Follow Slashdot stories on Twitter

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
Games Government Entertainment Politics

CA Officials Respond To Lawsuit 80

Posted by Zonk from the think-first-then-pass-laws dept.
Gamasutra is reporting on Yee and Schwarzenegger's response to the lawsuit brought in response to the violent games bill passed recently in California. From the article: "History has proven in cases of child labor and physical assault on children that we can and should pass laws to protect them. I am a strong believer in the First Amendment and in free speech, but when a game allows a player to virtually commit sexual assault and murder, as a society we must do what we can to protect our children, as we do for alcohol, tobacco, and pornography, among other items," We've previously reported on the passing of the bill and the filing of the lawsuit.
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

CA Officials Respond To Lawsuit More

CA Officials Respond To Lawsuit

Comments Filter:

  • Comment removed (Score:4, Insightful)

    by account_deleted ( 4530225 ) on Wednesday October 19, 2005 @04:40PM (#13830219)
    Comment removed based on user account deletion

    • Re:Oh, really? (Score:3, Insightful)

      by theJmtz ( 842443 )
      Actually theres no law stopping kids from seeing them in theaters either. Sure it's enforced by pretty much every theater, but its not law and there's not criminal penalty. Video game ratings are already the equivilent to movie ratings. I don't see how it's any different.

    • And if this is true, then what about your movies, Mr. Terminator? Completely innocent? Sure, they can't see them in the theaters, but kids can buy or rent them whenever they like.

      Are you saying that there should also be strick age limitations on buying and renting violent movies too?

      Video games are only being scapegoated, because of that Columbine deal a few years ago. After the nerds and social outcasts had been victim of thousands of "minor" acts of violence and harrasment, they do something to get

  • Sexual Assault??! (Score:4, Insightful)

    by jasongetsdown ( 890117 ) on Wednesday October 19, 2005 @04:40PM (#13830227)
    And what games allow the player to virtually commit sexual assault??

  • Note the irony of it (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Iriel ( 810009 ) on Wednesday October 19, 2005 @04:58PM (#13830416) Homepage
    Lower your torches please. I don't feel like igniting a flame war about whose responsibility it is to protect 'the children', but I just had to point this out. He says that they have a duty 'as a community' to protect children. (I could go on for days ranting about problems in parenting, that aside) Couldn't they 'as a community' protect thier children without passing laws, if they are indeed acting as a community?

    This just proves who's fooling who.
    • Community values protect when family values fail.

      As with most everything in life, the truth lies somewhere in the middle. In a perfect world, family values may suffice. But when the parents are negligent or abusive, then community values should be there providing a safety net to protect children and spouses.

      • I understand the value of this, but my point is that if his misuse of the word 'community'. The community is obviously not doing enough (in his eyes) so the government has to step in. When it comes to raising children, there is a big difference between community values and legislation (more often than not).

  • Correlations (Score:4, Insightful)

    by truthsearch ( 249536 ) on Wednesday October 19, 2005 @04:58PM (#13830421) Homepage Journal
    "when a game allows a player to virtually commit sexual assault and murder, as a society we must do what we can to protect our children, as we do for alcohol, tobacco, and pornography"

    Where's the direct correlation between virtually committing murder and physical violence among children? Consuming alcohol and tobacco physically affect people directly. People are afraid virtual violence leads to real violence, but where's the proof? Especially with the rates of reported crimes dropping I'd like to see politicians showing evidence before passing laws.
    • Back in days gone by we were all 'protected' from alcohol and pornography. Life was so much better, sure, crime and murder rates were many, many times what they are now but atleast we were all 'protected' by the state from these ever so harmful devices. I just hope they don't ban guns, those harmless devices never hurt anyone.

    • Where's the direct correlation between virtually committing murder and physical violence among children?

