Become a fan of Slashdot on Facebook

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
The Courts Government Entertainment Games News Politics

California Passes Violent Games Bill 341

Posted by Zonk from the jack-must-be-so-pleased dept.
TecnaDigit writes "Today, after sitting on the bill for nearly a month and constant political pressure, Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger signed Assembly Bill 1179, the bill that would prohibit the sale and rentals of violent video games to minors. Again, the Entertainment Software Ratings Board and the Video Software Dealers Association (VSDA) are challenging the bill. According the the VSDA, the bill is faulty in that a game is decided whether or not it is 'violent' by juries, and different juries could have different opinions on what is defined as 'violent'." Commentary on GamerGod.
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

California Passes Violent Games Bill More

California Passes Violent Games Bill

Comments Filter:

  • Ackkk I hate freaking subjectivity (Score:5, Insightful)

    by technoextreme ( 885694 ) on Sunday October 09, 2005 @01:48PM (#13751274)
    Let the parents decide what is too violent and what isn't and be done with the whole thing. If parents cared then we would not be in this whole entire mess.

    • Re:Ackkk I hate freaking subjectivity (Score:5, Insightful)

      by Coneasfast ( 690509 ) on Sunday October 09, 2005 @01:51PM (#13751287)
      Let the parents decide what is too violent and what isn't and be done with the whole thing. If parents cared then we would not be in this whole entire mess.

      what mess are we in? are we still assuming that violent video games lead to violent behaviour in real-life? we've been over this argument a dozen times.
      • what mess are we in? are we still assuming that violent video games lead to violent behaviour in real-life? we've been over this argument a dozen times.
        No. I was refering to the fact that everyone's definition of what is too violence is different.
      • The mess we're in is unfortunately that some Democrats want the government to parent our children because they're too busy having a career to think about the future of our species. The future that they consciously created through a consensual sexual mating, mind you.

        They want to put the consequences of their bad choices* on the rest of us, and that's quite a mess, don't you think?

        * I'm not saying making life is a bad choice, rather that if one wants to pursue a career, having children is not a good choice b

    • Re:Ackkk I hate freaking subjectivity (Score:5, Interesting)

      by Geoffreyerffoeg ( 729040 ) on Sunday October 09, 2005 @02:03PM (#13751344)
      If parents cared then we would not be in this whole entire mess.

      Which is precisely the point. Too many parents don't care. Most of them do, but there is a minority that's way too anarchic with their children. I don't have much of a problem with organized anarchy, but it doesn't really work for raising children.

      The real solution would be to find the parents that don't..well..parent, turn the kids over to child protecive services and then a loving adoptive family, and castrate the parents. (Hopefully if you catch the parents while the child is young enough, it won't be too traumatic.) And then monitor the child in case the bad parenting is genetic.

      The very existence of the need for a government agency of child protection is proof that there are parents who don't parent.

    • Let the parents decide what is too violent and what isn't and be done with the whole thing. If parents cared then we would not be in this whole entire mess.

      You know, as much as I agree with you and as stupid as these laws are, we don't do ourselves any favor by devoting the public debate to this stupidity.

      The video game makers do themselves no favors by fighting these laws either. They just rally the rabid religious nut jobs pushing these laws in the first place while giving grandstanding politicians (

    • Re:Ackkk I hate freaking subjectivity (Score:5, Insightful)

      by compjinx ( 733142 ) on Sunday October 09, 2005 @02:10PM (#13751376)
      Correct me if I am wrong, but this law simply restricts minors from purchasing/renting "violent" games without their parents' knowledge. This simply forces the parents to get involved. If a parent doesn't think that the game is too violent, then that parent can simply authorize the purchase (ie: purchase it for the child). This law seems to really be made for parents who don't care to get involved with their child; it simply governs the child when the parents fail to.
    • That's what this law is about - it makes it illegal for kids to buy violent games for themselves, so the parents have to buy them if the kids want them. The "whole entire mess" is that parents do such a shitty job of raising and monitoring their children that the state has to step in.
    • Let the parents decide what is too violent and what isn't and be done with the whole thing. If parents cared then we would not be in this whole entire mess.

