Dissecting U.S. Violent Game Bills

Many reactions to last week's violent games bill. Primotech writes "I first heard of California's AB1179 late Friday night. Like most others, who simply shrugged the bill off as inconsequential, my first thought was strikingly indifferent. Beyond the perfunctory glance, however, it becomes evident that this bill brings into focus and, more importantly, actually probes some of the more serious issues facing the industry. Above all else, examining and dissecting the proposal reveals some truly frightening facts." Relatedly, Shodan writes "Hal Halpin, the President of IEMA, today issued a statement in response to California Assembly Bill 1179, which is on the floor to address the issue of violent videogames." Other states are taking their lead from Illinois and California. KymBuchanan writes "I'm sad to say my state is on the bandwagon, and the charge is being lead by Democrats. From the article: 'Michigan Governor Jennifer M. Granholm has announced that she will sign legislation later this week that will make the sale or rental of mature or adult-rated video games to children illegal ... The fine for anyone caught selling a "violent title" ( apparently defined by the bill as real or simulated graphic depictions of physical injuries or physical violence against parties who realistically appear to be human beings) to minors will initially be $5,000, and can go as high as $40,000 ...'"

Call the governor's office

[Anonymous Coward]

California governor's office 1 [phone]. While the bill might be ruled unconstitutional, it's better it not get signed into law in the first place.

we're talking minors here

[farble1670]

i know this is going to draw a lot of flames, but i want to ask this seriously ... in american society, the rights of minors are restricted (by the state) in all sorts of ways. they cannot buy alcohol, they cannot buy porn, they cannot purchase cigarettes, they are required to attend school, they cannot work under 16 years of age (or whatever it is), they cannot purchase tickets for certain movies, etc.

it seems to me, all of this is about giving parents the right to choose for their minor children ... which seems consistent with most other laws. for some reason, i don't find this particularly troubling. if i want my child to have access to a violent game, then i purchase it for them. i am okay with allowing other parents to choose as they see fit.

i understand the argument that it's the parent's job to police such things, that is unfairly punishes non-internet retailers, etc. that makes sense. but i don't see this as some first step on a slipperly slope to complete governement control of the media.

i suppose the closest analogy is movies. movies have ratings and are restricted to minors on the basis of the level of "adult" content. it's hard to argue that the same rules should be applied to video games, when the precedent exists for movies.

Re:Free Market versus Black Market: Nanny State

[Jim_Callahan]

Either that or they're GOOD parents. I had a couple of those once, it was cool. And my mother complains that "people who buy their kids violent stuff and then complain about it" are idiots, and she does so on a fairly regular basis, so I'm pretty sure I'm not misinterpreting her comments. After spending a decade of her life organizing volunteer work at elementary schools, I assume she knows what she's talking about.

So, sorry, the ad-hominem attack is not only irrelevant but incorrect. Your other point seems solid enough from the little i know of the industry, and saying that any bill is a bad bill is usually a fairly good bet, though, so I'll give you a B- for a solid effort overall.