      You don't want to prove correlation, you want to prove causation. And as everyone knows, causation between sociological factors is hard to prove becaue we can rarely run controlled experiments. But one can sometimes reason that a causation might exist. For example it seems reasonable to argue that kids might emulate, in the real world, the behavior of people in video games. In fact, I can't really see

      • And that proves my point. It's total speculation. Laws shouldn't be written purely on hypothesis.
        • And you demonstrate my point. All laws are based on hypothesis because there simply aren't clear cut experiments you can carry out. When lawmakers decide that people who commit crime X should receive sentence Y they are almost always hypothesising that this sentence will help reduce the crime even though there is almost never direct evidence. If you don't make hypotheses you can't have a criminal justice system and you're arguing for dumping criminal justice entirely.

    • If You Only Read Sudies That Support Your Belief.. (Score:5, Interesting)

      by nick_davison ( 217681 ) on Wednesday October 19, 2005 @08:32PM (#13831878)
      As was pointed out in the current PC Gamer, during an interview with Ye...

      Ye "As a trained psychiatrist, I know how important it is to not expose children to these kinds of things. Many studies support this."

      PCG "What about the many studies that show absolutely no correlation can be proved."

      Yee "Statistics can be manipulated. I know how important it is. Many studies support this."

      PCG "What about the fact that the violent crime rate in teenagers has dropped every single year since the release of the PlayStation and is now at half its peak ten years ago and the lowest it's been since the 70s."

      Yee "Statistics can be manipulated. I know how important it is. Many studies support this."

      In other words, he's formed his opinion and, whilst quoting statistics that suit him, has absolutely no interest in even exploring the massive weight of evidence to the contrary because statistics can be manipulated.

      The amazing thing is he doesn't even seem to be embarassed to feed such a load of clearly self serving bull.
  • "when a game allows a player to virtually commit sexual assault and murder, as a society we must do what we can to protect our children, as we do for alcohol, tobacco, and pornography, among other items..."
    In making this statment he is basically equating video games that contain violent or sexual material to alcohol, tobacco, and porn. The problem is that in order to make such an absurd claim hold any weight, you would have to assume that any form of media or literature that contained violence or sexuali

    • Re:equating video games to vices (Score:4, Insightful)

      by RingDev ( 879105 ) on Wednesday October 19, 2005 @05:43PM (#13830807) Homepage Journal
      "So how is it ok for Fox to display sex and violence everynight where children are most certainly watching, but then its not ok for these things to be in videogames?"

      IMO, it's not. I think the FCC should get off their collectively paid off asses and slap the $hit out of FOX and the other broadcast channels for BROADCASTING unexceptable content. Cable on the other hand, I feel should be free to do as it pleases.

      And I'm personally okay with this bill (from what I know of it). All it is (so far as I know) is a legal representations of the maturity rating on the box. It would be similar to a law that banned anyone under 18 from seeing an NC17 movie. So far as I know, there is no such law, just an accepted standard at (most) movie theators and rental stores. The only concern I have is who decides the video game rating? A government body? ESRB? Publishers?

      The government already has laws barring the sale of pornography to minors. Which is what this seems to most closely related. I mean, if someone went out and made a high quality movie version of GTA, it would be hard pressed to get under a NC17 rating.

      To reveal any bias I may have, I'm in my mid twenties, loved GTA and it's spin offs (Vice City was my fav!), and have a 2 year old son. If I as a parent feel my son is mature enough to saftly enjoy GTA, I'll buy him a copy. If I as a parent feel my son is mature enough to saftly enjoy an alcoholic beverage, I'll buy him one. But I don't want my son running out and buying his own alcohol, porn, violent movies and video games on his own. Atleast, not in America, our mind set is way to #$@!ed up for that kind of responcibility. ;)

      -Rick
      • Why not just turn on the VChip in your TV?

