Follow Slashdot stories on Twitter

 


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

CA Violent Games Bill Comes Under Fire 69

Posted by Zonk from the put-the-man-up-against-the-wall dept.
Gamespot is reporting that the VSDA and the ESA have filed a suit against the California governor in response to the passing of that state's violent games bill. From the article: "The complaint alleges that the new law violates the First Amendment by restricting access to games 'based solely on their expressive content' and unconstitutionally compels speech by manufacturers, distributors, importers, and retailers by requiring them to label violent games with a 2-by-2-inch sticker of a solid white '18' outlined in black."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

CA Violent Games Bill Comes Under Fire More

CA Violent Games Bill Comes Under Fire

Comments Filter:

  • Source? (Score:3, Interesting)

    by HunterZ ( 20035 ) on Tuesday October 18, 2005 @04:19PM (#13820312) Journal
    The article doesn't cite any sources. I guess gamespot got a copy of the "complaint"? I'd like to know more about the "numerous precedents of video games being qualified as free speech in other circuit courts and states" (quoted from TFA).

    • Re:Source? (Score:4, Informative)

      by JasonKChapman ( 842766 ) on Tuesday October 18, 2005 @04:38PM (#13820593) Homepage
      I'd like to know more about the "numerous precedents of video games being qualified as free speech in other circuit courts and states" (quoted from TFA).

      Here's one example (via Gamespot): Washington state [gamespot.com]

      Judge Robert Lasnik of the US District Court in Seattle ruled the law [HB1009] unconstitutional under the First Amendment's protection of freedom of speech.

  • Sex and Violence are not the only things (Score:3, Interesting)

    by linzeal ( 197905 ) on Tuesday October 18, 2005 @04:23PM (#13820358) Journal
    What if you are a parent who does not want his kids renting Christian video games [amazon.com]? Why are they only protecting kids from becoming violent and sexually active when some parents worry more about their children becoming part of a religion that typically distances themselves from non-believing family memebers?

    • Re:Sex and Violence are not the only things (Score:4, Interesting)

      by The Snowman ( 116231 ) * on Tuesday October 18, 2005 @04:40PM (#13820614)

      As a parent, I am more concerned about my child joining a religion and wasting hours of his life in a church each day like some people here in the Bible Belt do. Sex and violence are more fun than church. I would rather my son do what I did when I was young: run around beating up/getting beaten up by his siblings, or getting drunk and laid once he's old enough. That is more fun than church, and teaches real world lessons such as how to fight, which whiskeys taste good and which ones hurt the morning after, etc.

      The real issue is why the government needs to hold children's hands when their parents or legal guardians should be? I'll be damned if I will let my child buy video games, DVDs, Playboys, etc. on his own. Sure, I'll expose him to some adult material to acclimate him so he doesn't go nuts on his 18 and 21 birthdays, but it is my job as Dad to make sure he does what he is supposed to. I don't want the government trying to do my job for me.

    • Are you kidding? I remember reading about a few PC games of distinctly christian slant and my observations were staggering. Either the games were rather deluded (I don't just mean that from a non-christian perspective. I asked for opinions from some rather devout believers) or horrifically violent. There are a few christian games that are actually pretty good out there, but a lot of them are relatively offensive on more than one level.

      As far as protecting kids from them, (while this isn't the ultimate law,

    • kids renting Christian video games

      That got me thinking, as a devout athiest, I don't want my son dragged into some waste of time religion, preying to a god that doesn't exist, asking him to solve problems that he's too lazy to go out and solve himself.

      Why doesn't somebody pass a law requiring them to shrink wrap and label everything with religious themes as containing such before distribution (think of all those shrink wrapped copies of the bible and that crap the JWs hand out on weekends as well as mo

      • I agree. I'm tired of seeing books at the library, flipping tem over, reading the back, and then seeing that little white dove on the spine. Then I read the back again, and catch the subtle references to 'the power of light' or something dumb.
        Stop trying to convert people!! It's not cool! If you want people to listen to you, just be honest about what you believe, don't hide subliminal messages abut a big white god with a big white beard in our children's books.