      Parents would still be able to buy these for their children if they wanted.
    • I agree with your sentiment but if everyone was a good parent, I don't think any thing like this would be an issue. The reality is that many people are too busy to have time to be a good parent. I wonder how much time parents who have kids who committed crimes actually spend raising and interacting with their kids. I've met some good parents and it's amazing how their kids turned out. They tend to be able to think on their own and have consideration for others. I'm not excusing people who don't have th
    • Let the parents decide what is too violent and what isn't and be done with the whole thing. If parents cared then we would not be in this whole entire mess.

      That's what this bill does. It let's the parents decide. If they want their kids playing these games, they can buy them. It doesn't keep consenting adults from enjoying any of these things so what's the problem?
    • The argument "let the parents decide" could be as well applied to:

      1. let the parents decide whether they teach their children fairy tales or quantum mechanics
      2. let the parents decide whether their kids can have sex with them
      3. let the parents decide whether their kids can take drugs or not
      4. let the parents decide whether their kids can drink alcohol

      It's not the state which wants to take away parent's rights. It's the parents who shy from their obligation to raise the kids. Everybody thinks that their kids

  • Why, oh why.... (Score:5, Insightful)

    by zappepcs ( 820751 ) on Sunday October 09, 2005 @01:50PM (#13751278) Journal
    Do we need legislation to set up ratings schemes? Once its rated, selling to minors is illegal already.

    No matter how much law is enacted, they still won't be able to enforce the law with anything that approaches what people envision. Grandmothers and family members will still buy games and movies for kids when they shouldn't....

    What a gigantic waste of time and money... pfft!
    • Games are already by the ESRB, but it is not illegal to sell to minors.

    • Re:Why, oh why.... (Score:2, Interesting)

      by JP205 ( 263673 )
      What happens when little Jonnie using his parents credit card places an order online for the latest release of quake, doom, halflife etc. can the retailer be held accountable? What if it's done though an online auction and/or across state lines? Couldn't Jonnie just take the buss to Nevada and buy the game there?

      It seems to me that this law will be very ineffective.

      • You started with:

        Couldn't Jonnie just take the buss to Nevada and buy the game there?

        And concluded:

        It seems to me that this law will be very ineffective.

        My question is: how?

        Whather the law is effective or not, your logic is lacking. Sounds more like a knee-jerk reaction opposing the general idea of government trying to protect kids from certain vices. There are, of course, ways to avoid enforcement, but it still may raise the bar, which may lead to a general reduction of usage of the games by minors.

        I'm opp

  • Define irony (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Pluvius ( 734915 ) <pluvius3&gmail,com> on Sunday October 09, 2005 @01:52PM (#13751288) Journal
    A man best known for starring in violent movies that mostly appeal to adolescents signs a bill prohibiting the sale of violent video games to adolescents.

    Rob
    • Like broncy, only made of iron.Shameless stolen from blackadded

    • Re:Define irony (Score:5, Funny)

      by Geoffreyerffoeg ( 729040 ) on Sunday October 09, 2005 @01:59PM (#13751328)
      Heh. The Terminator just terminated terminating.

    • Re:Define irony (Score:3, Insightful)

      by iDaZe ( 721176 )
      Today, after sitting on the bill for nearly a month and constant political pressure ...

      It doesn't really look like he was too eager to sign it. Give the guy a break.

      • I didn't say that he didn't have a good reason to sign it; I just said that the basic situation was ironic.

        Rob
      • It seems he may be unfit to be a politician.

        If he did not want to sign this bill, then he should have not signed it, regardless of how much political pressure he was under. Freedom of expression for the Californian citizenry is far more important than him having to tolerate pressure from a few anti-violence extremists for a little while.

        • Re:He doesn't deserve a break. (Score:2, Informative)

          by Anonymous Coward
          If he did not want to sign this bill, then he should have not signed it, regardless of how much political pressure he was under.

          Wrong. The system of government where one man decides what the law should be, based on his own personal likes and dislikes, is called "tyranny". In the system called "democracy", the law is decided based on what the people want, and the government - as servants of the people - are required to implement and enforce the laws the people want, regardless of their own personal beliefs
    • Terminator 3: rated R
      Collateral Damage: rated R
      The 6th Day: rated PG-13
      End of Days: rated R
      Eraser: rated R
      True Lies: rated R
      Last Action Hero: PG-13
      Terminator 2: rated R
      Total Recall: rated R
      Red Heat: rated R
      Running Man: rated R
      Predator: rated R
      Raw Deal: rated R
      Commando: rated R
      Red Sonja: PG-13
      Terminator: rated R
      Conan the Destroyer: PG (this movie was practically a live-action cartoon, btw.)
      Conan the Barbarian: rated R

      So, there you have it, his history of action movies, spanning over 23 years. He's got one PG
      • You would have a point if it were illegal to sell R-rated movies to minors.

