Schwarzenegger vs. Interactivity
- Thread starter Archon
- Start date
Nice article. I found this bit particularly on-point.
"The California law could be found unconstitutional simply because it could lead to "chilling effects" on free speech. In legal terms, a "chilling effect" occurs when speech or conduct is suppressed by fear of penalization. For instance, traditional "brick and mortar" businesses, such as GameStop and Wal-mart will have to restructure their entire business model to ensure minors are not sold games to avoid liability of $1,000 per sale. Additionally, those in best control of the point-of-sale (sales clerks) are specifically exempt from liability, shifting a burden of increased training, supervision, and thus higher costs. These businesses may decide that it is more cost effective to not stock and sell these games all together, effectively chilling speech to all members of the community."
This is precisely why from the moment I read that it's "Schwarzenegger vs. anything" I had a gut feeling that the real drive behind this is not so much around freedom of speech, but rather the movie industry versus the videogame industry. Granted this is merely conjecture but...that's my feeling about all of this. More corporate influence over the law disguising itself as waxing philosophical on "protecting our youth from violence" tbh.
"The California law could be found unconstitutional simply because it could lead to "chilling effects" on free speech. In legal terms, a "chilling effect" occurs when speech or conduct is suppressed by fear of penalization. For instance, traditional "brick and mortar" businesses, such as GameStop and Wal-mart will have to restructure their entire business model to ensure minors are not sold games to avoid liability of $1,000 per sale. Additionally, those in best control of the point-of-sale (sales clerks) are specifically exempt from liability, shifting a burden of increased training, supervision, and thus higher costs. These businesses may decide that it is more cost effective to not stock and sell these games all together, effectively chilling speech to all members of the community."
This is precisely why from the moment I read that it's "Schwarzenegger vs. anything" I had a gut feeling that the real drive behind this is not so much around freedom of speech, but rather the movie industry versus the videogame industry. Granted this is merely conjecture but...that's my feeling about all of this. More corporate influence over the law disguising itself as waxing philosophical on "protecting our youth from violence" tbh.
Sad, but doesn't surprise me one bit. I know someone who's got a legitimate business (non-gaming) in California and he's being put through the legal wringer because a lobbyist group has pushed for laws that hurt everyone in the industry (except them) under the guise of stopping shady fly-by-night operations. You know, the ones that don't care about the laws they're already breaking.
The more I hear about California politics the more I decide the state's entire legal and lawmaking structure is screwed up.
The more I hear about California politics the more I decide the state's entire legal and lawmaking structure is screwed up.
I can't help but think it's a reasonable idea to prevent sales to minors of M rated games, and as for training, surely 'Hey guys, you know how you card people for Mature rated movies? do the same for video games please'. That's not $1000s of training to me.
I just think because people are crazy about the idea the kids playing violent games, if we don't as an industry keep them away from kids, the world will just go nuts and try to get them banned altogether.
Again tho, I think the main problem is parental responsibility, you buy GTA for your wailing 8 year old to shut him up, despite the clerk's desperate attempts to educate you about the games content, then you don't get to run off to FOX news because it taught him to call the family pet a ************, and reply to 'tidy your room' with 'what up, *****?'
I just think because people are crazy about the idea the kids playing violent games, if we don't as an industry keep them away from kids, the world will just go nuts and try to get them banned altogether.
Again tho, I think the main problem is parental responsibility, you buy GTA for your wailing 8 year old to shut him up, despite the clerk's desperate attempts to educate you about the games content, then you don't get to run off to FOX news because it taught him to call the family pet a ************, and reply to 'tidy your room' with 'what up, *****?'
The thing is, every game store that sells video games already cards people if they wish to buy M games. I know I've been carded multiple times after I turned 18 for buying an M game. Putting a law on it is a kick to the balls of all video gamers with a heavy, steel-toed boot with spikes on it.SenseOfTumour said:
This also opens the door for government to put laws on movies and stores. And it gets worse. What's to stop them from banning violence in all video games? What about political ideals? Heck, they could ban swear words from games.
