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?"
Restrict the sale to children? (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Restrict the sale to children? (Score:2, Informative)
Restrict (the sale to children)
not:
(Restrict the sale) to childern
(I get the joke, I'm just saying the grammar gets a C+, not a D-)
Re:Restrict the sale to children? (Score:2)
Except children in Illinois.
Re:Restrict the sale to children? (Score:2, Interesting)
Re:Restrict the sale to children? (Score:2)
Re:Restrict the sale to children? (Score:3, Funny)
It says that only Illinois children can buy violent video games.
Re:Restrict the sale to children? (Score:2)
Sounds like another Slashdot meme:
-or-
-or-
1st Admendment Rights lost? (Score:3, Interesting)
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: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.
...unless we're 12... (Score:3, Funny)
This is Slashdot, right?
Re:1st Admendment Rights lost? (Score:2, Insightful)
I totally agree with what you said otherwise.
Re:1st Admendment Rights lost? (Score:2, Interesting)
Oddly enough, I don't recall seeing an "obscenity" exception in the text of the First Amendment. Yes, the government has decided that it has such power, but such decision to exclude "obscene" material is in no way supported by the First Amendment.
Re:1st Amendment Rights lost? (Score:2, Informative)
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:3, Interesting)
Just because you want to sit on your hands and treat him like a knowledgable adult, doesn't mean that you have the right to make other people suffer at your ignorance. Ever hear the saying, "If only I knew then what I know now." That's what it's about. G
Re:1st Admendment Rights lost? (Score:2)
Your kid watches TV that desensitizes him to violence everyday, but where is MY re-course when your kid goes and kills my kid (who got his frustrations out online in a game of CS)?
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:yes, it's absurd (Score:2)
Re:yes, it's absurd (Score:2)
Multimedia can be just as dangerous as guns, drugs or alcohol though. You'll realise this when your favourite religious extremist is down your local primary school handing out 'god hates fags' literature.
Re:yes, it's absurd (Score:2)
Re:yes, it's absurd (Score:3, Informative)
If you need an explanation for this, you're either trolling, making a joke or need to get your head examined.
We have enough problems on the roads currently with supposedly mature, otherwise-sensible grown adults who drive stupidly, drive drunk, drive without insurance or in unfit vehicles, and your solution is what, to open up driving to people even less mature and sensible?
And that's leaving aside the implications of putting half a ton o
Re:1st Admendment Rights lost? (Score:2)
>> only adults can have and rights that everyone can
>> have?
I know. Every child should be allowed to own a gun, too. Get with the times.
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 conserv
Re:1st Admendment Rights lost? (Score:2)
You're either joking or you're a NAMBLA member/supporter. I honestly can't tell which...
Re:1st Admendment Rights lost? (Score:2)
Umm, I think you mean "Society IN THE USA has decided.."
The age of consent varies dramatically in other countries. Of course, these countries don't go into a tizzy when a nipple gets shown on television, either.
Re:1st Admendment Rights lost? (Score:2)
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?
California? (Score:4, Interesting)
Re:California? (Score:3, Funny)
That's because all of the intelligent people in California have sold their homes to people stupid enough to pay obscene prices and have moved the hell out of there before the whole state implodes upon itself.
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:California? (Score:2)
You're talking about California, where everything down to the brunch menu at the Governor's Mansion is decided by ballot measure?
Not the populace but the legislature (Score:2)
The legislature is largely to blame not the populace. The California legislature is largely out of control, it has been so for many years, it's nearly impossible to vote out an incumbant.
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.
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
Re:How does this restrict free speech? (Score:2)
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 w
Re: (Score:2)
Re:How does this restrict free speech? (Score:2)
Re:How does this restrict free speech? (Score:2)
The reason? Ok, let's say I don't want my kids playing violent video games, which is probably a fair thing to say of the majority of parents in the US, given who they voted into Office (the "moral" candidate). There are 8 hours a day during which I have absolutely zero control over m
Re:How does this restrict free speech? (Score:2)
What really rubs me the wrong way about it was that I was 16 when I had my first car and my first job. My dad trusted me with the car. I earned that trust. He didn't have a problem with me playing Mortal Kombat, either. Why? I was a good kid. (i.e. I never got into fights or anything like that.)
I had the means to get the game, I even had the trust of
Re:How does this restrict free speech? (Score:2)
As interesting as this argument is, it's a bit of a stretch to call this scenario a restriction on free speech. A restriction on "free parenting" (whatever that means), perhaps, but not free speech.
Re:How does this restrict free speech? (Score:2)
I don't think this is a rights issue. Being in the minority always has disadvantages associate
Re:How does this restrict free speech? (Score:2)
Frankly, I can respect that. I think it's fair for parents to be allowed a chance to at least try to restrict their children's access to certain kinds of information.
(Though I gotta admit, th
Re:How does this restrict free speech? (Score:2)
People who say this law restricts free speech are on the right track, but citing the wrong reason.