        Rob
        • It's not illegal because it's not a problem. With video games it is. Hence legislation. It keeps coming back to the games industry, and how they operate. Anyway, I don't see the difference. Both are labelled not for under the age of X, that is their fig leaf, not a law.

          • With video games it is.

            Why is that? I was able to watch R-rated stuff at 14 regardless of what my mother said, and my kids will be able to play 'adult' video games regardless of what I want. How is this a problem? The only thing I've seen so far is parents who can't be bothered to raise their kids.

            • It's not the watching or playing by minors, it's the selling to minors. You're right about the parents though. It pisses me off that parents who won't lift a finger to protect their childrens welfare, get cowtowed to for votes by politicians. Then we all get to pay for it. I wish they voted as lazily as they parented.

              • It's not the watching or playing by minors, it's the selling to minors.

                Wait, is it illegal to sell Terminator to a 17 year old?

                • Even if there is not a law, the rating is supposed to be a guide in this case. That's why everyone gets so freaked out and wants a law when the ratings aren't perceived to be working--because they are supposed to both do the same thing.

      • Re:Define irony (Score:2, Interesting)

        by poopdeville ( 841677 )
        I miss the days of violent and decadent R-rated action movies. I grew up on these things. I must have been 5 the first time I saw Predator and Die Hard. *sigh*

  • Won't someone think of the children? (Score:4, Insightful)

    by Raleel ( 30913 ) on Sunday October 09, 2005 @01:55PM (#13751308)
    Like, the parents perhaps...

  • Welcome to the jury system! (Score:5, Funny)

    by Entropius ( 188861 ) on Sunday October 09, 2005 @01:55PM (#13751310)
    They're complaining that juries give inconsistent results?

    That a jury might rule one way one time, and another way the next?

    These guys need to start submitting Slashdot stories. They're experts at old news.

  • juries on trial (Score:5, Insightful)

    by moviepig.com ( 745183 ) on Sunday October 09, 2005 @01:56PM (#13751313)
    According to the VSDA, [a game's violence] is decided] by juries, and different juries could have different opinions on what is defined as 'violent'.

    Indeed. Although we routinely use juries to decide matters of actual life or death, using them to judge video-game violence is beyond their competence...

    • Re:juries on trial (Score:3, Informative)

      by RexRhino ( 769423 )
      You are being sarcastic, but what you are saying is true.

      In a murder, there is a body. Everyone knows that a crime has been commited, it is just a matter if the person accused of the crime is guilty.

      With this, you are going to have a whole bunch of busybody housewives making subtle decisions on the content of games... something that most people who can't or don't want to get out of jury duty are not mentaly capable of doing.

    • Re:juries on trial (Score:3, Informative)

      by Galvatron ( 115029 )
      Cute, but there is a substantial difference between deciding a matter of facts (did John Smith kill his wife?) versus deciding a matter of opinion (when Mario stomps on a koopa, does that make the game violent?).

    • Re:juries on trial (Score:3, Insightful)

      by hunterx11 ( 778171 )
      Juries are supposed to enforce the law, not create it. What this law creates is a situation where it is impossible to know in advance whether or not your actions are a crime. The whole point of having "a government of laws and not of men" is that the latter is a staple of tyranny.
    • hunterx11 makes a good argument, and I'd also like to add the notion that such a bill completely undermines the validity, effectiveness, and usefulness of the ESRB, who so far are doing a pretty good job IMO. If, by law, you as a game dev can no longer rely on the ESRB to determine the appropriate rating for your game, and thus whether or not its content should be considered violent, then how can you possibly be sure you're not breaking the law in CA? You can't. It now comes down to taking the ESRB's rating
  • H0w wi11 12 y3@r 01ds be 1337 at CS if th3y @r3n'7 @110w3d t0 p14y i7?