That's why I like what the ECA/EMA is doing by fighting this. Our rights as citizens (Of the States since this is where it's happening), are being shot by a law like this.
Sorry Mister, but you're a tad bit late to the party-- they already have this where I live, and frankly I'm just fine with it. It means we don't get squeakers on Modern Warfare, and we don't have kids running about and screaming about how they're going to blow you away with the BFG9K or whatever. I'm hardly supporting censorship as a whole, but I know I wouldn't want my kid playing Criminal Origins; and that brings us to the heart of the matter: at the end of the day, it's the parents--not the retailers, developers, or publishers-- that are responsible for what their kids see. Many of them want to pin the blame on someone else, and that's why this bill is clogging up the California legal system.
It's a lot like Jack Thompson-- the end goal (making sure minors don't get their mitts on overly violent video games)is just fine, but the methods are questionable.
It's a lot like Jack Thompson-- the end goal (making sure minors don't get their mitts on overly violent video games)is just fine, but the methods are questionable.
I have faith the Justices know the letter of the law (amendments) that this case will be ruled as unconstitutional. its struck out 9 times already, this time should be for good 
Actually the politicians of California aren't regressive as they are Progressive. By Progressives I mean they are actively wanting to control every aspect of our lives, telling us what we can and can't watch, what kind of vehicles we can drive, where we can work, where we should live and how much money we should have. They are wanting to implement Socialism in small doses so that you don't notice it until you wake up one day to find us all calling each other comrade and waiting in the bread line.
Before people start blaming Fox News (which always happens here), look at the people behind these laws and find the ones that Fox News agrees with, then look at which ones are in lockstep with Obama, MSNBC, ABC, CBS and NBC. You'll find that 95% of these things are brought to you courtesy of your friendly neighborhood Democrat or RINO (Such as Schwarzanegger who claims to be a Republican but has never done anything more than be a Kennedy Democrat since becoming govenor), but for some reason it's FOx's fault.
Maybe if more people spent a little less time playing games and spent a bit more time actually following issues that concern how the country is going down the shitter instead of just saying "Yeah, I like John Johnson so whatever he says is right" , we wouldn't be in the shape we are.
Before people start blaming Fox News (which always happens here), look at the people behind these laws and find the ones that Fox News agrees with, then look at which ones are in lockstep with Obama, MSNBC, ABC, CBS and NBC. You'll find that 95% of these things are brought to you courtesy of your friendly neighborhood Democrat or RINO (Such as Schwarzanegger who claims to be a Republican but has never done anything more than be a Kennedy Democrat since becoming govenor), but for some reason it's FOx's fault.
Maybe if more people spent a little less time playing games and spent a bit more time actually following issues that concern how the country is going down the shitter instead of just saying "Yeah, I like John Johnson so whatever he says is right" , we wouldn't be in the shape we are.
Really? There are already enough procedures in place to make sure that minors don't get their hands on games their not supposed to. The 18+ and 15+ ratings, for example, make it very clear that these games are not indended for those below that age. Also, people on the tills are supposed to ask for ID for these games anyway, so introducing this penalty theroretically shouldn't make that much difference.
It does NOT mean no squeakers. The bad parents that let there kids play violent video games for 15 hours a day are buying the for them any ways. The stores are already not selling to children. The law won't stop underage use, just remove products from the shelf for fear of liability. Look at pot. Have really harsh laws reduced teenage pot use?HT_Black said:
This is the problem I have had with fence walkers. I agree with Arnie on a lot of things but he's been a social liberal and hypocrit on subjects like this for a long time. Very quick to jump on the "protect the children" bandwagon and attack free speech, and one of the Repblicans that seems to go consistantly cross party for this kind of thing. This makes him a hypocrit because he obtained his fame and fortune through very violent action movies, and many of those action movies had video game tie ins (albiet usually bad ones). I seriously doubt he ever turned down his share of a video game's sales based on one of his movies because it included violent content.
