California Legislature Passes Violent Game Bill 218
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?"
How does this restrict free speech? (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
Maybe you should re-read the constitution. (Score:3, Insightful)
Perhaps a More Efficient Way... (Score:4, Insightful)
...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.
Re:How does this restrict free speech? (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
Re:How does this restrict free speech? (Score:3, Insightful)
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 .
Attack of the awful English (Score:4, Insightful)
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?"
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.
yes, it's absurd (Score:5, Insightful)
Oh, that's right, because he's a child. Is the adult/child distinction unclear to you for some reason?
Re:1st Admendment Rights lost? (Score:3, Insightful)
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 conservative appeasement to the same crowd that watched Natalee Holloway every night. I hope Arnold does not sign this, or that courts do not uphold it--but good luck with that.
Of course children ought to be protected, but the hypocrisy and inconsistency with which that protection is applied is downright baffling. I guess you can't tell voters it's their own fault.
Seems Fair. (Score:3, Insightful)
Constitution protects minors free speech as well. (Score:2, Insightful)
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 of obscenity law that deals only with sexually explicit material (a.k.a. pornography). Materials that depict of describe violence are not obscene and are therefore fully protected by the First Amendment for both minors and adults.
First Amendment? (Score:4, Insightful)
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.
Re:1st Admendment Rights lost? (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
Re:How does this restrict free speech? (Score:3, Insightful)
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 with.
Change a persons views with words , not by force.
uh... (Score:3, Insightful)
Become 18 years of age?
This is another non-issue being made into an issue on slashdot. Im surprised it wasnt posted in YRO...
Sophistry (Score:2, Insightful)
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 objectionable that purchasing or owning them is illegal, but they are far, far worse than violent video games.
Moreover, any restrictions on the first amendment that have been accepted have traditionally been required to be enforced equally. That is, if material is objectionable in one medium, it is objectionable in all media, and if it is not objectionable in one medium, it cannot be restricted in others.
This was originally important because people wanted to put restrictions on comics and movies which were not being applied to literature. The works of the Marquis de Sade and Poe were far beyond mid-50s media morality.
In this case, it is *only* violent video games which are being legally restricted, and the content in them falls far short of many movies, graphic novels, novels, records, and even graffiti. The restrictions on other media are voluntary and do not have the force of law.
The fact is, the right to a free press does imply that your potential audience will not be legally prevented from accessing your work. If the audience cannot access an author's work, that _author's_ right to freedom of speech has been abridged, not the right of the audience, you see?
The question of whether that applies to minors is obviously much more complex, but the implication must be clear.
If your over 18, why do you care? (Score:2, Insightful)
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 a little brother around 12. I've never had a problem with him playing T-rated games and such, but I forbid him from playing M-rated games. There's just no reason he should be playing those types of games.
I'm one of the biggest 1st ammendment rights pushers on the planet, and I feel even more strongly when it comes to gaming. However, some things just make sense. Mature games are made for mature people. Kids shouldn't be playing GTA and RE4.
Does the CA law impose penalties... (Score:3, Insightful)
Because IMHO that's what we really need: parents being held responsible for their piss-poor parenting.
~Philly
Re:1st Admendment Rights lost? (Score:2, Insightful)
I totally agree with what you said otherwise.
Re:Well, this will be an obvious success (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:California? (Score:3, Insightful)
Also, I find it amusing that a governor elected by a plurality believes he's more connected to public opinion than any legislative body.
Re:1st Admendment Rights lost? (Score:3, Insightful)
If it is insisted that access be restricted, surely there is some more finely grained way of going about this, is there not?
Funny banner ad... (Score:3, Insightful)
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.
Does Anyone Know What The Bill Actually Says? (Score:4, Insightful)
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.
Game sales (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:1st Admendment Rights lost? (Score:4, Insightful)
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.
Re:1st Admendment Rights lost? (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
Re:Sophistry (Score:3, Insightful)
I'm disappointed that you think only idiots believe minors should have rights but they do. Unless I'm mistaken, choosing to purchase any available good or service is an act of speech and thus should be protected by the first amendment. If we allow minors first amendment rights, they therefore also have the right to purchase whatever pleases them. I think what has really happened is that, as usual, politicians have side-stepped the Constitution to "protect the children" and passed laws that restrict the sale of pornography, for example.
It is my own belief that parents should be the final authority for what is appropriate for their child. Since the legal system recognizes that children are not fully capable until [insert arbitrary age here], parents are liable for their child's actions. Combine that with the fact that nearly all parents want the best for their child and we have a system that works well except in cases of parental neglect (and no system should be designed to cater to these people - they are the deviants that need to be punished, not the average person).
The point is, laws such as these are pointless and ineffective. In the end, they only result in the average law abiding citizen being restricted. The criminals, or at least those that have no compunction for breaking the law, will continue to engage in their activity as they always have. The mature kid that actually probably is emotionally developed enough to handle a weapon, alcohol, etc, will also obey the laws. Meanwhile the others will just get someone of age to buy their alcohol, and now their violent video games, for them.