  • Violent Games... sigh (Score:5, Funny)

    by Kickboy12 ( 913888 ) on Sunday October 09, 2005 @01:58PM (#13751318) Homepage
    That's right, violent games make violent people, and Tiger Woods PGA Tour makes professional golfers.
    • Some people's minds are warped and a game in the hands of one of them may just be the trigger. Of course that trigger could also be a book, or a toy gun or a movie/TV show.

      The "violent games don't make violent people" thing has been over a hundred times, but then fire doesn't make pyros.. they just get influenced by it. I think a study needs to be done where deranged kids are given books, movies and games and see which "screws them up the most".

      I've played violent games, read violent books and watched 18+ f

  • Last time I checked, (Score:3, Informative)

    by DJCacophony ( 832334 ) <<moc.t0gym> <ta> <akd0v>> on Sunday October 09, 2005 @01:58PM (#13751321) Homepage
    California, along with the rest of the U.S. already has a system like this in place. It's called the ESRB ratings system. M (mature)-rated games can only be sold to people 17 and older, and AO (adults only)-rated games can only be sold to 18 and older.

    http://www.esrb.org/
    • No. This is a common misconception of the ESRB rating system. The ESRB ratings are GUIDELINES only. There has never been any legal penalty attached to them, even the AO rating. Many stores had a policy of checking ID and/or refusing to sell an M rated or higher game to a minor, but there was no actual law against it.
      • Why should there be? Stores have a right to make their own policies, and parents are free to prohibit their children from shopping there if they don't like the store's policy.

  • Ignorant laws... (Score:3, Insightful)

    by macshome ( 818789 ) on Sunday October 09, 2005 @02:00PM (#13751332) Homepage
    I heard Schwarzenegger on the radio and he was saying that when he was an actor he felt that the ratings system kept kids from seeing violent content, and stating that games needed similar ratings.

    Um? Hello? You mean like the ratings system they have now? The one that is more granular that the MPAA system? With movies I get a general "R" rating. WIth games I get a breakdown of what that "M" is for, similar to the TV ratings system.

    So do the people who come up with this stuff simply not realize that there has been a game content rating system in place for YEARS now? If not, that's just woefully ignorant.

  • Ratings=good (Score:2, Insightful)

    by heiders ( 811021 )
    Since movies are rated for violence, why can't video games be? Movies don't have to make kids more violent to be controlled, but apparently games do. Same for sexual content, if you are going to put it in entertainment, expect it to be controlled.

    Parents don't want to watch every movie beforehand to see if it is suitable for their child, same goes for games. Rating is perfectly acceptable way to do it.

    For that matter, why don't people challenge movie ratings? The juries that rate movies are generally quite

    • Re:Ratings=good (Score:3, Interesting)

      by Compenguin ( 175952 )
      "For that matter, why don't people challenge movie ratings? The juries that rate movies are generally quite fair"

      I think not [wikipedia.org]

    • Re:Ratings=good (Score:3, Informative)

      by Zerathdune ( 912589 )
      But there already IS a ratings system in place, I think this obscure body known as the ESRB manages it. the criteria is pretty similar to that of movie ratings, though the reasons for a rating are actually written on the box, so that you know that, for example, Half-Life 2 is rated M for "Blood" and "Intense violence" instead of having to guess whether or not your kid is going to be seeing sexually explicit material too.

      On a practical level, I don't really care about this legislation, beacause, on a pract

    • It's not illegal to sell R-rated movies to children, and it never has been.

  • What about sexuality? (Score:4, Insightful)

    by Ignorant Aardvark ( 632408 ) <cydeweys.gmail@com> on Sunday October 09, 2005 @02:01PM (#13751338) Homepage Journal
    Does this bill only mention it being violent games that cannot be sold to minors? What about sexuality? If it doesn't mention sex - hooray! Finally a law that realizes that violence is worse than a normal human activity!

  • Like every one else ... (Score:5, Informative)

    by SuperDuG ( 134989 ) <<kt.celce> <ta> <eb>> on Sunday October 09, 2005 @02:05PM (#13751355) Homepage Journal
    This will get thrown out in court. These laws have been tried in Indiana, Missouri, and are now popping up in Illinois and California.

    The problem is, that there is already judicial precedence on the issue.