      • Re:equating video games to vices (Score:4, Insightful)

        by beowulfy ( 897757 ) on Wednesday October 19, 2005 @07:26PM (#13831442) Homepage
        I most certainly agree that Fox gets away with way too much, and dislike the content that is made available for viewing durring hours when young children are awake. I was merely trying to point out the double standard that video games face.
        The government already has laws barring the sale of pornography to minors. Which is what this seems to most closely related.
        I fail to see what about GTA would even get it an NC-17 rating. The worst thing you could even see beyond violence would be the hot coffee mod, which shows two blocky cartoon charaters, with clothes on, engaging in consensual sex. You can't even see any sexual organs. Hardly relating to porn. Nothing that you couldn't see in an episode of the OC, except for maybe the cursing. Definately nothing here that you wouldn't see in any R rated movie. The point is, the government doesn't exert any control over who see's what movies, or reads what books, so why should they control who plays what games? They are trying to make the argument, without any evidence, that this kind of content is more damaging in video games. But if that were true, why has youth violent crime been dropping for the last 10 years, while video games sales have skyrocketed? This is issue has almost nothing to do about protecting our youth, and has everything to do with political sensationalism. If they were really concerned with protecting kids from this stuff they would be going after fox as well, but they won't because there is no perceived political gain from doing so. I think that a few years from now, we'll look back on this the way we look at people like Tipper Gore who were trying to protect our youth from the evils of Twisted Sister. What I wonder is, will this cycle keep on repeating itself forever? Will every new form of entertainment undergo this type of censorship by the older generation that is out of touch with the modern world? I sure hope not.
        • Tipper Gore, now there was a wack job. I think Anthrax summed her up the best in their song "Starting up a posse"

          And I agree completely with your point, I don't think that video games should be accused of unproven and even refuted statistics. And I definately don't think they should be used as a political agenda.

          But at the same time I wouldn't allow my child when he turns 10 to watch COPS (violence, blurred out nudity, cursing, prostitution, drugs, etc) which is pretty comprable to the content of GTA:
    • It's probably NOT a good idea to display sex and violence on tv for any pre-teen to see.

      In any case, its ultimately up to the parent to educate and/or prevent there kids from seeing or doing something. If they want it bad enough, kids are smart and will find a way around most things anyway. And if they want something that bad, we should probably ask ourselves why that is, too.

      Also, another thing to ask yourself... how long will it be before there IS a game where you can full-on rape someone? It's all a g

  • Apples & Oranges (Score:4, Insightful)

    by Guppy06 ( 410832 ) on Wednesday October 19, 2005 @05:16PM (#13830576)
    "in cases of child labor and physical assault on children"

    If that was the logic used in writing and passing the law, then the goals of the law should have been satisifed with a single state-required disclaimer attatched to all video games: "No children were harmed in the making of this video game."

    Seriously, kids don't go out and say "Yippie skippie, I wanna work in a coal mine for 12 hours a day!" or something similar.

    • Re:Apples & Oranges (Score:4, Funny)

      by Chyeld ( 713439 ) <{chyeld} {at} {gmail.com}> on Wednesday October 19, 2005 @05:35PM (#13830732)
      "Seriously, kids don't go out and say "Yippie skippie, I wanna work in a coal mine for 12 hours a day!" or something similar."

      Appearently, if you made a video game about it, they would!

      "Oh... you load sixteen tons and what do you get? Another day older and deeper in debt..."

      I can see that working, can't you? After all, people played SWG!

      • Well, when you consider that there's a Yoshinoya Beef Bowl training simulator/game [gamespot.com] that you can get, you realize that maybe a coal mining simulator isn't too far out of the question...
      • > "Seriously, kids don't go out and say "Yippie skippie,
        > I wanna work in a coal mine for 12 hours a day!"

        Ummmmm...

        Some of you younger kids may not remember Ultima Online, but you could spend 12 hours a day mining, or logging, among many other things. Not just the later on smithing parts, which a lot of other games have, but tedious "mining" activities.

        I wonder how many teens or 10 year olds whined that "Can I take out the trash later, Mom? I'm performing simulated manual labor for hours on end!"
        • "Some of you younger kids may not remember Ultima Online, but you could spend 12 hours a day mining, or logging, among many other things."