That said we've been here before. There is always a scapegoat for society's ills and right now it's the turn of video games. In previous generations people have argued that comic books needed special treatment (leading to the comics code authority) due to the visual nature of the medium as opposed to simply reading something. The argument being that while say "Tales From The Crypt" might tread the same material as text based media, you actually SAW the monsters and people dying. Then of couse we had attacks on movies which were considered worse because they involved actual people acting things out and special effects that made the violence look real. "Interactivity" is simply the latest in a series of excuses for censorship taking the same role as the other reasons, and being backed by the same basic arguements by what amounts to the same (or very similar) people.
That said I am a big believer in state rights, to be honest for something like this I more or less support California being able to set it's own policies even if I don't agree with them. Given the extreme leftward leanings of that state (and it's the left who pushes more for the 'protect the children' censorship which is why this has this kind of intertia there) I figure if anyone is likely to pass this kind of a law it's California despite the political label worn by it's Governor.
For me it's a touchy subject because I really don't like censorship, and while I understand federal principles, I also believe strongly in people's right to set policies (within reason) in their back yard. Arguements can be made about the letter vs. the spirit of the laws in cases like this (and which you prefer depends on what you personally want). I am a supporter of things like a town being able to decide to use the local tax money to put up Christmas decorations, or have a tree lighting ceremony on the town green if the majority of people living there want it and agree to have their money used for that. Every year we see attacks on various places trying to keep traditions like this due to "seperation of church and state" and the arguement that religious/christmas decorations and things like a star or angel on top of a tree violate this and the rights of perhaps a couple of families in a region who don't like it for religious reasons. Ironically I can't defend an east coast tree lighting ceremony that might have been going on in a town since before the US was officially it's own country, and seriously oppose California's right to dig their own grave here... as much as I really wish I could.
That said I do sort of hope the Supreme Court strikes this down, but at the same time a lot of my other principles want to see State rights upheld.
Personally I'm a bit irritated that Arnie is creating such a mess of an issue to begin with. If there is anyone who doesn't have the right to make this case, it's him. As I've said before, he's been the protaganist/hero of a number of violent video games, and the inspiration for many more. As far as I'm concerned when he cashed the check for his image being used to sell games like the tie ins for "Predator", "Eraser", and others he lost the right to champion a cause like this and be taken seriously. Oh sure, now that he's ridiculously rich from this kind of stuff and a governor he can say "well I've changed my mind, I was obviously wrong" for political capitol.... as much as I want to respect him, I can't respect a position like this.
What's more with this "The Expendables" movie coming out where he has a bit part, I can't help but wonder if there will be a tie in video game. Even if his image/character isn't in it, I will find it the height of irony for him to be associated with it (the movie being promoted by showing him in the pre-views and the success of the video game if there is one being dependant on that movie).
All of this aside, I will mention that on the law itself (all high and mighty principles aside) they do manage to still sell Cigarettes and Alcohol with age limitations on them. Kids still get these things anyway, but not in the numbers they would without the laws. Messed up things are always going to happen. In neither case have those industries been forced to not sell their product outright due tot he law and the fines that most people carrying that stuff are eventually going to get slapped with as a cost of doing business.
It's not good, but well... it can be livable.
I do want to see Arnie claiming none of the games with him involved were aimed at children though (given that a lot of them were like SNES level and seemed to be designed and marketed that way... which was less of an issue at the time, but still a factor). I think that would be comedy gold if my points occur to anyone else and he's ever forced to address it.
That said we've been here before. There is always a scapegoat for society's ills and right now it's the turn of video games. In previous generations people have argued that comic books needed special treatment (leading to the comics code authority) due to the visual nature of the medium as opposed to simply reading something. The argument being that while say "Tales From The Crypt" might tread the same material as text based media, you actually SAW the monsters and people dying. Then of couse we had attacks on movies which were considered worse because they involved actual people acting things out and special effects that made the violence look real. "Interactivity" is simply the latest in a series of excuses for censorship taking the same role as the other reasons, and being backed by the same basic arguements by what amounts to the same (or very similar) people.