    Kendrick, Teri, et al. v. American Amusement Machine Association (docket no. 00-3643)
    Appeal: Cert. denied, Oct. 29, 2001.

    Issues: Does an Indianapolis, Ind., law against minors playing violent video games in video parlors violate the First Amendment?

    Summary: The ordinance forbids any operator of five or more video-game machines in one place to allow a minor unaccompanied by a parent, guardian, or other custodian to use "an amusement machine that is harmful to minors," requires appropriate warning signs, and requires that such machines be separated by a partition from the other machines in the location and that their viewing areas be concealed from persons who are on the other side of the partition. The U.S. Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that the ordinance does violate the rights of those under 18 years of age. Judge Posner wrote the decision.

    Decision: In denying the appeal, the U.S. Supreme Court makes no ruling on the merits of the law or the challenge to it. It merely means that the case could not get the minimum vote of four justices needed to hear the appeal. It also means that all similar laws in the jurisdiction of the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals are void under that court's ruling.
    The above is from http://fact.trib.com/1st.01.02supr.html [trib.com] ... which is the denial of appeal when the Indianapolis city government was told their law was UNCONSTITUTIONAL.

    Also check here http://www.constitutioncenter.org/education/ForEdu cators/DiscussionStarters/BanningViolentVideoGames .shtml [constitutioncenter.org]

    and here http://culturalpolicy.uchicago.edu/conf2001/papers /walsh.html [uchicago.edu]

    So this is nothing new people. Ever since the ID brought us a world where we could literally kill and watch Nazi's die (even before that really). This has been an ongoing debate.

    The one thing you MUST realize is that this is not a bill being pushed by the Right-Wing Conservative Nut Jobs (granted they aren't really all against it), this is being pushed by DEMOCRATS. You want to know who hates freedom of speech? Hillary Clinton, after the Columbine murders ordered the surgeon general to find a link between school shooting tragedies and Quake. He found no conclusive link, but that didn't stop her, Lieberman, and the rest of the gang from going hog wild trying to censor video games. I lean left politically, but you can bet your ass I don't agree with censorship.

    Do what I did, I joined the EFF http://www.eff.org/ [eff.org] and joined the ACLU http://www.aclu.org/ [aclu.org]

    • Re:Like every one else ... (Score:2, Informative)

      by Zeph ( 91283 )

      The one thing you MUST realize is that this is not a bill being pushed by the Right-Wing Conservative Nut Jobs (granted they aren't really all against it), this is being pushed by DEMOCRATS.

      Righto. It's simple to just take aim at Schwarzenegger [scatteredsheep.com], the dude is an easy target. The bill wouldn't have been signed, of course, had it not been for the passage by the legislature who put the thing on the Gubernator's desk. Instead of turning our rage or annoyance or whatnot against that fool, we would be better

    • I'm in total agreement. Except one little "nit-pick". Joining the EFF is probably the smartest move anyone can make with their campaign contribution dollars. But the ACLU? I hate to say it, but I think that group has a *lot* of people fooled. They're taking in huge amounts of yearly contributions, yet they don't seem to be able to show what they're doing with all the money. The causes they take up vs. the causes they won't pursue seem like they've got certain agendas besides just "ensuring every Ameri
      • They're taking in huge amounts of yearly contributions, yet they don't seem to be able to show what they're doing with all the money.

        It took all of five seconds on their site to find the ACLU Annual Report. [aclu.org]

        If you're a typical middle class white suburban man and you get wronged by your local police because they choose to be lazy and not do their job investigating a crime committed against you, writing to the ACLU will get you nowhere.

        Please cite references.

  • does it seem ironic and sureal that Arnold Schwarzenegger would be the one to sign this. I mean I know that he's the governor of Cali and all, but its just kinda ironic given his past roles in films.
  • ...a game is decided whether or not it is 'violent' by juries, and different juries could have different opinions on what is defined as 'violent

    So apparently they object to it because it works the same way as our judicial system, which has been in place for hundreds of years. Does the phrase, "I have a cunning plan" spring to mind?
    • Actually, I'm pretty sure the objection is based on the bill being overly broad. Since what "violence" is is not defined, game companies will be forced to err on the side of putting almost no violence in or risk losing lots of sales. Also, prosecutors will be able to shop for sympathetic juries since there is no concrete definition. The effect will be to lower the regulations to the lowest common denominator.

