4, Interesting)

    by Caiwyn (120510) on Saturday September 10 2005, @04:29PM (#13527888)
    Wow, not what I'd expect from California... it will be interesting to see how that goes now that the gay marriage bill has been vetoed in the name of public opinion. The populace continues to surprise.
    • Wow, not what I'd expect from California... it will be interesting to see how that goes now that the gay marriage bill has been vetoed in the name of public opinion. The populace continues to surprise.

      That's because all of the intelligent people in California have sold their homes to people stupid enough to pay obscene prices and have moved the hell out of there before the whole state implodes upon itself.
    • Considering that "the public" is never asked for their opinion beyond "Republican or Democrat?" I don't see how you can pin this one on them so easily.

      Also, I find it amusing that a governor elected by a plurality believes he's more connected to public opinion than any legislative body.

  • How does this restrict free speech? (Score:5, Insightful)

    by DreadPiratePizz (803402) on Saturday September 10 2005, @04:36PM (#13527926)
    Just how does a measure like this restrict free speech? Kids are no longer allowed to purchase violent video games, yet this does not make the sale or manufacture of such games illegal.

    Furthermore, I don't see what harm can come of this law. All it will do is make sure a parent checks out the games they buy their children. Sure kids might still be able to get such games, but it's better than no law at all.

    • Re:How does this restrict free speech? (Score:5, Insightful)

      by alvinrod (889928) on Saturday September 10 2005, @04:51PM (#13528020)
      I have to agree with you here. This can only really be a positive thing for the industry as a whole. Perhaps if 14 year olds aren't playing Manhunt and Grand Theft Auto, people will get off the backs of the industry. There will still probably be groups that like to complain about the content of video games, but at least the industry will be able to say, "Obviously this is not content for young children and there are laws preventing them from buying this game. So the only way the could acquire it is through a parent buying it or an adult purchasing it for them. I think you should take some innitiative as a parent and make sure that you don't buy them violent video games or that you should keep an eye on what they're playing in case someone else has purchased it for them."

      I think there's plenty of room in the market for video games featuring more adult oriented content. Video games aren't just for children any more, and at some point (if not already) the number of adult gamers will surpass the number of children gamers. These people need more contend than Mickey's Counting Adventure.

      To those who would suggest banning games or at least violent, aldult-oriented games I would like to point out that there are similar movies that are made, books written. Not to mention pornography, alcohol, and cigarettes. Some of these obviously aren't for small children, but the society has somehow managed to survive even though these "evils" are widely available. People usually don't go around giving their kids beer, cigarettes, and violent movies, so why should games be any different?

      Preventing minors from buying certain games might cut into the sales figures a little, but let's face it, if a minor really wants to play that game, they'll get a hold of it somehow. Much the same way that minors get beer, smokes, porn, or just about anything else they really want like illegal drugs.

      Such a law is really a step forward, but like many other laws to protect minors from certain things, it won't be completely effective. The only real way to stop people from having access to content that might not be appropriate for them is to make sure that content is not produced. However, if you think that I'm going to give up GTA and other M rated games just so the 1% of the popultion that thinks such things are absolutely evil can be satisfied, then you have another thing coming.

      I'm willing to meet these people half-way and agree with them that not all games are appropriate for children or should be able to be purchased by these children. However, they should also meet the rest of the world half way and realize that we have the freedom to produce and buy such things. Until then, there will always be some sort of a squable over "objectionable content" in video games.

    • Well it does restrict to a certain extent the rights of parents .If i want my Hypothetical children to buy Violent computer games , then that should be my right as a hypothetical parent to decided.
      Laws enforcing the right way to parent your children are a restriction .

      Sure you could still go buy it for your child , but you are now not allowed to let your child have the responsibility to choose based on your parenting.

      Who else has the right to say what is suitable for your child .
      • If I had a mod point for you, I would give it. This is bizarre logic, but it makes sense once you wrap your head around it. I'm going to use this argument from now on, if you don't mind.
        • Thank you ; I would have no problem with anyone using my argument .
          At first it does seem a bit bizarre , but i do like to stay strong my views about personal freedoms .
          I may not think it is the best idea to let your children have access to some games when they are rather young , but it is not my place to decide .