          Find me somebody that's come down with black lung as a result of playing Ultima Online and I'll relent. :)
      • I don't think you're being fair to SWG at all with that comment. At least with the coal mines, you could look forward to dying of silicovolcanoconiosis.
  • Not being able to play Grand Theft Auto if I were 12 years old again would drive me insane... But, i felt that way about watching R and XXX movies and buying Playboy and drinking and smoking, etc, etc. (i of course found my way around the law for most of them anyway).

    I DO think that video games need a rating system and sales limitations, though they should at least make it consistent with the movie industry which is pretty much the same issue. I DON'T think it should be totally open since it seems pretty
    • Video games DO have a rating system that is as good, if not better then the one used for movies and TV.

      I wouldn't be upset if they wanted to keep M and Ao rated games out of the hands of minors. The problem is, they (CA government) wants their own rating system. So, if the ESRB says a game is rated T, and I sell it to a 16 year old, their parents can say "This game is too violent" and I'll get sued.

    • I DO think that video games need a rating system and sales limitations, though they should at least make it consistent with the movie industry which is pretty much the same issue.

      I might me mistaken about CA, but where I live, movie ratings are voluntarily enforced and not compulsory, which in my opinion is a good thing - I wouldn't want to require every movie made to have a rating because that would create the opportunity for one organization to oversee the rating process who, in turn, could really take a

  • Okay then... (Score:3, Funny)

    by Dr.Dubious DDQ ( 11968 ) on Wednesday October 19, 2005 @07:03PM (#13831286) Homepage
    [...]but when a game allows a player to virtually commit sexual assault and murder, as a society we must do what we can to protect our children[...]

    (insert "warming up" sound effects here.) "I raped and then strangled the puppy. Then I used the puppy's dead body to bludgeon a little old lady to death. After that, I walked across the street and flung both bodies on somebody's lawn."

    There. I have "virtually" committed bestiality, animal cruelty, elder abuse, murder, jaywalking, trespassing, and littering, using technology that is readily available to children, with no more effort than it takes to post to Slashdot(tm)!

    How many more will have to suffer before computer keyboards are outlawed for minors?!?!? WON'T SOMEBODY THINK OF THE CHILDREN???

  • Smacking (Score:3, Funny)

    by Repton ( 60818 ) on Wednesday October 19, 2005 @07:49PM (#13831585) Homepage
    Is smacking kids illegal in California?

  • Chilling Effect (Score:5, Insightful)

    by nick_davison ( 217681 ) on Wednesday October 19, 2005 @08:26PM (#13831832)
    We also have a duty to protect our nation against Communism. And thus it's entirely reasonable to have a law that requires citizens to register, in advance, for each and every piece of Communist literature that comes to them through the mail.

    Except, as the judge found in that case, such a "protection" creates a "chilling effect" upon free speech and thus is unconstitutional.

    A requirement for videogame stores to respect ESRB ratings is one thing. That has no "chilling effect" upon publishers creating new works.

    Demanding a 2inch by 2inch bold logo on the front of a game stating it's 18 changes not just parental awareness (which can be covered by ESRB information displays) but serves to villify such titles, embarassing legitimate customers who don't want to be perceived as "bad" for purchasing them.

    Similarly, it is reasonable to ask that publicly displayed adult magazines are placed out of children's reach and have either a non-sexual cover or that that cover is hidden. It is unreasonable and has a "chilling effect" to demand that adult magazines have a bright neon slip cover advertising "ANYONE WHO BUYS THIS IS A SEX ADDICT!" One protects children, the other has a chilling effect on the entirely legal sale of the product to those legally allowed to buy it.

    The California law's problem is that it oversteps from being truly about protection of children in to "chilling effect" territory. ...or at least, that's the argument being put forward. I guess it depends on who you view a great big 18 sticker on the front of every box. Or, more tellingly, how 12 people who've been forced to do jury duty can be made to see it.
    • Here if I go to Saturn to buy an GTA (since we keep talking about it), it won't just have an 18+ sticker on it, it will actually be put in a big red playstic box that I have to take to the cashier. And last I've heard, it had no "chilling effect" on their sales or anything.

