Eleven States Join California at the Supreme Court

[Jaded Scribe]

Ok, but then why video games only when laws regarding movies, music, and books have all been shot down?

Oh, I'm with you on those, too. Most particularly music, given how ubiquitous it is as an entertainment medium.

I will say, though, that movie theatres near places I've lived have cracked down on IDs for R-rated movies. I'm not entirely sure what motivated them to do so, but frankly I'm glad. I've never seen anyone carded for a CD, book, or video game, though.

Folks will cry "censorship," especially if we required content ratings for books, but they don't understand the word. This is about giving parents out there the information they need for "intelligent consumership." God knows we've got too many parents out there running around not doing a damn thing to raise their children. We at least need to be sure we're backing up those that DO.

As for why it's being singled out, that's easy. Video games are the "rock music" of our generation. They're the easiest target, because they're the newest target. So, the methodology is suspect, and I agree completely--but I still agree with the rationale behind the law, as long as it is adapted to target the point of sale, not the makers.

It's not about giving parents the information they need. I was discussing this in 2008 in a game design course. Roughly 80% of 'M'-rated games purchased for a minor were purchased by the parent/guardian.

On any game box, finding the rating information is not hard. And not only does it have the letter rating, but the reasons why it earned that rating.

Looking at my Dragon Age case:

M - Blood, Intense Violence, Language, Partial Nudity, Sexual Content.

Seems pretty cut and dry to me.

Should stores crack down on their policies? Sure. It took a long time before movies started doing it. (And frankly, it was for a long time even easier to get into a movie than buy an M-rated game. Just buy a ticket for a kid's movie and hop into whichever show you actually wanted to see). Though, I've never seen any cashier ask for ID when buying an R-rated movie.

But setting it as law is a terrible idea that will only lead to bad things for the industry.

 

[geldonyetich]

Such a law would probably have more impact if video games weren't played in the home, not a movie theater with some level of difficulty and accountability involved in infiltrating, and the games themselves likely pirated since it's not like minors have a lot of cash laying around.

 

[DarkRyter]

Good to see Georgia's not on there.

Now, if you'll excuse me, I have to go play my banjo whilst shouting racial epithets.

 

[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.

Because how kids handle violence and pornography are drastically different.

Ok, I wasn't equating games and pornography, only pointing out that the government controlling minors access to media is hardly a new concept. The FCC does it on TV and radio too, and has been for decades.

I also still fail to see hows this is a first amendment issue, since the sale of these items aren't restricted to everyone, only minors. Their production, sale, and re-sale isn't being made illegal, so how is this an issue of the first amendment? Whose speech is being stifled here?

Many people have already pointed out that the majority of retail companies already have the age-check as a policy, so this would effect...who? It won't change the major retailers policies, or their distribution, since all the major chains already have this in effect.

So, again, what's the deal?

Is it because movies and music don't have this policy?
Should they? Should they not?

It might seem like I'm just playing devil's advocate, or that I'm trying to rile people up, but that honestly isn't the case. I'm genuinely curious as to all the hulla-baloo. It doesn't strike me as a big deal, so I'm wondering 'what's up'?

 

[Aitruis]

The system they want is already in place, but retailers don't enforce it.

Retailers do enforce it. Videogame ratings have a higher rate of refusal than movies, music and DVDs. In other words, higher than everything else.

This has all been very well-covered in the past.

Not out here they don't. In Arizona there is a near-constant flow of outcrying from locals about how kids can go anywhere, buy anything, etc etc etc. And yes, I can guarantee you that my 12-year old niece could waltz into Best Buy, Gamestop, or Walmart, and walk out with GTA4, MW2, and whatever else you want to throw on the list.

In my opinion, parents need to take far greater responsibility for the material their children view. It's not the videogame industry's, nor the retail industry's job to watch what children play, that is a responsibility that falls solely on the parent's shoulders. However, since parents can't eyeball their kids every second of the day, I do think retailers should enforce ESRB ratings.

To me it's not an issue of censorship, it's an issue of proper material at proper age, or near enough to it. Until a certain level of life experience, children don't have the rationalization mechanisms to deal with graphic imagery, death, etc. At that point you start having children that don't immediately understand concepts adults take for granted, like death is permanent. And until they have that understanding, they could be at risk of causing harm to themselves or others, because they don't fully understand the consequences yet.

*EDIT*- I forgot to mention earlier, anytime there's a new R-rated movie out, there are routinely police stationed at the theatre door.

 

[theironbat46]

I live in Virginia and can't buy a M-rated game without an adult. So we don't need to waste time on this. It's already established, just like how I can't go see an R-rated movie by myself.

Yes you can, and no it's not.

It's not? Last time I checked I needed an adult with me to purchase it.