          Let people decide based on their own experiences , the knowledge they have of the development of their children. Advice and discussion is always welcome : it's restrictions that I have a problem w
      • I'm not even going to step in to agree or disagree, I'm just going to point out that there is already a precident on saying what is unsuitable for your hypothetical child/teenager: they can't buy porn, even if you as a parent decide that it's acceptable for them to do so. Alcohol too, although that's in a different league I guess - still could be argued as a matter of whether the teenager is responsible enough or not though.

        Like I said, not condemning or condoning, just saying that this is not the first tim

        • Sophistry (Score:2, Insightful)

          by Anonymous Coward
          "The right to say what you want does not imply the right to buy what others have "said.""

          That's just a rhetorical trick. Using that, it's easy to restrict any speech. Oh sure, you can publish a newspaper criticizing the government, that right is guaranteed... but the right to buy such a newspaper is not.

          The first amendment says "Congress shall pass no law restricting the freedom of the press," or some such. The freedom of the press is a matter both of producer and consumer freedom. There are works so object
            • Apparently you completely missed what the AC was saying so I'll try again for him. I have the right to say what I wish but that does not imply the right to an audience. No one has to listen or purchase my speech. However, how does that relate to the right of anyone to be my audience if they so choose? If I choose to seek out any form of entertainment and no one is harmed as a result of it, what reason could there be to restrict my action? Just as important, and as the AC pointed out, if you restrict th

  • Maybe you should re-read the constitution. (Score:3, Insightful)

    by BaronSprite (651436) on Saturday September 10 2005, @04:39PM (#13527951) Homepage
    I don't know about you but I fail to see any violations. This is in place to prevent the sales of M+ video games to minors. It's the same as restricting them in R rated movies. If a kid really wants a violent video game then I guess they are just going to have to prove to their parents they are mature enough to have it and the parents will buy it for them. Atleast in a perfect world.

  • Perhaps a More Efficient Way... (Score:4, Insightful)

    by SpottedKuh (855161) on Saturday September 10 2005, @04:43PM (#13527973)

    ...would have been to simply enforce the "AO" rating given out by the ESRB. Why invent your own sticker and everything?

    I mean, it's already enforced that children in the US cannot enter a movie rated NC-17 (no one 17 or under is admitted). Why not simply implement a similar rule that children 17 or under cannot buy AO games?

    Beyond that, obviously, it's up to the parents to show a little responsibility, and maybe learn what the different ESRB ratings [esrb.org] mean. Then, they can supervise what games their kids are buying, and make informed choices as to whether or not to allow it.

    • Does Anyone Know What The Bill Actually Says? (Score:4, Insightful)

      by nick_davison (217681) on Sunday September 11 2005, @01:41AM (#13530139)
      Perhaps a More Efficient Way...would have been to simply enforce the "AO" rating given out by the ESRB. Why invent your own sticker and everything?

      Going from memory of a G4TV interview with Yee, all he claimed to be pushing for was to make it legally punishable for a store to sell a game to someone outside the ESRB's label.

      That's not actually any different to a child not being allowed to buy porn, cigarettes or alcohol and those stores that sell them anyway risking getting fined.

      Now, the way the ESRB makes it sound, it sounds as if Yee is creating a blanket law that bans games without sensible consideration of content. My guess is this may well be much like the gun lobby protesting gun safes or trigger locks - they really don't have a problem with them themselves but they don't want to conceed this issue only to start down a slippery slope. Similarly, I'm guessing the ESRB don't want laws passed forcing stores to abide by the ESRB's own ratings - because that gets legislators thinking they can create other laws - potentially ones that push the ESRB out of its role.

      I mean, it's already enforced that children in the US cannot enter a movie rated NC-17 (no one 17 or under is admitted).

      Effectively, yes. Legally, no.

      If I recall correctly, the movie industry faced almost exactly the same issue the games industry is facing. So they instituted their own body and got theaters to agree to it. By acting promptly, they forestalled any actual laws.

