Please create an account to participate in the Slashdot moderation system

 


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

Proposed CA Laws to Reclassify Violent Video Games 62

Posted by CowboyNeal from the early-witchhunt-stages dept.
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.
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Proposed CA Laws to Reclassify Violent Video Games More

Proposed CA Laws to Reclassify Violent Video Games

Comments Filter:

  • Good. (Score:5, Interesting)

    by HRbnjR ( 12398 ) <chris@hubick.com> on Thursday April 08, 2004 @10:24PM (#8811525) Homepage
    Personally, I think this is a FANTASTIC idea.

    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)

      by AvantLegion ( 595806 ) on Thursday April 08, 2004 @11:25PM (#8811958) Journal
      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.

      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)

      by BW_Nuprin ( 633386 )
      I agree. I too am an adult, and although I'm not particularly a fan of violent video games, I would like to see the industry get the protection it needs from parents complaining about kids buying violent games. That, and with mature games being off seperately, the portion of the industry that chooses to make ultra violent realistic games can continue to do as they wish, and the rest of us can make games that are less realistic (although not necessarily less violent) and have the shelves ALL TO OURSELVES.

      O

    • Re:Bad. (Score:3, Insightful)

      by PerpetualMotion ( 550623 )
      First, no publisher is going to put out two versions of a 5 disk game because some state legislates a back room violent section. If anything, they would put out two versions and supply the diffrent versions to diffrent areas (ie: no blood version to Germany, California, regular version everywhere else). Without an internet tax, the state will lose money as people buy from EB online.

      Second, stores like Walmart, Target, and other wide-variety stores would just stop carrying anything they couldn't show to

  • Can't we just get over this already? (Score:3, Interesting)

    by Ieshan ( 409693 ) <ieshan@@@gmail...com> on Thursday April 08, 2004 @10:25PM (#8811533) Homepage Journal
    Okay. Porn is "bad". Your children might see it, but you're not going to spend money on it for them.

    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.

  • not all games are intended for kids (Score:3, Insightful)

    by XO ( 250276 ) <blade.ericNO@SPAMgmail.com> on Thursday April 08, 2004 @10:30PM (#8811579) Homepage Journal
    this shouldn't be a LAW.

    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.
    • But you're talking about common sense versus commerce. Retailers don't really WANT to display M-rated games separately from the rest of their selection because the displays are intended to sell product to anyone willing to put up the cash. While some retailers are starting to do sales restrictions on M-rated material (requiring ID before selling to the young), none would have a problem selling an M-rated game to a mother or father giving in to the begging of their child who just saw the game in the displa

  • Living here's worth it (Score:3, Insightful)

    by WTFmonkey ( 652603 ) on Thursday April 08, 2004 @10:34PM (#8811620)
    If it weren't for the weather, the beaches, the girls, the parties, and the fact that my car is old enough to not need a smog check, I'd consider moving. San Diego's an awesome place to live, but sometimes this state really pisses me off. Did you know there are beaches around here that you can't even drink on anymore? I live in Ocean Beach, and you can still drink on the beach here, but no kegs! If you're courteous, the cops are more forgiving than you'd expect, but that's not the point... And cost of living, don't even get me started! Median house-price around here is like $650,000. I got lucky and am marrying into home-ownership, but Good Lawd, dassa lotta money!

    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)

    by superpulpsicle ( 533373 ) on Thursday April 08, 2004 @10:38PM (#8811647)
    What the hell is wrong with the U.S.

    - 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.
    • Actually, I think rap music was taking the hit in the 90's. Maybe D&D in the 80's.
    • 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. ... and then video games again in the '00s. Ever feel like this society is regressing?

      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
      • How long before the moderates speak out against this assault? How long before they act?

        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
    • Comment removed based on user account deletion

  • Woohoo (Score:5, Funny)

    by elasticwings ( 758452 ) on Thursday April 08, 2004 @10:48PM (#8811718)
    This idea is kickass. Then you could go to the porn store and pick up a movie and a violent game at one time. Then if your girl sees a reciept on your table for the porn store; you can say, "I just bought a game. I swear!"

  • Hmmmm...This will work how??? (Score:3, Insightful)

    by Anonymous Coward on Thursday April 08, 2004 @10:49PM (#8811719)
    Prohibithion does not work. Especially when we are dealing with digital products in an era with P2P networks, email, various other things and even sneakernet connections. Legislation to rate games which are unfit for the tech savy youngsters will only serve to save them some time in choosing the really hot titles.

    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)

    by Anonymous Coward on Thursday April 08, 2004 @10:52PM (#8811735)
    I believe that Gov. Schwarzenegger will veto it for these reasons:

    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)

    by lightspawn ( 155347 ) on Thursday April 08, 2004 @10:56PM (#8811768) Homepage
    Why not do the same for books and movies too?

    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)

    by warmgun ( 669556 ) on Thursday April 08, 2004 @11:07PM (#8811852)
    How is a violent videogame any worse than Mel Gibson's The Passion of the Christ? Christ getting whipped and crucified was much more graphic and mind warping than shooting a lizard man in the head with a rifle. To specifically target violent videogames, as opposed to violent movies, seems hypocritical to me. Why not make a special R-rated section at Blockbuster so little Billy doesn't accidentally see the cover to Die Hard and become horribly scarred for life? They're already supposed to card people for buying M-rated games. Why not enforce that before doing anything more extreme?
    • How is a violent videogame any worse than Mel Gibson's The Passion of the Christ? Christ getting whipped and crucified was much more graphic and mind warping than shooting a lizard man in the head with a rifle.