 

[therookie95]

To be honest, most M rated games are either TV MA or more TV 14 American. Maybe if for example Ao games could be better defined and not considered taboo, this kind of legislation could be possible, but M rated games are to broad a description, if a game shows any blood it almost never just gets T, it'll get marked with an M.
While not really bad, it does make it seem as if all games are bad for kids if M, and makes a group of uninformed parents believe this will corrupt any young person who even catches a glimpse of it.
Also, there are a lot of 14-16 year olds who pretty much understand that what happens in a match of modern warfare isn't how real life works, and these games aren't going to do anything negative to their lives, but if this legislation is passed, they are included within this "children" label (I mention this because i'm in this range)
It just doesn't make sense to me why they half to completly shut off video games for no reason as compared to any other form of media?

 

[Aitruis]

Also, there are a lot of 14-16 year olds who pretty much understand that what happens in a match of modern warfare isn't how real life works, and these games aren't going to do anything negative to their lives, but if this legislation is passed, they are included within this "children" label (I mention this because i'm in this range)

Largely what most of the debate covers isn't the close-to-18s, its the significantly underage. I think what most likely would happen if enforcement went up is what happens with smokes, spray paint, etc; if you're close to 18, look close to 18, or basically are anything other than a hyper, nervous 12 year old obviously trying to get away with something, in all likelyhood no one will care.

But yes, I do agree with you, many people have a solid grasp on reality long before what our culture defines as age of majority, but until we have a better system of judging a person's maturity level, the one-size-fits-all of 18 as age of majority is all we've got.

 

[Silver Patriot]

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.

It isn't about the law itself believe it or not. It is about the precedent it would set. If this Supreme Court rules in favor of this law Video Games would no longer be protected under the 1st Amendment [http://www.law.cornell.edu/anncon/html/amdt1toc_user.html]. Without the protection the 1st Amendment [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution] provides games themselves could be restricted or censored. Look at Australia and the Left 4 Dead 2 incident [http://kotaku.com/5362838/valve-pretty-bummed-by-australias-refusal-of-l4d2]. Now imagine States being able to do that. That is why I don't support this law. Not because I believe minors should be able to play M rated games, because I like to play M rated games.

 

[Reverend Del]

I sit here and look at the 8 games in my 360 games collection ( I own 14 games total) that come with a BBFC classification on the box. Doing this I know that if the law applies to video games your country won't suddenly kill the gaming industry. Companies will still produce M rated games, they'll still be sold, and the world will still turn. No, what concerns me is how this appeal is worded. The term interactive media scares me because it doesn't apply only to video games. It applies to websites hosted in the US, TV shows that you can vote on, simply put everything modern media is becoming. If they succeed they get the right to apply this to every form of interactive media you can swing a cat at. Video game classification doesn't scare me, full scale media classification? That does.

 

[Nuke_em_05]

I think a lot of people are missing the point about Minors when they start citing the first amendment.

It's kind of a hot button for me, one for which I was suspended here at one point: minors are not complete citizens and do not have the same rights, privileges, or responsibilities. They cannot vote, they cannot enlist (or be drafted), they cannot be summoned to jury duty, they cannot file a lawsuit. The law applies differently to minors. Most of the time, the minor's parents/guardians are held responsible for their actions to a point.

This is about minors purchasing games that are inappropriate for them. It would still allow a parent to judge and buy it for them.

Yes, the ESRB does exist already. They do a good job. I think this law would give them teeth. No vendor has to subscribe to ESRB, few parents would know the difference if they did or didn't anyway. If a vendor violates ESRB, they just get kicked out of the club. No action can be taken against me legally, as a vendor, if I sell an inappropriate game to a minor.

... so, seriously, is the community and industry just playing the martyr here?

 

[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.

Because how kids handle violence and pornography are drastically different.

Ok, I wasn't equating games and pornography, only pointing out that the government controlling minors access to media is hardly a new concept. The FCC does it on TV and radio too, and has been for decades.

I also still fail to see hows this is a first amendment issue, since the sale of these items aren't restricted to everyone, only minors. Their production, sale, and re-sale isn't being made illegal, so how is this an issue of the first amendment? Whose speech is being stifled here?

Many people have already pointed out that the majority of retail companies already have the age-check as a policy, so this would effect...who? It won't change the major retailers policies, or their distribution, since all the major chains already have this in effect.

So, again, what's the deal?

Is it because movies and music don't have this policy?
Should they? Should they not?

It might seem like I'm just playing devil's advocate, or that I'm trying to rile people up, but that honestly isn't the case. I'm genuinely curious as to all the hulla-baloo. It doesn't strike me as a big deal, so I'm wondering 'what's up'?

Again, the FCC is under fire almost constantly for First Amendment violations, so it's a poor example of this "being ok".

Second, it's not so much about whether it should be regulated or not. Such laws in regards to music and movies were overturned on Constitutional grounds. Whether that decision was right or wrong (myself, I say right. Parents need to control their own children, not have the government do it for them.) is not the issue here.