      This a problem with the way law and the courts work in general. The definitions they use are defined
  • When the law becomes to tyrannical, revolt is allowed.

    How about an FPS game where the hero (a videogamer) starts an armed revolt against the California government?

    Rate it at M or AO, sell it to minors, challenge the law when you're arrested.

    Hmm...

  • Hmmm.... I'll have to alter my game design a bit.. (Score:5, Funny)

    by RyanFenton ( 230700 ) on Sunday October 09, 2005 @02:14PM (#13751393)
    Hmmm.... I think I'll have to alter my game design a bit...

    Let's see, yeah - the main character will now be carrying around an arsenal of flower-based projectile seeders. Upon hitting the target, these "horticulture tools" will instantly spread a rather red blotchy flower, possibly dripping petals. People will be so enamored by these lovely blooms that they will instantly transcend their ugly everyday lives, given enough flowers, and fall to the ground in pure bliss - possibly with a soul-shattering scream of freedom.

    Some people will be driving around in horticulture-tanks, which do massive seeding. Upon sufficient counter-seeding, these tanks will celebrate the wonder of the event by launching short-range non-violent fireworks, breaking down once they are satisfied that their flowery job has been complete.

    The flowers will be everywhere - breaking down walls, flooding innocent cities, carried by massive armies of rabid horticultualist monsters. Apparantly, many people in the game world will be flower-phobic until properly administered to with a variety of area-affect flower spreaders.

    Thanks, California, for providing the perspective we need to make games imaginative, once again!

    Ryan Fenton
  • A most admirable representant of violent culture...

    Now I shall view him to be just a simple political coward.

  • The perverse part (Score:3, Insightful)

    by kilodelta ( 843627 ) on Sunday October 09, 2005 @02:24PM (#13751433) Homepage
    Unfortunately this bill misses the mark.

    I know numerous parents that buy their kids any video game they ask for, regardless if it shows sex, violence, etc. Better to do that than suffer the wrath of a pissed off pre-teen.

    The abdication of parental responsibility in the last twenty years is astounding. But I'm part of the generation that spoils its kids but fortunately have no little curtain climbers.

    If I did have kids they'd sure as hell play by my rules though.
    • So that when their kid goes and does something bad, because the kid has never been taught morals or boundires, they have someone to blame. They can scream about "The evil video games corrupting my kid's mind" and go after the developers and distributors. I'm sure the groups pushing it see it as only the first step, really they want to totally ban the production of violent games period. It's a wonderful new scapegoat. Society has problems, real problems, and there's no easy solution. However you get plenty o

  • The price of complacency (Score:3, Insightful)

    by inkswamp ( 233692 ) on Sunday October 09, 2005 @02:24PM (#13751434)
    I'm honestly not sure who to side with.

    I abhor overreaching government intrusion into these kinds of things, but the video game industry has had ample time to step up to the plate on this. This has been an issue for over five years at this point. The film and tobacco industries self-regulate to some degree in this regard. There's no reason video game companies couldn't have done the socially responsible thing and headed this kind of thing off. It still may not be too late, but when money-grubbing video game companies and their corporate parents carry on like they don't give a shit, then I find myself extremely unsympathic to reactions against this kind of legislation.

    • but the video game industry has had ample time to step up to the plate on this.

      What in the hell are you talking about? The video game industry has had fine grained rating systems in place for years. Or didn't you notice that ESRB sticker on every damn game in the store? The problem is parents that can't say no to their little horrors.

    • Whiskey. Tango. Foxtrot. (Score:5, Informative)

      by Sycraft-fu ( 314770 ) on Sunday October 09, 2005 @04:15PM (#13752031)
      Are you serious? They HAVE. Long ago.

      It's called the Entertainment Software Ratings Board, ESRB, you can find them at www.esrb.org. They are a non-profit ratings group started by the games industry to rate games. Developers submit games for ratings, the ESRB rates them based on known criteria, and then returns a rating. You may then place that rating and ONLY that rating on your game.

      It's those little stylized black and white logos. They have a letter, tilted to the left in them. They are located on the lower left or lower right of the front of the game box and are clearly visible. On the back, there's a clarification of why the game got that rating. So, go to a retailer some time, and look at the games. See how many you find that don't have an ESRB rating. My bet? You'll find none. Nearly all games are submitted for ratings (all large publishers submit all their games) and most retailers will not carry unrated games (even retailers that carry unrated movies).