      Yes, that big red box means "it's an 18+ game!!" Well, blimey, and I'm well over 18. That's a fortunate coincidence, eh? Yes, I'm buying a game that's deemed not suitable for children. And I'm not a child. The problem is...? Why should I
  • And one that wouldnt require all this new extra effort is to just require that all games rated by the ESRB as M or AO are not available to minors.

    Problem solved WITHOUT the need to stick big "adults only" stickers on the boxes.
  • Where ar ethese games that let you commit sexual assault? I don't want to play them, but we hear so much about them they must be in every Wal-Mart and Best Buy, right?

    Let's see, even in GTA3, where there are prostitutes, that sex is consentual. Sure you can run them over, but you can do that to anyone in the game and that isn't sexual. Even with the Hot Coffee mod, it is also consentual.

    Aside from old Atari 2600 games like Custer's Revenge, where are these sexually deviant games???

    It couldn't be that the
  • Ahnold is doing the right thing. He just needs to get what he is doing refined. He is not Jack Thompson, he is not saying "OMG GAMES ARE BAD WE SHOULD BURN THEM IN A GIANT BONFIRE." He is saying that the games sold to little Johnny should be restricted. 8 year olds don't need to be playing games with a four letter word in every sentence. Also, parents need to PAY ATTENTION TO THE GODFORSAKEN RATING SYSTEM. Yeah, it sucks. Super Smash Bros shouldn't be rated teen, but hey, it's better than nothing.
    • Thing is, games sold to little Johnny -are- restricted, and they are restricted in the exact same fashion that other forms of media are; by self regulation. Having serious governmental control of a means of artistic communication is beyond horrible and can lead to a slippery slope.

      The problem with self regulation isn't the companies that are creating the games; it is with the people consuming them. Video games are no different than movies in this regard. I saw a parent walk into -Sin freaking City- w
  • when a game allows a player to virtually commit sexual assault and murder, as a society we must do what we can to protect our children


    So the reason we want to prevent violent crime isn't that we want to protect the victims from harm but the children who typically commit that crime from getting corrupted? WTF?
  • And now, I'm sure we'll se a long, stupid flamewar along the lines of 'Guns don't kill people, people do'.

    Firstly, children should be protected - that anybody can even appear to reject that thought is deeply worrying. Protecting offspring is so fundamental to the survival of most species, that only the most primitive animals don't do it.

    Secondly, as for who should protect our children, I think this is the responsibility of all - the parents, obviously, but society as well, and not just 'the government' (as
    • I agree. I just don't see the need to commit violent crime (albeit simulated) in order to have fun. It's just wrong.
      And as for comparing to DVD's, there is a big difference here. You watch people commit crimes in films, in games you participate.

      Killing people with guns is not big or clever. Go play pikmin!!!
      • Guns don't kill people, I do - especially before I've had my morning coffee. I'm not a morning person by any means.

        This whole law flat-out sucks because it's the government's attempt to control what parents admittedly can't! Have some balls, stand up to your kids and tell them, "NO, you can't have that game, I SAID SO." They don't need a reason, you are the final say in the matter and if your kid turns to your significant other and asks the same question, he/she better be bright enough to examine the
    • I think alot of posters on here who reply "it's all the parents doing, blah blah blah" likely don't and perhaps never will have children of their own. I've found one's perspective on acceptable watching radically shifts when you have a three year old sitting next to you.

      Anyhow, as to your point, I'd add that what people seem to be forgetting is that it's not only the idea that someone playing the latest hack'n'slash is then going to become a psychopathic monster, thankfully that'd be rare. However, how se
    • It's absurd to claim that playing games doesn't affect behavior, but it's equally absurd to claim it *causes* behavior. Especially without any evidence, of which there isn't any.