        I'm so sick of being told I'm going to hell.
      • Although there is a reversal of subject and object, I think your typo 'preying' is rather appropriate. Freudian slip...:)
    • What if you are a parent who does not want his kids renting Christian video games? Why are they only protecting kids from becoming violent and sexually active when some parents worry more about their children becoming part of a religion that typically distances themselves from non-believing family memebers?

      Your thinking of a particular sects of technically non-christians that like to call themselves christian (the Jehova's witnesses). Most mainline branches of christianity liek Catholosism, Baptists ect..
      • Um, this is one of the first generations where we have seen athiests and other non-believers have their children become Christian in large numbers. IMHE, the born again and first generation Christians in my family especially do not associate their children with known marijuana smokers in our family even if they are PhD scientists. One of my first generation Christian cousins during Christmas a few years back called the cops on her 14 year old Nephew for smoking a joint outside his own house. It seems the
        • Um, this is one of the first generations where we have seen athiests and other non-believers have their children become Christian in large numbers. IMHE, the born again and first generation Christians in my family especially do not associate their children with known marijuana smokers in our family even if they are PhD scientists. One of my first generation Christian cousins during Christmas a few years back called the cops on her 14 year old Nephew for smoking a joint outside his own house. It seems they b
    • Now I would like to play the adult version of the bible game. I mean seriously get into some of the more interesting parts of that book and we could probably make a nice AO game based on the bible. Actually I would love to see that. Just think how crazy the christian right would get when they saw their precious book depicted for what it really is...

      You know we can have a mini-game for stoning people...see how much money you make selling your daughter into slavery...kill every first born in egypt to fre
  • A) How does barring minors from such games violate free speech? Last I saw free speech just allowed me to say whatever I wanted, not do whatever I wanted. B) I don't see anybody complaining about the fact that minors aren't allowed int an R[+] rated movie. In my mind games kind of fall under the same category.
    • Minors not being allowed to see R rated movies is a voluntary, industry imposed restriction, not a law. Therein lies the difference.

    • A) How does barring minors from such games violate free speech? Last I saw free speech just allowed me to say whatever I wanted, not do whatever I wanted. B) I don't see anybody complaining about the fact that minors aren't allowed int an R[+] rated movie. In my mind games kind of fall under the same category.

      I could be wrong, but I'm fairly certain that the MPAA's R rating restriction is a voluntary, industry-executed policy, not law. In fact, it was developed specifically to keep lawmakers from creatin

      • Oooohh... my bad. I'd always thought that movie ratings were law enforced.
        • Common mistake. I thought the same thing until these bills started popping up.
          I think the fact that most people think the same thing is why they can pass laws like this ("Hey, if movies have to follow these rules, shouldn't games?").

  • ...that requiring a sticker warning people of vulgarity, sexual content, violence and/or other 'adult' themes a violation of any amendment? I for one appreciate the warnings, because I would lament if I were to give a 10-year old child a game with an unassuming name that is filled with all of the above.
    • Because having the government decide what speech is vulgar, overly sexual, or overly violent is a violation of free speech. If the government can decide what speech is "bad" and how it can be sold, it can control it.
    • Because the goverment decideds who gets the sticker and who doesn't, and then tells the stickers who they can and can't sell to.

      *thank you and good night*
    • ummm this isn't just a sticker. The law creates provisions for fining individuals selling these games to minors. Hence making this violation tantemount to selling alcohol or tobacco to a minor. If it were just a sticker I am sure there would be a bit less hoopla about it because it would be more like those Parental Advisory stickers on CDs.

      By crossing the line and creating a fine, the state is imposing a restriction on what individuals can lawfully read, play, see, etc. This is a violation of the 1st

  • and movies have stickers too... (Score:3, Interesting)

    by advocate_one ( 662832 ) on Tuesday October 18, 2005 @04:44PM (#13820657)
    don't hear them complaining about the ratings... they just cut the film to get in under the particular age rating they're going for... even going as far as shooting different scenes several times with different states of dress for different markets... so if they can cope with the ratings, why should games be any different???
    • Again, the difference is that the movie industry ratings are voluntary and industry imposed, not government regulated. The gaming industry already has this structure in the ESRB, and no one is complaining about those ratings being applied to games. The problem is vaugly worded laws imposing the ratings.