That said I am a big believer in state rights, to be honest for something like this I more or less support California being able to set it's own policies even if I don't agree with them. Given the extreme leftward leanings of that state (and it's the left who pushes more for the 'protect the children' censorship which is why this has this kind of intertia there) I figure if anyone is likely to pass this kind of a law it's California despite the political label worn by it's Governor.
For me it's a touchy subject because I really don't like censorship, and while I understand federal principles, I also believe strongly in people's right to set policies (within reason) in their back yard. Arguements can be made about the letter vs. the spirit of the laws in cases like this (and which you prefer depends on what you personally want). I am a supporter of things like a town being able to decide to use the local tax money to put up Christmas decorations, or have a tree lighting ceremony on the town green if the majority of people living there want it and agree to have their money used for that. Every year we see attacks on various places trying to keep traditions like this due to "seperation of church and state" and the arguement that religious/christmas decorations and things like a star or angel on top of a tree violate this and the rights of perhaps a couple of families in a region who don't like it for religious reasons. Ironically I can't defend an east coast tree lighting ceremony that might have been going on in a town since before the US was officially it's own country, and seriously oppose California's right to dig their own grave here... as much as I really wish I could.
That said I do sort of hope the Supreme Court strikes this down, but at the same time a lot of my other principles want to see State rights upheld.
Personally I'm a bit irritated that Arnie is creating such a mess of an issue to begin with. If there is anyone who doesn't have the right to make this case, it's him. As I've said before, he's been the protaganist/hero of a number of violent video games, and the inspiration for many more. As far as I'm concerned when he cashed the check for his image being used to sell games like the tie ins for "Predator", "Eraser", and others he lost the right to champion a cause like this and be taken seriously. Oh sure, now that he's ridiculously rich from this kind of stuff and a governor he can say "well I've changed my mind, I was obviously wrong" for political capitol.... as much as I want to respect him, I can't respect a position like this.
What's more with this "The Expendables" movie coming out where he has a bit part, I can't help but wonder if there will be a tie in video game. Even if his image/character isn't in it, I will find it the height of irony for him to be associated with it (the movie being promoted by showing him in the pre-views and the success of the video game if there is one being dependant on that movie).
All of this aside, I will mention that on the law itself (all high and mighty principles aside) they do manage to still sell Cigarettes and Alcohol with age limitations on them. Kids still get these things anyway, but not in the numbers they would without the laws. Messed up things are always going to happen. In neither case have those industries been forced to not sell their product outright due tot he law and the fines that most people carrying that stuff are eventually going to get slapped with as a cost of doing business.
It's not good, but well... it can be livable.
I do want to see Arnie claiming none of the games with him involved were aimed at children though (given that a lot of them were like SNES level and seemed to be designed and marketed that way... which was less of an issue at the time, but still a factor). I think that would be comedy gold if my points occur to anyone else and he's ever forced to address it.
I must say I completely agree with Senseofthumour. The key to killing these laws is to have more parental responsibilty. I truly believe there is nothing wrong with telling a clerk hey don't sell this to kids. You do, you're fired! Hey that training was so difficult. But also if the games industry wants to prove a point to California about trying to pass laws like this then they should leave CA for more hospitable climes. Let Californians Bleat like the Goats they are about how they are gonna save the world from itself. Screw them and there over inflated egos come to Colorado we'll take better care of you industry workers and your rights.
Except there's no law on R rated movies.SenseOfTumour said:
So they already are doing the same for video games. Voluntarily refusing to sell to minors.
Making it a law is worrisome, especially when sales to minors are down according to the FTC. I'd rather regulation go to some place where self regulation isn't working.
I can understand the point trying to be made here, but I think the spokesman was the wrong choice from the start. Someone who made their living from depicting violence probably isn't the role model you want to keep kids from wanting to reenact that violence in a virtual format.
