Eleven States Join California at the Supreme Court

[Andy Chalk]

Eleven States Join California at the Supreme Court

Eleven U.S. states have stepped up to support a California law restricting the sale of videogames to minors which will soon be reviewed by the Supreme Court.

If you're not aware of the California videogame law that will soon find itself before the Supreme Court of the United States, read this [http://www.escapistmagazine.com/articles/view/columns/the-needles/7576-The-Needles-Master-Chief-Goes-to-Washington]. Take a moment to consider the potential consequences of the case and why it should be important to anyone who believes in the First Amendment. And then, once you feel sufficiently crash-coursed in the matter, chew on this: Eleven states have now lined up to support the law before the Supreme Court.

An great expense [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Amicus_brief] to state taxpayers.

Connecticut Attorney General Richard Blumenthal issued a press release explaining his decision to become involved in the case, saying that parents "need and deserve help" to protect their children from "digital danger."

"The videogame industry should act responsibly - play nice, not nasty - and agree to sensible self-imposed restrictions that block children from buying the most violent games," Blumenthal said. "I am calling on the videogame industry to follow the leadership of the motion picture industry, which sensibly stops unattended children from viewing violent or graphic movies."

Blumenthal's statement clearly overlooks the existence of the higher rate of enforcement [http://www.esrb.org] than movies. In other words, the videogame industry is already doing what Blumenthal wants, better than he wants it done.

The Supreme Court will review the California videogame law sometime after its new term begins in October. California Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger, the driving force behind the law, can meanwhile be seen this August in The Expendables [http://www.expendablesthemovie.com/], the new R-rated action film starring Sylvester Stallone, Jason Statham, Jet Li, Dolph Lundgren, Bruce Willis, "Stone Cold" Steve Austin and a host of other renowned thespians, which can legally be viewed by anyone, regardless of age.

Source: Gamasutra [http://www.gamasutra.com/view/news/29499/Eleven_States_Join_To_Support_California_Game_Legislation_In_Supreme_Court.php?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+GamasutraNews+%28Gamasutra+News%29]


Permalink

 

[Baby Tea]

So, they'll restrict sales of 'm' rated games to minors?
Something like already exists for, say, pornography?

Could someone tell me why this is bad?
I'm genuinely curious.

 

[Proteus214]

In other words, the videogame industry is already doing what Blumenthal wants, better than he wants it done.

Face-fucking-palm...

This is why I hate politicians.

So, they'll restrict sales of 'm' rated games to minors?
Something like already exists for, say, pornography?

Could someone tell me why this is bad?
I'm genuinely curious.

They want it to be even more restrictive with insane penalties for retailers and 4 inch warning labels for violent games. The fear is that violent games may end up getting a similar treatment to games that get an ESRB Adults Only rating in that retailers will stop carrying them altogether. Alexander Macris summed it up nicely here.

 

[Sepiida]

It's bad for a few reasons. One, it's hypocritical. The games industry already has better self-imposed restrictions than other forms of media yet is being unfairly targeted. More importantly though is the reason California is trying to pass this law. Their brief says something to the extent that the "interactive nature of games" means that they are not covered by the First Amendment the way other forms of media are. That's a dangerous precedent to set, especially in an age where some much of our media is interactive.

 

[Jaded Scribe]

So, they'll restrict sales of 'm' rated games to minors?
Something like already exists for, say, pornography?

Could someone tell me why this is bad?
I'm genuinely curious.

"M" rated games =/= pornography. They are more on par with an R-rated movie.

Some stores and movie theatres have internal policies that prohibit the sale of mature items (R-rated movies, certain music, etc) to minors. But there are NO laws prohibiting it. It is up to the parents, not the law, to decide what is right for their kids.

But it is not the place of the legislature to place limitations. It is up to the parent. If a parent does not care if their teenager players Assassin's Creed II, or Dragon Age, or Call of Duty, then should legislature interfere with my choices as a parent.

What this legislature says is "We don't approve of children playing these games, therefore no one should approve of their kids playing these games. Parents who allow their children to play these games are clearly just uneducated about video games and clearly need our help to raise well-adjusted children."

**Edit:
As the poster above me points out, it sets a dangerous precedent that interactive media is not protected under our constitution. As we move more and more into a digital age, this is a precedent that can backfire and have severe consequences in the future if it is not nipped in the bud right here and now.

 

[SniperWolf427]

So, they'll restrict sales of 'm' rated games to minors?
Something like already exists for, say, pornography?

Could someone tell me why this is bad?
I'm genuinely curious.