      They already have a very effective regulation system in place, that is just like the one the movie industry has. The logos and ratings are trademarked so you cannot use them without the permission of the ESRB, and they only grant permission for the rating your game actually recieved (same way the MPAA does it for movies).

      So get off your high horse. The game industry has done a great job of regulating itself. If you can't control your kids and won't take the time to play the games first and see fi they are acceptable, that's not their problem. There are plenty of adult gamers out there and we don't want you telling us what we may and may not play.

      This law seems to serve no purpose other than to let bad parents lash out at retailers and distributors when they fail as parents and their kid does something wrong. HAte to break it to you but if your kid does a drive by, GTA did not make him do it, he had much deeper problems.
    • ...the video game industry has had ample time to step up to the plate on this. This has been an issue for over five years at this point...

      What exactly is the issue? Why is it an issue?

      This is exactly the kind of made-up problem that politicians waste their time on to try to gain a reputation for "doing something". It's a lot easier to pass a stupid law like this than to solve important problems.

  • It's worked so well for alcohol and tobacco too... (Score:4, Interesting)

    by agraupe ( 769778 ) on Sunday October 09, 2005 @02:26PM (#13751442) Journal
    Kids will get their hands on games the same way they get their hands on alcohol and cigarettes: by finding a store too lazy to card them, or just getting an over-18 friend to go out and buy it for them. The first option is by far the best, because word-of-mouth spreads fast among kids with a desire to purchase age-controlled products; this means that the wealth of the newly-attained business will pay for any fines the government can hand down. The second option is the fatal flaw in any situation: there will always be some older guy you know, or some uncaring 20-year-old outside the store that will do it for you.

  • The Bill's definition of Violence (Score:3, Informative)

    by Zeph ( 91283 ) on Sunday October 09, 2005 @02:27PM (#13751444)
    The VSDA, according to the headline, suggests that juries will be the sole determinant in whether or not a game is "violent". The bill [ca.gov], however, is fairly explicit in its definitions:

    (A) "Cruel" means that the player intends to virtually inflict a high degree of pain by torture or serious physical abuse of the victim in addition to killing the victim.
    (B) "Depraved" means that the player relishes the virtual killing or shows indifference to the suffering of the victim, as evidenced by torture or serious physical abuse of the victim.
    (C) "Heinous" means shockingly atrocious. For the killing depicted in a video game to be heinous, it must involve additional acts of torture or serious physical abuse of the victim as set apart from other killings.
    (D) "Serious physical abuse" means a significant or considerable amount of injury or damage to the victim's body which involves a substantial risk of death, unconsciousness, extreme physical pain, substantial disfigurement, or substantial impairment of the function of a bodily member, organ, or mental faculty. Serious physical abuse, unlike torture, does not require that the victim be conscious of the abuse at the time it is inflicted. However, the player must specifically intend the abuse apart from the killing.
    (E) "Torture" includes mental as well as physical abuse of the victim. In either case, the virtual victim must be conscious of the abuse at the time it is inflicted; and the player must specifically intend to virtually inflict severe mental or physical pain or suffering upon the victim, apart from killing the victim.
    (3) Pertinent factors in determining whether a killing depicted in a video game is especially heinous, cruel, or depraved include infliction of gratuitous violence upon the victim beyond that necessary to commit the killing, needless mutilation of the victim's body, and helplessness of the victim.

    Interesting that mental torture is included in the definition; so much for Medal of Honor: Abu Ghraib. There does seem to be a theme that simply blowing away your enemies isn't enough -- you have to relish it, go out of your way to cause extra pain to the digital victim -- "gratuitous violence upon the victim beyond that necessary to commit the killing."
    • Schwarzenegger's "True Lies" has all of A through E. Any questions?
    • "Depraved" means that the player relishes the virtual killing or shows indifference to the suffering of the victim, as evidenced by torture or serious physical abuse of the victim.

      I think Mario shows a lot of indifference to the suffering of bowser when he drops him into the fiery pit of lava below. I mean, he doesn't even look back at the victim and feel bad before looking for the princess.