    • Re:and movies have stickers too... (Score:5, Insightful)

      by Toddarooski ( 12363 ) on Tuesday October 18, 2005 @07:31PM (#13822427)
      How well do you think these movie makers would cope if 50 different states had 50 different vaguely-worded laws about what consituted a PG-13 rating, and what constituted an R rating? (That's even assuming all 50 states decide to have a PG-13 rating and an R rating.) 'Cuz that's where this California law is headed.

      Movies aren't complaining because they already have a single, voluntary, self-imposed regulatory systems that labels a movie for content nationwide. Just like games do. So, as you said, why should games by any different?
  • What I can gather from the synopsis (as I am firewalled from most gaming sites at work) is that either they're pissed because anybody should be able to buy the games, or they're pissed because there's going to be a sticker blocking their free speech on the front of the package?

    Now, either way, this is bull. For the first argument, most stores have an internal policy to not allow minors to buy/rent most R rated movies. The only thing that would change is that these policies would be constantly and lawfully

    • I would expect the sticker to be on the cover art... that way, the rating remains in place for the secondhand games market.
    • They're complaining about the fact that a board of people will determine the subjective nature of the content regardless of the ESRB rating and use their determination to decide what titles will carry California's '18' sticker.

      These people will certainly not be gamers. They won't sit there and play the games all the way thru to determine the content. They'll base their decisions on FUD(Jack Thompson's insane ranting).

      Movies and Music have a rating standard across the nation. What's rated R in Kansas is R
  • It's just the "nanny state" stepping in to do the job parents should be doing. Granted, judging by the quality of children I see nowadays, parents aren't doing a very good job. However, I don't step in to parent my neighbors kids unless there's child abuse. So why should the govt. be entitled to "parent"?

    What they should legislate is that parents are responsible for their children, i.e. if a kid is caught breaking the law the parent should also be held accountable. Of course I also believe each person i
  • This is basically the same thing that happened back in the day when they put the parental advisory stickers on cd's. It helped for about a year and now no one really cares that much anymore. Basically to me the only people that are against this are people under the age of 18. And if you think its infringing on freedom of speech my question is how? They aren't saying the stores can't sell the games. And anyone younger than 18 is not qualified to vote therefore do not recieve the full benefits of the bill of

  • How odd ... (Score:1, Insightful)

    by Anonymous Coward
    A man who has made some of the most violent movies of our time (and makes a fortune marketing them to children) becomes governor of california and produces legislation against companies that produce violent videogames and market them to children; I believe we have a word for this that begins with Hippo

  • So their case is that video game violence and sex should be protected by the first amendment (presumably the freedom of speech bit)

    I assume there are laws, other than the first amendment, that restrict access to sexual movies to adults.

    The big question is, why do these same laws not apply to the gaming industry? Of course you have the right to file a suit against this, but I give them a very slim chance.

    Since every culture has a slightly different view which 'content' is appropriate at what age, I sa

    • > I assume there are laws, other than the first amendment, that restrict access to sexual movies to adults.
      >
      Don't assume, look it up. I think you will be surprised.
  • In the UK all the games ratings that are done by the BBFC (Half-Life 2, Doom 3, Manhunt are the ones that spring to mind) are enforced by law. Does this stop me walking into a shop and buying a game that is rated too high for me? No. I have got games that I should be too young to buy, and I know that several other people I know do it as well. Quite a few parents are even happy to help out if the shops won't see games to minors.

    Since not all games are violent enough to earn a rating by the BBFC that also
  • Children have the right to not be abused, and the right to a state funded education. They do not have the right to vote, or the freedom of speech for that matter.
    • Children may not have the right to freedom of speech, but I do.

    • or the freedom of speech for that matter.

      Why the fuck not? It's not like a child mouthing off is going to bring down the world.
      • ...It's not like a child mouthing off is going to bring down the world.

        I didn't say that it would. Children do not have the right to vote, so it follows that they have no say in how they get censored. So the First Amendment/Free Speech does not apply in this argument about video games being censored for the sake of children. As a matter of fact there are laws that censor and restrict children's rights already in place.

        The Child Online Privacy Protection Act (COPPA) is a good example, which is supposed t
        • Children do not have the right to vote, so it follows that they have no say in how they get censored.