It's bad because it is entirely unnecessary and all it does is further prove that the "average" person has no understanding of the videogame industry whatsoever. Ratings are already in place and many stores refuse to sell games to minors as it is, but making it illegal is just overkill.

As the article states, the politicians in support of the law clearly do not fully understand that videogames have ratings just like movies and those ratings have the sole purpose of preventing kids from playing content that may be inappropriate for them.

Honestly though, there are much bigger issues that they could be tackling out there. Being a minor in Florida, my beaches are now fucking black with tar, so I'll spend my time inside playing violent videogames instead.

 

[Jared]

I really hope when the supreme court say this, they just laugh and throw it out...its just, stupid..alot is done and its up to parents to be more educated...not the sellers...they dont know whats going to happen once an adult buys a game..

And, movie industry more responsible...I double it

 

[uppitycracker]

So, they'll restrict sales of 'm' rated games to minors?
Something like already exists for, say, pornography?

Could someone tell me why this is bad?
I'm genuinely curious.

"M" rated games =/= pornography. They are more on par with an R-rated movie.

Some stores and movie theatres have internal policies that prohibit the sale of mature items (R-rated movies, certain music, etc) to minors. But there are NO laws prohibiting it. It is up to the parents, not the law, to decide what is right for their kids.

But it is not the place of the legislature to place limitations. It is up to the parent. If a parent does not care if their teenager players Assassin's Creed II, or Dragon Age, or Call of Duty, then should legislature interfere with my choices as a parent.

What this legislature says is "We don't approve of children playing these games, therefore no one should approve of their kids playing these games. Parents who allow their children to play these games are clearly just uneducated about video games and clearly need our help to raise well-adjusted children."

i think the worst part about this all is, last i read, they're trying to make this a felony. felony charges can destroy a persons life, which drives this to one hell of an extreme measure to take this. it really sickens me to see that 11 states have jumped behind this thing.

 

[KeyMaster45]

An amicus brief was filed yesterday by the Attorneys General of Connecticut, Florida, Hawaii, Illinois, Louisiana, Maryland, Michigan, Minnesota, Mississippi, Texas, and Virginia,

*facepalms*, my state has once again shocked me in its legal proceedings. Excuse me a minute while I find out who my district representative is to the Louisiana senate so I can give them an earful over how stupid they're being.

 

[F-I-D-O]

So, they'll restrict sales of 'm' rated games to minors?
Something like already exists for, say, pornography?

Could someone tell me why this is bad?
I'm genuinely curious.

I think they might try to restrict selling other games to minors, instead of just the M rating.
Also, as noted in the first article, it's limiting first amendment rights. This basic right was outlined in the founding of America. But, in this case, if video games are ruled as needing more restriction, then video games as a medium are placed under every other form of creative media. Everything from art to movies would then be considered above games.
Another point is video games have an enforced rating system (minors can't buy M games) when movies don't (nothing legally stops a minor from buying a ticket to Predators). This means that games are supposed to be more restricted than they already are, which is already at a much higher level than movies or music (in the US).

 

[Fbuh]

California is doing this? Sin capital of the US?

 

[DTWolfwood]

Connecticut Attorney General Richard Blumenthal = Ignorant jackass politician

o wait that is pretty much all of them D:<

But lemme look at it with some context before i get all rage fill on this imbecile.

 

[Hiphophippo]

So, they'll restrict sales of 'm' rated games to minors?
Something like already exists for, say, pornography?

Could someone tell me why this is bad?
I'm genuinely curious.

I don't know man, I'm with you here. Speaking as a father I'd rather my child not be able to buy violent video games. I'm not opposed to her playing them before some arbitrary age, but I would rather buy it for her. That way I could speak with her first hand, knowing that she understands it's fantasy.

That's really all parents need to do. In my mind by restricting sales it forces parents to take an active role in their children's entertainment. Whether they do or not is a whole other question.

 

[edthehyena]

I think that in light of this upcoming case, the game industry needs to make the ESRB more visible. It's time to step up ESRB promotion again to make sure that people are aware it exists.

When I got my Sega Genesis, the rating system for games was explained on the box. There were more signs about it around the game stores. The movie industry used to run PSAs about the MPAA ratings. I get the impression that the game industry takes it for granted that everyone knows about the ESRB. Given the statements from proponents of the Cal. law, that doesn't seem to be the case. I think it's time to remind everyone that we already regulate ourselves so this law would be pointless.

 

[Druyn]

FIgures my state would be involved. Well, my state really is just a state full of old people.