So let me play devil's advocate here. Suppose we say we kept all kids out of video game stores and aisles. Just wall it off, make it so you have to show a legal ID before you can even enter that part of a store. Great. No kids getting in, and they can't get access to the games. So what? Advertising and online videos will still show anyone the violence in the game, so kids will still be exposed, regardless of whether they control it or not. But advertising and video formats are protected. So if the kid wants to play the games bad enough, they will just hound their parent(s) to go out and buy the game for some holiday or birthday, and they will have access to it anyway.
I am on-board with this being a parenting issue, not a marketing issue. There is no concrete answer to solve this problem, short of just not making violent video games. Then that punishes everyone, regardless of the effect that the games have on them. Parents will ***** and moan day in and day out about how the world just isn't safe for their kids, and they can't listen to violent music or play violent video games or watch violent movies because it influences them to repeat all that IRL. And? This shit was going on way before we had such media formats, because people were actually doing this stuff to each other in person. So why don't we just keep kids away from television and movies and music as well? This bullshit excuse of saying "all other types of media aren't interactive" is a thin line that can't carry the weight in my book. If you say that your child watched the original Predator, then crafted some goofy costume and hid in the tree in the front yard and captured the neighbor's cat and skinned it and hung it upside down in the tree, that it's ok because the movie has freedom of speech? If your child can't tell the difference between fantasy and reality, and you aren't there to hold their hand about the issues to tell them the difference, then take the personal responsibility instead of passing the burden on to the rest of us. I don't have kids because I enjoy the freedoms I have as an adult, and I don't need my entertainment handicapped because someone has a problem with telling their spoiled kid "no".
S.O.T.: So how many parents are getting arrested for allowing their kids to play these "adult themed" video games anyway? If you give a kid alcohol, you get arrested. If you give a kid cigarettes, you get arrested. So why aren't parents who buy GTA for their 8 year old kid under the same punishment? This should really be something that CPS should be responsible for.
So let me play devil's advocate here. Suppose we say we kept all kids out of video game stores and aisles. Just wall it off, make it so you have to show a legal ID before you can even enter that part of a store. Great. No kids getting in, and they can't get access to the games. So what? Advertising and online videos will still show anyone the violence in the game, so kids will still be exposed, regardless of whether they control it or not. But advertising and video formats are protected. So if the kid wants to play the games bad enough, they will just hound their parent(s) to go out and buy the game for some holiday or birthday, and they will have access to it anyway.
I am on-board with this being a parenting issue, not a marketing issue. There is no concrete answer to solve this problem, short of just not making violent video games. Then that punishes everyone, regardless of the effect that the games have on them. Parents will ***** and moan day in and day out about how the world just isn't safe for their kids, and they can't listen to violent music or play violent video games or watch violent movies because it influences them to repeat all that IRL. And? This shit was going on way before we had such media formats, because people were actually doing this stuff to each other in person. So why don't we just keep kids away from television and movies and music as well? This bullshit excuse of saying "all other types of media aren't interactive" is a thin line that can't carry the weight in my book. If you say that your child watched the original Predator, then crafted some goofy costume and hid in the tree in the front yard and captured the neighbor's cat and skinned it and hung it upside down in the tree, that it's ok because the movie has freedom of speech? If your child can't tell the difference between fantasy and reality, and you aren't there to hold their hand about the issues to tell them the difference, then take the personal responsibility instead of passing the burden on to the rest of us. I don't have kids because I enjoy the freedoms I have as an adult, and I don't need my entertainment handicapped because someone has a problem with telling their spoiled kid "no".
S.O.T.: So how many parents are getting arrested for allowing their kids to play these "adult themed" video games anyway? If you give a kid alcohol, you get arrested. If you give a kid cigarettes, you get arrested. So why aren't parents who buy GTA for their 8 year old kid under the same punishment? This should really be something that CPS should be responsible for.
Just a quick point it is already against the law in the UK to sell games to underage people. Maximum punishment is £5000 fine, 6 month prison sentence and a criminal record to the person selling the title. Everywhere still sells them, to me this seems like making a mountain out of a molehill.