          No it doesn't Animals can't vote but they have rights too. The child's right to free speech is just that, it isn't a right to watch porno. (Though I've never heard about the ancient Romans compaling because they were involved in orgies as children).
    • From the ACLU

      Yes. In 1969 in Tinker v. Des Moines Independent Community School District the Supreme Court held that students in public schools - which are run by the government - do not leave their First Amendment rights at the schoolhouse gate. This means that you can express your opinions orally and in writing - in leaflets or on buttons, armbands or T-shirts.

      You have a right to express your opinions as long as you do so in a way that doesn't "materially and substantially" disrupt classes or other school
      • You'll have to excuse me for starting a flamewar. I don't mean to disagree with you. My original point though, since I did not state it clearly to begin with... Children's actions are censored every day, because someone decides for them what is right and wrong. Which means an adult has to exercise that right for them. Children don't hold any exclusive rights or freedoms because there has to be a guardian responsible. Like I said before, they have the right to not be abused (or the right to a responsib
  • What is so wrong with this? Every time you go to buy/hire/see a movie you fall under the same or similar classification scheme. Nobody has complained about it and it's worked reasonably well as a guide for as many years as I can remember. Movies with extreme graphic violence, sex, drug taking or a myriad of other things deemed unsuitable for immature audiences are rated M15+ or R18+ and kids aren't allowed to see them.

    How is it a breach of First Amendment rights to free speech and unconstitutional? The
    • Movies with extreme graphic violence, sex, drug taking or a myriad of other things deemed unsuitable for immature audiences are rated M15+ or R18+ and kids aren't allowed to see them.

      How is it a breach of First Amendment rights to free speech and unconstitutional?

      Because the MPAA ratings are not enforced by law. Whether a theater decides to admit a minor to an R-rated movie without the accompanyment of an adult is up to the theater.

      How many times in this thread does this have to be pointed out? It's not l
    • The recent banning of GTA San Andreas was a breach of those rights (even though it was subsequently allowed to be re-released with a warning on the box).

      Who banned GTA:SA and when?

  • What the mainstream hears (Score:3, Interesting)

    by Phantasmo ( 586700 ) on Tuesday October 18, 2005 @08:53PM (#13823030)
    I was just watching Anderson Cooper, and they were doing an "exclusive" on Blitz: The League [blitzleague.com]. It's an M-rated football game. Why on earth is this newsworthy? Because it gives them an excuse to interview Jack Thompson.
    He spoke at length about how stores like EB will happily sell M-rated games to any kid that has the money. This "fact" was not challenged by anybody on the show. None of the controversies surrounding Thompson were mentioned. Now, I can't quote any studies but I can remember EB employees telling 14-year-olds to come back with their parent or guardian... in the Pre-Hot Coffee Era!
    What does this mean? Well, the Slashdot and Penny Arcade readers may know both sides of this issue, but the other 99.98% of North Americans get the CNN version. That includes lawmakers.
    In the long run I guess I'll be expected to pass some sort of psychological test and register my purchase with the government before being allowed to buy something like Metroid Prime 3.
    • Not only that, did you hear what some of his reasonings(Jack's) were for the game's content?

      Gabe mentioned this on Penny-Arcade last night and he puts it better than I could, but Jack is trying to say that since the NFL won't allow its name to be used, it *MUST* be bad. Which we all know is a flat-out lie.
  • Are the lawyers just more proactive in California, or is the law bent towards the ability to sue immediately after a law is passed? I sort of thought you had to wait until someone is charged under the law, then defend them and take the case as high as you can- or perhaps that's just the way to do it and actually succeed, because you can show real damages?
  • And more importantly, surely the "18" sticker should only be applied to games rated AO (which are reccomended for ages 18+) rather than all violent games (including M and T rated ones)? With the vague wording of the law, it's no wonder this is turning into a farce.
    • It would be nice to pretend that's what's going to happen, but it's not.

      The board that's going to determine whether or not a game gets the "18" sticker doesn't have to use the ESRB ratings. They can be as subjective as they want and listen to third-party nonsense(Jack Thompson) and put the "18" sticker on anything. Like The Sims2. It's rated T by the ESRB. People like Jack want the "18" sticker on it.

Slashdot Top Deals

The use of money is all the advantage there is to having money. -- B. Franklin

Close