Why dont they get it yet? Nobody gets hurt by video games! We dont need htem restricted to minors, because everything they would see in the games they ahave seen in the movies and on tv since they were 6. I understand that yes, they would be M games, and in theory, thats great, but how many kids do you think are really bothered by that? Anything genuinely dangerous is rated AO, and those are basically unbuyable unless you know where to look. I was playing halo: CE when I was, let me see... 8? I dont think kids need to be protected from these games. Even rated M. The way pop culture is today, they can handle it. Besides, isnt that what the ESRB is anyways? DOnt we already have a decent system for this?

Although, Im really looking forward to the Expendables. I dont see how all of those people together cannot kick ass.

 

[Baby Tea]

So, they'll restrict sales of 'm' rated games to minors?
Something like already exists for, say, pornography?

Could someone tell me why this is bad?
I'm genuinely curious.

"M" rated games =/= pornography. They are more on par with an R-rated movie.

I'm not saying M rated games are the same as pornography, I'm saying the government limiting what media minors can have access to is hardly a new concept. What about FCC regulations that limit what words are used on TV? Or what words can be said on the radio? This has been going on for decades.

I also fail to see how this limits freedom of speech.
They aren't stalling, or stopping sales of the games in general. The games are free to be made and sold. Just not sold to minors. Parents can still go ahead and buy the games for their kids, the kids just can't buy the games by themselves. People have already admitted that this is pretty much common store policy all over the place, so making it law would just make it mandatory store policy.
So the problem is what, exactly?

EDIT:

I don't know man, I'm with you here. Speaking as a father I'd rather my child not be able to buy violent video games. I'm not opposed to her playing them before some arbitrary age, but I would rather buy it for her. That way I could speak with her first hand, knowing that she understands it's fantasy.

Exactly!
This is what I mean. When I eventually have a child, and they are 13 or 14 and wanting to play some more mature games, I like the fact that I'd have to be with them, helping pick a game that is appropriate as well as fun for them. Not them going out without me and buying a game they know I don't want them playing.

 

[DTWolfwood]

So, they'll restrict sales of 'm' rated games to minors?
Something like already exists for, say, pornography?

Could someone tell me why this is bad?
I'm genuinely curious.

Are u american? if not its irrelevant to you.

If you are and would like to see your government follow the laws(amendments) it set for itself WITHOUT EXCEPTIONS, then this is very important ^-^

Youre giving the government an excuse to enact other amendment breaking laws if you let this slip. I just dont want there to be an exception if its based on an issue as frivolous as this one.

As Andy points out, the videogames industry ALREADY restrict sales of M-Rated games to minors. So y is there a need to make a LAW out of it all of a sudden? and at the same time make interactive media unprotected under the first amendment in the process?

 

[Kevlar Eater]

No surprise Florida joined the peanut gallery, considering the politicians here jump on the bandwagon of just about anything.

Hell, if this proposition becomes law, why not convert the constitution and its ilk into kindling? They may as well.

 

[Spiner909]

Damn it, no! We will not be a new Australia!
Bad government! Bad!

 

[Cynical skeptic]

Saying that video game violence makes murderers/rapists/assholes is saying everyone is only the slightest push from becoming a murderer/rapist/asshole. Period. Its not about approval or parenting, its saying that all of humanity needs only the smallest modicum of influence in any direction to murder/rape/drive-ultra-slow-in-the-fast-lane. No, I'm not saying they're on the same level. Thank you for proving them right.

That said, on purest ideals alone, the issue is somewhat valid. Its the difference between watching a guy "die" and "killing" someone. Like witnessing an execution versus committing murder. Death is a part of life. Everyone you know will die. You'll "be there" for a good portion of those deaths. The idea of reducing the gravity of death would drastically change how we work as a species/society. People are afraid of change. Therefor, people are afraid of safe, interactive violence and it's potential to change society.

Yes, this decision would suck. The US film industry has been pretty much completely neutered by the lack of marketability of the R rating. The bioshock film, for example, likely won't get out of pre-production hell because of the costs of duplicating the aesthetic outweighs the money an R rated film can make. Then because its a video game film, the academy will turn up their collective nose. Making the film a complete loss.

Despite the good this could do (put epic games out of business and end the reign of the unreal3 engine), but we'd gain almost nothing for it. While the 8 through 32 bit games were bright, colorful, and fun... they had no choice but to be. There were only a few colors to choose from. The aesthetic was forced. Even the games that tried to be something other than bright and colorful just ended up looking silly.

Anyway, its change vs change. All change is bad. So the smaller change wins.