      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

      • I'm not turning it into a religious issue by bringing in the Passion. I consider the Passion a violent movie rather than a religious movie, and it seems that most people see it the other way around. What I meant is that movies in general seem to be allowed more leeway in the violence thay can show. I would think that seeing Christ crucified in the Passion, a woman getting decapitated by an elevator in Final Destination 2, and 88 people getting dismembered in Kill Bill would be just as psychologically da
        • I misunderstood. I completely agree with your main point then--it's nuts how video games are targeted more so than movies.

          I suppose it's because games are interactive, but that's just thinking with the limited imagination of adults.

          • Many adults watch movies and don't play video games.

            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.
    • The obvious solution is that someone should make a video game version of The Passion that's just as violent as the movie to get this point across. I'm sure the parents complaining would love that.

  • Uh, what? (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Pluvius ( 734915 ) <pluvius3@gmai[ ]om ['l.c' in gap]> on Thursday April 08, 2004 @11:25PM (#8811963) Journal
    I'm not going to bother explaining why this legislation is stupid because it's already been done before. I just noticed this, though:

    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
    • 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.

      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)

      • I'm sure that's what it's intended to do, but it still looks really stupid. That's not even mentioning the fact that it would also exclude all sorts of other games, including frigging Mortal Kombat, which was the target of a censorship jihad a decade ago and would definitely run afoul of the whole "human victim of a heinous attack" thing that this law is against.

        Goddamn, legislators are dumb.

        Rob

  • My thoughts... (Score:3, Insightful)

    by josh glaser ( 748297 ) on Friday April 09, 2004 @01:06AM (#8812583)
    ...it's pretty stupid. I'm tired of seeing politicians freak out about videogames because they don't understand them, while ignoring, say, movies. I think games should be treated like movies, not worse because...because...? I mean, a seperate section for AO (the equivalent of X or NC-17) games would make sense (we haven't seen one of those since the 3D0). But for a game that is rated M (supposed to be equivalent to R, personally, I think that in many cases is kinda between PG-13 and R)? Is there a seperate section of the store for R-rated movies? Sheesh, next we're going to see Wal-mart refuse to sell M rated games because they're supposedly worse than the goriest R-rated movies.
    • On a related note... Walmart will not sell music with the Parental Advisory sticker, yet they sell guns and R rated movies. I wouldn't be surprised if they stopped selling M rated games.
    • Ever looked in a Wal-Mart games section? I did, once, just out of curiosity, and there weren't any M games. I would be willing to bet that they treat them like they treat Parental-Advisory albums-they refuse to sell them. Definitely wrong because they don't seem to have any problem selling R-rated movies.
      • Maybe this one is just wierd, but the Walmart I usuly go to (not much choice, I live in the sticks) has several copies of GTA3 and Vice City, MOH:AA, the Half-Life Platinum collection, etc., etc.

        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.
      • Actually, Wal-Mart still sells the M-Rated games. I actually like the way they handle it. When an M-Rated game or R-Rated movie is scanned at the register, the register stops and asks for confirmation of whether or not the customer is 17 years of age or older, just like they would require proof of being 18 or 21 to buy cigarettes or alcohol respectively. It's up to the cashier to check the customer's ID. If they just press the "Yes" key on the register without checking, well, that's the cashier's fault, and
  • Ok, honestly, it's not like the covers of violent games have like giant dicks or something on them. Instead of making a solution to mask the problem, lets fix the problem. Let's crack down on people who should be ID'ing but aren't. Let's get parents to *gasp* teach kids between make believe and real so that if they should get a hold of the game they will understand it's fake.
  • And place violent games seperately from other games on BitTorrent networks as well.
    Wait, you mean that's illegal?
  • This law is not being put into place to restrict the sales of M-rated games, it is simply to make them well marked. This raises the awareness to conscious parents allowing them to make more educated choices to what to allow their kids to play.

    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
  • According politicians and government who are trying to shove the public the idea that R rated games are "murder simulators" a M rated game is worst than a R rated movie, why? because you are causing not just watching the violence.

    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
  • Being treated like perverts... (and for buying quake and half life no less), if being labelled as "antisocial geek" wasnt enough.

    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?
  • I mean it is effective in its intention to suppress the kind of speech it is aimed at. It can destroy commercial speech, and strangle ideas in the crib.

    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

  • This is complete and utter stupidity on so many levels. Those who say "it's to better mark the games" are full of shit, or they don't know what they're talking about. I'm 14, and my mom KNOWS what M-rated means. Can't get it past her. That being said, I do have GTA3/VC and several other violent games. Do I wanna go out and whack people? NO! I think anyone who says that 12-year-olds and older can't tell the difference between games and reality has their head up their ass. In a way, I think these peop
  • The IGDA is not a "trade body." It's a non-profit organization that seeks to bolster the digital/computer game development community, deal with issues related to game development, and sometimes mediate inter-industry beef.

Slashdot Top Deals

Elliptic paraboloids for sale.

Close