California Senator Defends Anti-Videogame Law

[yundex]

I wonder if a law like this would prevent an adult from buying an M rated game with someone who is underage with them. For example, I walk into walmart to buy a pack of cigarettes with my 17 year old cousin behind me and they will not sell me any JUST BECAUSE WE WALKED IN TOGETHER. What the shit? So I asked if I could just come back alone 20 minutes later, and they said they still couldn't sell to me. Replace cigarettes with video game and that's what I picture.

 

[Shamanic Rhythm]

Listen California, why don't you guys deal with some real issues instead of trying to beat the videogame industry up again? For example, one of your shopping malls can't handle 5000 people singing Handel, no pun intended. Maybe if you didn't waste money on these pointless legal endeavours you wouldn't be almost bankrupt and building malls out of balsa wood, and perhaps if you left videogames alone they might, oh I dunno, help your crippled economy get back on its feet.

 

[Sarah Frazier]

I don't know why there has to be a law that restricts what people can and can't have if it can be avoided with something simple. How many times do parents buy games for themselves, lose interest or just lack the time to play, and so the kids get to play it instead? Or the kids will go to some friend's house with parents who will buy anything without checking first. It's just as silly as making laws against junk food in school when the families go to fast food restaurants or order pizzas on a weekly basis anyways. Parents just need to plan ahead, do research, and do what adults are expected to do rather than acting like kids.

 

[Saltyk]

And retailers do restrict the sell of violent video games to minors. They refuse to sell M (Mature 17+) rated games to minors. I've heard differing success rates depending on whether it's a private organization with a stick up their butt and something to prove (generally low rates) or something actually worth listening to like an actual Federal government review (a recent FCC report actually praised the ESRB as a whole). All media are self regulated, and that is a much preferred system. I have personally been carded while buying games plenty of times. When I bought God of War 3 the cashier started to warn me about the content until I assured them that the content was why I was buying the game.

I admit I missed that line of the article. Knowing that there is a ratings system, and that it's actually adhered to by retailers, changes my perspective a lot. My impression was that the only reason to bring in such a law would be because one didn't already exist. Since that's not the case... yeah, I'm starting to see why people are against it.

So the new law has rules about what would and wouldn't be acceptable, but these are vaguely defined and developers and publishers would be running scared of being hit with an AO rating for unknowingly violating said law - financially disastrous (noone stocks it or sells it) and they end up in court. So they'll play it safe rather than run that risk.

In the Supreme Court hearing, one of the judges asked about torturing non humans, like Vulcans, which the lawyer for California stated would NOT be covered.

This is the most hilarious thing I've read in days, but as an example of the thinking, or lack of it, behind this law it's pretty scary.

I hope I helped you understand exactly what the problem is with this law. I'd also recommend you watch the Extra Credits episode, too.

You have. As I said I was under the impression that this was an attempt to regulate something that was presently unregulated. Seeing as it is regulated it seems that the main purpose of this law would be to provide the federal government with a custom-made legal bludgeon for beating the crap out of any game they didn't like, for any reason or none... or simply to broaden the definition of unacceptable to the point where it includes... well, almost everything.

I'm happy that I could help, but this law would have no impact on the ESRB. Rather it would be completely separate from the ESRB rating system. In theory, even a T (Teen 13+) or E (Everyone) rated game could be marked by this law. Imagine Kingdom Hearts getting banned from being sold to minors (under the age of 18) because Sora stabbed himself or the princesses were being "tortured" late in the game. While I don't imagine that would be the case, with such a badly designed law, there's no way to know.

 

[Jumplion]

saying it puts the power of choosing appropriate games back into the hands of parents.

Which it never left.

said that there was significant evidence

Which he never states.

to suggest

not prove

that violent videogames

and only violent ones

encouraged

not caused

aggression and violence in children,

Again, not defined

both in immediately after playing them, and in the longer term.

Because those two states are entirely different.

He said that over a hundred "researchers, scientists and scholars"

Who he doesn't name.

from around the world had endorsed a statement

Which he doesn't repeat.

which said that violent games led to desensitization to violence,

Which is not always a bad thing.

as well as promoted anti-social behavior.

Which is unprovable in studies due to extraneous factors.

He said that there was a "direct, rational and compelling reason"

Which he never states

to marginally

Which this bill crushes

restrict

not bans

a minor's

not all

access to violent videogames.

But not to other violent media or semi-violent/pornographic games

He made it clear, however,

God I hope so

that parents would still have the final say on what media their children consumed,

Consumed? As in eaten?

and would still be allowed to let their children play violent games, if they deemed them appropriate.

As they do now and crushing any reason for introducing this bill in the first place.

Sorry, putting the scissors and paste down now, but that had to be done.

Fucking

And seeing as how this is appropriate, I just posted an english essay [http://www.escapistmagazine.com/forums/read/9.252556-The-Grand-Theft-Auto-Conundrum-an-essay-on-violent-video-games] I wrote describing the same thing.

Oh, and again;

 

[shadowform]

I actually did a research paper on the reasoning behind this law... and it is right, kinda.

The long and short is: violent games do have a tendency to attract more people with an initial tendency towards violence than other games, but it's also true that in both violent and non-violent individuals, it can increase short term aggression. The long term effect of the games themselves is not significant though. Any long-term impact results from people associating violence as a normal activity as a result of what they see in game... but this same kind of desensitization effect can also occur from watching the evening news (and yes, I can cite a source from a peer-review scholarly journal if you want it), so that isn't saying a whole lot.

I also read through the court transcript and the lawyers working the case should probably have a chat with Mr. Yee, since the notion that the law is meant to prevent lawlessness or anything like that has been discarded in preference for upholding it on the grounds of the violence in question being obscene (in other words: they want to extend censorship of sex to cover violence). Unfortunately, they weren't really able to give any good reasons as to why this law needs to exist when the ESRB already does exactly what their stated goal is.

 

[(LK)]

Games already self-regulate by submitting to a ratings system. Parents control their childrens' disposable income and they can control the games they're allowed to play. It really is as simple as reading the rating and the associated comments about the game on the outside of the box.

What I find to be a far more important question than whether violent games affect kids behavior is: What evidence is there that parents who want to control what their kids access do not already have all the tools they need to do so?

I don't care if violent games force children to punch people in the face 100% of the time. If parents are already able to control their children's access to such games effectively, there is no further need for new legislation.

The debate over the actual effects of such games is honestly irrelevant and gamers who choose to engage in it to the detriment of the more fundamental question (but only those who neglect the fundamental question) are being led astray by that strawman.

When thinking about legislating this, the only thing one has to ask is whether this is allowing parents to do something they could not do before. I severely doubt that it is, and so it is at best wasteful.