Violent Games Bill On Tap In Florida

Gamespot is reporting that a violent games bill similar to the one recently signed into law in California is being considered in Florida. From the article: "The bill bears more than a passing resemblance to the game restriction bill California Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger recently signed into law. The language for what constitutes a 'violent video game' is identical, as are the $1,000 limit on fines resulting from breaking the law and the requirement that violent games be labeled with a 2-inch-by-2-inch sticker depicting a solid white '18' outlined in black. About the only difference between the two bills is that Diaz de la Portilla's legislation makes it illegal for violent games to be made available to minors in arcades as well as in stores."

Re:Heh.

[RingDev]

I have no problem monitoring what games on my computer my son plays (expecially since he's 2 LOL) but there are a few problems here.

1) If my child does buy something that I don't think is appropriate, I can not return it.

2) With the advent of live CDs it is possible for a minor to run a violent video game on the PC with out leaving behind any sign of it. And as much as I want to keep an eye on my child, I also need to work to provide food, clothing and a house for him.

3) If my child is mature enough to play an excessively violent video game, it is my decision as a parent to make. So why not make video games like movies, TV and magazines?

There are also some down sides. Like who makes the ratings? Who handles enforcement? How much tax money is this going to cost? Will this bill have an impact on the game development industry?

-Rick

Hey! Lookit over there!

[Red Flayer]

Since state legislators have a harder time pressing the look-over-there-it's-a-terror-alert button, they have to resort to crap like this to save their flagging support.

FTA:"The bill would likely be a welcome change of tone in publicity for Diaz de la Portilla, who has spent much of the year embroiled in an ethics scandal over his failure to comply with campaign finance laws"

Given that the bill is nearly identical to the CA bill, doesn't this just seem like a publicity stunt for de la Portilla?

"chilling effect"

[joystickgenie]

Having this sticker and not allowing the games to be placed in locations that anyone can she them does create a "chilling effect" on video games and it therefore against developers freedom of speech. Developers will feel obligated to avoid any adult content (be it violence, mature plot lines, sexual content) for multiple reasons.

First, developers are not going to feel obligated to make game to people of all ages only to avoid their game being pushed into a back room somewhere. Financially having good shelf space or location in arcades is important.

Secondly developers will avoid this content because of the legal reproductions that are possible. When the game ships it could be seen as good enough for all audiences but later in court the jury could decide otherwise. This creates a system that is subjective and open to change depending on who is deciding weather the game is only for adults or not.

Third, (this one is a little bit tin foil hat) this will allow for censorship on reasons other then violence and nudity. Because of the statement below statement this will allow games to be removed because of ideals or mentalities. For example say there is currently a war going on and a video game comes out with a strong anti government theme. Perhaps you are organizing protests against the country and using underhanded political tactics to undermine the government in order to evoke a revolt (like in the game "Republic: The Revolution"). Because the government is currently active in a controversial situation it could be seen that this game is instilling anarchy in our youth and should not be sold.

1.a. A reasonable person, considering the game as a 2 whole, would find appeals to a deviant or morbid interest of 3 minors; 4 b. Is patently offensive to prevailing standards in 5 the community concerning what is suitable for minors; and 6 c. Lacks serious literary, artistic, political, or 7 scientific value for minors;"

I'm sure many people would say that point C would ensure that that wouldn't be a problem but it's not hard to say something doesn't have a "scientific value" literary, artistically, or politically when the ideals given are controversial.

"The principle of free thought is not free thought for those who agree with us but freedom for the thought we hate." US Supreme Court Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes in United States v. Schwimmer (1929).

Re:Heh.

[(A)*(B)!0_-]

"If so, that would mean that the government would have to pay for our cost of living as I no longer have a job. So yes, we would protect the rights of minors so that they could buy cigarettes at the cost of a huge percentage of our work force."

The government does not owe you the cost of living. You can make a choice to raise your child correctly so that he wouldn't go out and buy cigarettes as soon as you are not there and maintain your job employment or you can take the extreme route you propose. Based on your opinion, I'd say that it's pretty obvious you were raised by a parent who, instead of teaching you what's right and wrong, stood over you and forced your hand at every instance. Not everyone was raised this way and, unlike you who in the abscence of a parent 24/7, wants the government to serve that role.

"The government says you can not sell Playboy to a minor. The content of playboy is no worse then anything you'd see in an R-rated movie today (due to the rating association lowering standards and bowing down to big budget movie makers). The problem is not that the government does prevent the sale of R-rated material to minors. The problem is that a corporate entity has altered the ratings system to maximize profits."

Way to shift the argument!

Why do you believe government intervention is needed here? Any laws preventing minors from accessing games or movies would be state-wide - hardly representative of community standards. There is no reason for government involvement here. Raising children is not easy but it is much more valuable to raise a child who can make decisions on his own rather than having the government preventing the child from making "the wrong decision" on his own.

You sound like you're very needy and expect everyone else to take care of you. I feel sorry for you, Rick.