The law is wrong because it is yet another restriction on free enterprise - the right of free human beings to buy and sell their own property. The sale of a videogame is a contract between the seller, the buyer, and the buyer's
Re:How does this restrict free speech? (Score:2)
If GameStop/Bestbuy/etc. would require that you be over 18 to buy it, and further issue a warning at purchase (like a statement from the cashier or even a sticker on the box), then these laws wouldn't be necessary.
Re:How does this restrict free speech? (Score:2)
Is it illegal for movie theatres to sell tickets to rated-R movies to minors? I didn't think it was, and yet I've seen movie theaters do it.
Re:How does this restrict free speech? (Score:2)
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 object
Re:Sophistry (Score:3, Insightful)
Maybe you should re-read the constitution. (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Maybe you should re-read the constitution. (Score:2, Informative)
Also minors DO have First Amendment rights. So this law does have to do with free speech and the constitution.
Re:Maybe you should re-read the constitution. (Score:2)
Re:mod parent down (Score:2)
Re:mod parent down (Score:2)
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:Perhaps a More Efficient Way... (Score:2)
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.
Re:Does Anyone Know What The Bill Actually Says? (Score:2)
Well, this will be an obvious success (Score:4, Funny)
Even Those from his last movie. [amazon.com]
Re:Well, this will be an obvious success (Score:2)
Unfortunately, if he passes the law, there's no way to mod him "-1: Hypocrite"
Re:Well, this will be an obvious success (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Well, this will be an obvious success (Score:2)
Re:Well, this will be an obvious success (Score:2)
Actually if you're going to make a movie comparison, the AO rating for games would be comparible to the NC-17 rating for movies.
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.
Seems Fair. (Score:3, Insightful)
It won't work. (Score:2)
Whether or not you outlaw drugs, guns, alcohol, or video games... or set an age requirement; if a person wants to engage in any of those behaviors, they will. Especially if it is something trivial like playing video games.
Furthermore, from personal experience, I have always managed to get into an R movie, even if i had to buy a ticket for a PG13. As easy as that was... buying a video game will require much le
Silly sticker, but otherwise OK. (Score:3, Informative)
The whole "2-inch sticker" seems a bit ridiculous, especially because it implies a new ratings system, a new ratings board, etc. But that's a pragmatic problem, not an ethical one. Both sides come out smelling like zealots here, with one side saying that it will destroy first amendment rights, and the other saying that videogames are as bad for you physically as smoking.
I also don't necessarily agree with the findings of the bills, that "Even minors who do not commit acts of violence suffer psychological harm from prolonged exposure to violent video games." Taken literally, this is true of basically anything. It does go into some lovingly crafted detail [ca.gov] on what constitutes violence. I'll be amused to find out how the courts decide to interpret the requirement that a virtual victim must be conscious of the abuse at the time it is inflicted.
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
Re:Constitution protects minors free speech as wel (Score:2)
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.
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...
If you didn't vote Libertarian (Score:2, Interesting)
___________________________________________
A vote against a Libertarian candidate is
a vote to abolish the Constitution itself.
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
Pointless... (Score:4, Funny)
I'm first.
Re:Pointless... (Score:2)
The problem with bills like this is... (Score:2)
If this law (and others like it) simply gave legal power to the ESRB system (i.e. restricted the purchase of M and AO games to adults or whatever), I would have no problems with it really.
Stupid idea... (Score:2)
Great way to create a new, out-of-control bureaucracy that will eventually grow into a moloch.
Explain this to me again... (Score:2)
Re:Explain this to me again... (Score:3, Interesting)
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:Does the CA law impose penalties... (Score:2)
Does anybody care? (Score:2)
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.
Re:Funny banner ad... (Score:2)
Sorry, when did Schwarzenegger insist that the game he featured in should be available to mi
Game sales (Score:2, Insightful)
The Governator (Score:3, Funny)
Someone with a brain: Isn't that being hypocritical Mr Schwarzenegger?
The Governator: Don't insult me, I have never even looked at another man.
Re:The Governator (Score:2)
See also ad hominem to quoque [wikipedia.org].
He'll Be Back (Score:2)
I'm all for it (Score:2)
I mean imagine if every video game didn't have to worry about ratings, we could get more bad lanaguage, more sex, more violence. It would be a utopia of gaming.
Videogames v Football (Score:2)
Go with what you know (Score:2)
I would have thought the answer was obvious. Blow the door off the State Assembly Hall and frag the hell out of everyone in there with your +4 Laser Pistol of Lordly Might.
What about violent other media? (Score:2)
Contributing to the deliquency of a minor (Score:2)
The same way it is illegal to give a minor booze or porn?
Re:financially and legally scary for developers (Score:2)
Damn (Score:2)
But it'd solve so many problems!
Re:What to do (Score:2)
Seeing as you included the Greens in the list of "big government" politicians, it reasons that you have no clue as to what the general platform of the Greens calls for.
Re:Story of fools (Score:2)
It is obvious the first amendment does not apply to children - otherwise in the 2nd case, the judge wouldn't heavily qualify his ruling with "speech that is neither obscene as to youths".. etc.
Re:Story of fools (Score:2)