      It's a common misconception but R, NC-17, etc. aren't legal terms. They are a voluntary code followed by theaters to keep the government off their backs. A theater could quite openly sell NC-17 tickets to ten year olds and there's nothing the authorities could do (save maybe a charge of contributing to the corruption of a minor).

      The problem the games industry has is that, whereas most theaters apply the rating system as though it was law, about 30% of major stores and about 80% of independent stores (again, quoting the G4 interview) ignore the law. Those numbers are large enough that the games industry is shooting itself in the foot. If they'd stop whining and start applying the ESRB suggestions as strongly as the MPAA suggestions, the problem would go away - or would have done had they acted sooner and not waited until it's critical.
  • I mean, Schwartennegger has never made any violent media in his days.

    Even Those from his last movie. [amazon.com]

  • Attack of the awful English (Score:4, Insightful)

    by Bogtha (906264) on Saturday September 10 2005, @04:57PM (#13528053)

    In a move similar to the passage of a law designed to restrict the sale of violent video games to children in Illinois, California is now awaiting only the signature of Governor Schwarzenegger before a similar bill becomes a law.

    Wouldn't it have been much clearer to simply write "California is about to pass a bill restricting the sale of violent video games to children?"

    How can we as gamers fight back against this type of government action?

    Get one of your parents to buy it for you.

    Seriously, everybody harps on about parents taking more responsibility, but as soon as a law that is intended to help them do this is passed, people forget about that. The only people who are prevented from playing violent video games by this law are children whose parents do not want them to play violent video games. That seems perfectly reasonable to me.

  • Seems Fair. (Score:3, Insightful)

    by Walker_Boh_Druid (864617) on Saturday September 10 2005, @05:11PM (#13528130)
    There is already the ratings on games, there might as well be a law enforcing it. If I were to live in California, I might feel differently, as I'm a teenager myself, but I don't see any problems with this. Restricting minors to this is a good thing, as for every mature minor, you get 3 that are very influenced by what the see around them, and are pretty immature. What we really need to sort is why in this society it is bad for a child to see something that occurs naturally, and is necessary for reproduction is, but it is okay for them to see people getting shot, blown-up, and cut to pieces.
  • Rights and Efficacy aside; trying to curb people's behavior never worked and it never will work.

    Whether or not you outlaw drugs, guns, alcohol, or video games... or set an age requirement; if a person wants to engage in any of those behaviors, they will. Especially if it is something trivial like playing video games.

    Furthermore, from personal experience, I have always managed to get into an R movie, even if i had to buy a ticket for a PG13. As easy as that was... buying a video game will require much le

  • Silly sticker, but otherwise OK. (Score:3, Informative)

    by cgenman (325138) on Saturday September 10 2005, @05:22PM (#13528193) Homepage
    Inflamatory rhetoric aside, this seems like an OK bill. Basically, it is saying that certain types of media can't be sold to kids without parental permission. This is consistent with movies and other forms of entertainment.

    The whole "2-inch sticker" seems a bit ridiculous, especially because it implies a new ratings system, a new ratings board, etc. But that's a pragmatic problem, not an ethical one. Both sides come out smelling like zealots here, with one side saying that it will destroy first amendment rights, and the other saying that videogames are as bad for you physically as smoking.

    I also don't necessarily agree with the findings of the bills, that "Even minors who do not commit acts of violence suffer psychological harm from prolonged exposure to violent video games." Taken literally, this is true of basically anything. It does go into some lovingly crafted detail [ca.gov] on what constitutes violence. I'll be amused to find out how the courts decide to interpret the requirement that a virtual victim must be conscious of the abuse at the time it is inflicted.
  • Seeing as there are no laws barring the sale of ultra violent movies, music CDs, books, magazines or any other violent materials to minors, i see no reason why there should be one for violent video games.