      And claiming that its any more or less "real" than movies is total bullshit - in fact, my children are far more likely to act out shows on TV than they are the games they play, because if they want to act out the game, they can simply *play the game*.

      Your argument can be summed up very simply: blah blah, I can't imagine anything o

    • You really haven't thought this through, have you?

      Firstly, children should be protected - Duh.

      We all have a duty to protect all children. - Duh.

      Finally, trying to deny that what you do in a computer game will influence what you become as a person, can only be the result of massive ignorance. - Insulting, but technically accurate. Nothing we experience is ever erased.

      It makes perfect sense to me that there should be restrictions on violent games, and that it should be enforced by the authorities. - Schwaaaa
  • I once knew a girl who was this sweet southern bell who moved to the northeast. You would think she was the sweetest person in the world until every now and then she would open her mouth and say something horrible. I recall one time I was standing in line with her. There were some irritating loudly black kids standing in line in front of us shouting at the top of their lungs. She turned to me and goes, "I don't mean to sound racist," and I winced, because I knew the next thing out of her mouth WOULD be
  • Well that's Zelda out of the question for my 14 year-old son. All that killing and all. Not to mention Space Invaders, murdering aliens. Halo...nope...hell, even the US Army's own American Army...Nope (so how will they recruit now?)

    Karem

  • Is it just possible that the Gov. is right? We don't let our kids watch pornography. Most parents can agree that pornography is bad for children. So why should we let them play games that involve sexual assaulting someone? That's worse than pornography.

    I was amused at some of the respones. "Oh! I guess that means space invaders is bad. blah blah blah..." Tell me the last time Space Invaders involved murdering innocent people. Tell me the last time America's Army involved raping women. Tell me the

    • Name a game available in major retailers or most small U.S. game stores that in any way involves sexual assault.

      What's that? You can't? Gee, I wonder why.

      Probably because the ESRB wouldn't rate those games anything other than AO. In fact, they probably wouldn't rate them at all. You know, that ESRB that supposedly isn't doing anything to protect anyone, and is getting paid to rate eeevil games low so kids will buy them?

      On the other hand, A Clockwork Orange - which contains a nasty mix of rape a
      • I'll tell you why I couldn't name one off halfway in the middle of your typing

        #1 I didn't know you were online typing that message. It's a static forum.
        #2 Even if I did, I couldn't wrestle away your keyboard. I'm probably several thousands of miles away.
        #3 I was asleep.
        #4 I wouldn't have played such a game anyway. But from what I hear, you can have sex with a prostitute in GTA and then murder her. I don't know what you call that. Perhaps that's not sexual assault in your opinion. In any case, a woman

  • Talk about bad comparisons (Score:3, Funny)

    by Tom ( 822 ) on Thursday October 20, 2005 @08:28AM (#13834667) Homepage Journal
    "History has proven in cases of child labor

    Physical act that harms someone

    and physical assault on children

    Physical act that harms someone

    a game allows a player to virtually commit sexual assault and murder

    Virtual act where nobody is harmed

    alcohol, tobacco

    Physical items with harmful effects

    , and pornography, among other items,"

    At last, the only thing that actually compares! Wow, yeah!

    Now, hang on. What did we do about porn? Yes, we passed laws that allows only adults to buy them.

    So we need a law that allows only adults to buy violent titles, like GTA. Say, people over 17? Hey, wait. We already have these laws, you fucking idiot!
  • I think the problem have been pointed out already and resides in the justification itself: "I'm for freedom of speech and the first amendment, but we have to protect children from.... " In the name of the children we demand either: a) more legislation in the quest for ethics which inevitably results in a loss of liberty of thinking or b) more censorship in the name of the freedom of speech. This is not very different from saying: "I'm for freedom of speech, but there's this book here which talks about commu
  • The real reason that children shouldn't be exposed to this violence is because our brain treats watching a person do something the same as if we are doing it ourself.

Slashdot Top Deals

"Take that, you hostile sons-of-bitches!" -- James Coburn, in the finale of _The_President's_Analyst_

Close