      I think a fiery lava death should count as serious physical abuse. I'm going to look behind my back from now

  • Blame the nannies in the legislature for this (Score:5, Insightful)

    by John Jorsett ( 171560 ) on Sunday October 09, 2005 @02:36PM (#13751488)
    I notice that nobody is bitching about the busybodies in the California legislature who actually wrote this bill. This is just the latest in their endless campaign to make us all Better People. No soft drinks or junk food in schools, no "ethnic" team mascots or names, feng shui in the building code, requiring vending machines to sell health food, banning GMail ("we think it's an absolute invasion of privacy. It's like having a massive billboard in the middle of your home"). These are all recent bills they've considered. These people, mostly Democrats, have an absolute mania to micromanage our lives in this state, and we somehow keep electing these radical loons.
  • A jury of 15 have found that Sylvester and tweety was too violene for anyone under 18. This Came about after the parents of the 8 year old heard that their 8 year old had watched The Warner Bros cartoon at a neighbors home. They are now Sueing for an unspecified amount.
    Imagine reading that in the paper.
  • protect children and strengthen families?

    Well now we know the true cause of violence in America: Video games. What utter nonsense. America is a country that was founded on terrorism and violence. Violence in video games is just a reflection of culture not the cause of it.

    According to Yee: scientific evidence linked the playing of the games by impressionable teenagers and preteenagers to acts of violence or hostile attitudes toward girls and women.

    Most of this comes from bogus studies which basica
  • This seems competely out of sync with the movie rating system. Granted, IANAL, but it looks to me like a 17 year old is allowed to go see the latest violence packed "Terminator 15" feature film, but then isn't allowed to subsequently go across the Mall and buy the video game that was released with the movie.

    I've never understood this kind of thinking, and often wonder what rules like these are really supposed to accomplish. What do the law makers expect these laws to achieve? Do they honestly think that ass
    • [Evidently {less than sign}text means that everything after the {less than sign} doesn't show up. Here's what was supposed to have posted]

      This seems competely out of sync with the movie rating system. Granted, IANAL, but it looks to me like a 17 year old is allowed to go see the latest violence packed "Terminator 15" feature film, but then isn't allowed to subsequently go across the Mall and buy the video game that was released with the movie.

      I've never understood this kind of thinking, and often wonder wha

  • Strawman arguments against parents (Score:5, Insightful)

    by inkswamp ( 233692 ) on Sunday October 09, 2005 @04:02PM (#13751934)
    I love the logic as expressed by the average Slashdot poster (usually an AC, but not always.) You point to parents and claim that they are the ones with the responsibility and that parents shouldn't expect society to raise their child.

    Precisely! But some of you are clearly not experienced enough to know what the hell you're even talking about or how complicated that proposition gets.

    I am a parent. I don't want society raising my children. In that regard, I don't want society shoving overtly violent or sexual imagery into my childrens' faces at every turn. I want to raise my child... not society and not corporate entertainment industries (that includes video game companies.) I want to make decisions about what imagery and content is appropriate for my child. I don't need advertisers, movies and video game companies deciding what's appropriate to put out there for my children.

    So, when you say you don't think "society should raise your child," I agree.

    And if you think video game companies are all about over-the-counter game sales, then you're fooling yourself. Look around. Violent video game imagery is gradually saturating our society and I don't care to be pummelled with that at every turn. Even now, I have to keep my kids away from the video games in most movie theater lobbies because some of them are ridiculously violent--more violent than some of the crap on the movies playing there. I have to carefully watch what games are demoed at Toys-R-Us. I have to keep a close eye on what my kid sees on the covers of the game boxes.

    It's not all just parents monitoring what their kids are buying and playing. I wish that's all it was. That's the easy part. That's not what inspires this kind of legislation. If you think that's all this is about, then get outside more often. And stop griping at this strawman argument about inattentive parents you've propped up. That's not even the half of it.

  • Sigh... Why does the gov have to be parents for everyone?

    News today says that someone is starting a recall effort to get Schwartzenegger out of office [reuters.com]. I still can't believe they voted "the groper" into office. California is supposed to be so liberal and progressive, yet they put him in power.

Slashdot Top Deals

Understanding is always the understanding of a smaller problem in relation to a bigger problem. -- P.D. Ouspensky

Close