    Not only that but the courts including the Supreme Court have ruled that minors have First Amendment rights and that the only material that can be legally restricted to them is material that falls under the legal definition of "harmful to minors", and that the "harmful to minors" definition is an extension

  • First Amendment? (Score:4, Insightful)

    by HD Webdev (247266) on Saturday September 10 2005, @05:33PM (#13528252) Homepage Journal
    Since when did the first amendment have anything at all to do with what types of products companies are allowed to supply to children?

    The proportion of alarmist articles that are getting through lately is completely rediculous. It's an embarrassment. Until lately, I used to promote this site quite a bit.

    Please, for the love of god, stop this nonsense.

  • uh... (Score:3, Insightful)

    by Gogo0 (877020) on Saturday September 10 2005, @05:53PM (#13528347)
    How can we as gamers fight back against this type of government action?"

    Become 18 years of age?
    This is another non-issue being made into an issue on slashdot. Im surprised it wasnt posted in YRO...

  • If you didn't vote Libertarian (Score:2, Interesting)

    by Anonymous Coward
    You ASKED for this!
    ___________________________________________
    A vote against a Libertarian candidate is
    a vote to abolish the Constitution itself.
  • I think this is a great law myself. I mean, it's identical to the way R-rated movies are restricted. There is absolutely nothing wrong with this at all, why is everyone making a big deal about it?

    Generally, when the government sticks it's nose in video games, it's bad news. But this is one of the few good things they've done right.

    Since I'm over 18, this doesn't really affect me at all. So seriously, I don't care. If your under 18, I say to you, sorry, but we all have to go through it. I personally have

  • Pointless... (Score:4, Funny)

    by tktk (540564) on Saturday September 10 2005, @06:26PM (#13528520)
    When my (future) children want to play violent video games, they'll have to wait until it's their damn turn.

    I'm first.

  • That they seek to impose a ratings system seperate from the ESRB system.

    If this law (and others like it) simply gave legal power to the ESRB system (i.e. restricted the purchase of M and AO games to adults or whatever), I would have no problems with it really.
  • Explain this to me again - what's so bad about restricting the sale of adult video games to children? Unless you're not an adult yourself, you won't be affected by this, so... what's the big deal?
    • My big problem with this is that it's not saying that M rated games shouldn't be sold to minors, it's saying that "violent" video games can't be sold to minors. How do they define violent? ""Violent video game" means any video game or any copy of an electronic game that may be played using a portable electronic device or hand-held gaming device using a television or computer, that, taken as a whole, to the average person, applying contemporary statewide standards, appeals to minors' morbid interest in vi

  • Does the CA law impose penalties... (Score:3, Insightful)

    by phillymjs (234426) <slashdot.stango@org> on Saturday September 10 2005, @06:49PM (#13528648) Homepage Journal
    ...on stupid parents who ignore ratings and buy unsuitable games for their young kids? Like maybe, hold said stupid parents liable when their kids shoot people and say "the violent games made me do it!" as an excuse?

    Because IMHO that's what we really need: parents being held responsible for their piss-poor parenting.

    ~Philly

  • Funny banner ad... (Score:3, Insightful)

    by Anonymous Coward on Sunday September 11 2005, @01:08AM (#13530055)
    The best commentary on this ever...

    About 6 months ago, GameSpot or one of those sites ran a story about the push to get this law passed.. and on the right of the article was a banner ad featuring the ultra-violent first-person shooter, Terminator 3, featuring Arnold Schwarzenegger.

    If Ahnold signs a bill saying violence in games/movies begets violence in kids, he needs to go out back and lynch himself, because he's done more than any ten of us.

  • The Governator (Score:3, Funny)

    by PhotoBoy (684898) on Sunday September 11 2005, @11:26AM (#13532018)
    The Governator: As the duly appointed representative to California I feel it is my duty to ban the sale of violent videogames to minors. Now if you will excuse me I'll be back. I have to go and make another movie where I kill lots of people and sexually harass the women on the set.

    Someone with a brain: Isn't that being hypocritical Mr Schwarzenegger?

    The Governator: Don't insult me, I have never even looked at another man.

All trademarks and copyrights on this page are owned by their respective owners. Comments are owned by the Poster. The Rest © 1997-2009 Geeknet, Inc.