To not overturn this on the same grounds as music and movies is a disservice to the industry. It puts regulations on them that no other entertainment industry has, despite the fact that (a) the ESRB is lauded as the best ratings system out there, (b) this will do nothing considering the vast majority of M-rated games are already purchased by the parent/guardian.

All it does is send the message that video games are "bad" and need extra regulations to "protect" our children from them.

Third, the grounds that the "interactive nature" is what makes games different than movies is a dangerous precedent to set. Look at BioWare's sister-company Code Baby. They create interactive avatars for use on websites and training software. This law could, through the precedent it sets, open up means for the government to censor any and all interactive media, games or otherwise.

 

[MelasZepheos_v1legacy]

Unfortunately I don't have a say in this what with that whole British thing, but at least over here in Blighty if enough people were to raise a fuss about it then the law would not go through (see the recently repealed law about the minority government and a vote of confidence which the Conservatives were forced to repeal after public outcry)

Isn't America the same? Shouldn't the land of the free in fact pay more attention than Britain to what its people say? Or maybe I'm just talking crazy, after all, it's not like we're talking about an industry which is already better regulated than...

Oh wait, it is already better regulated than literature, movies and music.

more snip.

snip.

major snip

This law is drastically different to the current American Laws in place for movies, music, literature, comic books etc. Basically this would be restricting adult rated (not even just violent, but anything over a certain rating) to the same sort of distribution laws as pornography. That is a very unfortunate outlook for videogames, and to prove it simply look at your average film retailer. Do they sell pornography out on the shelves? No. And the same thing would happen with all adult rated videogames eventually.

Also, as has been pointed out by many other people and the original article and every other article the Escapist has run on this law, this bill is, for America, in direct violation of the First Amendment, supposedly the most sacrosanct of all American Laws. So if you are American it should be against your most basic principles of freedom of speech.

You should read up on the proposed law, because it is a shocking violation of the videogame industries right to compete on the same level as movies and literature. It's not like the ratings on R and above movies, it is, as mentioned before, more like adding an XXX logo to every adult videogame, forever restricting videogames to being a cutesy children's media.

 

[Raithnor]

I'm not going to worry about this too much. The Supreme Court handed down some really daffy decisions lately, but they've been fairly anti-censorship lately.

There was a case a while back about a law that outlawed "crush" videos. The basic gist was it was attractive women in high-heels stomping the bejesus out of little furry animals. The Court decided that you could pass laws forbidding the *making* of these films, but you could not pass laws forbidding the *sale and viewing* of these films.

Combine that with the "Money is speech" decision that got handed down recently and you have a court that's going to most likely strike down the law. All the defense really has to prove is that the passage of this law would have a negitive impact on their business which already self-regulates.

There's too much money involved for the game companies to just roll over and let M-rated games become the new AO-rating. It would kill console gaming or drive it all to online marketplaces.

 

[Hoplon]

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, 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.

Holy mother fucking shit is there anybody who isnt in that movie, I am so gonna have to go see that shit when it comes out.

Wait... so there are no legal ratings in the USA at all? Not movies or anything?

That is a little fubar.

Okay, that's mind bendingly strange way to operate.

There are no legal ratings but the current rating systems on movies, games etc is enforced exactly as if it already was a law. You sell a game to a minor and you get fired, underage kids arnt sold tickets to R rated movies. The law would actually change nothing at all except the penelty. All of the ratings for entertainment are self regulated but are still properly regulated.

Its another bullshit attempt that will fail just like all the rest, and if it doesnt well sucks to be them and thank god I live in Canada.

Okay, that makes a little more sense, but to formalise it in law as far as I can tell does not curtail free speech in any manner. Only if there was censorship of a movie for it to be approved for a rating (as we have here in the UK) Then is just not letting children see thing they won't understand yet anyway.

 

[hyperdrachen]

Ah Florida, I might have known. It is of note that my...fine state, is ranked bottom 25% in education ratings.

I'm all for it. Kids shouldn't be allowed to buy anything that's above their age rating, even if they're singling the age ratings for games it's still not too much of a fuss.

As long as they don't do something ridiculous and stop violent games completely like they seem to be doing in Australia.

Even though I don't see the need in more legislation regarding video games, I don't see exactly how this is as big of a deal as some are making it. Violating free speech? How? M rated video games will still be sold and I'll still be able to buy them. I also can almost guarantee there will be no change in how many minors play M rated games either.

You guys are both missing the point. Currently movies, music, and video games are all internally regulated as to who can/should buy certain content. This does not actually violate any rights. No one is obligated to sell you a product. Federal regulation would change the game, it would not be the content creator, or the viewer that is deciding who can/should view it, but rather a 3rd party, being your government.

This is censorship, it violates freedom of speach/expression. I know they just want to make sure little jimmy doesn't play kane and lynch. No harm in that right? Well that's not up to you. Even if you think it sensible to restrict violent games from young children that is the place of parents, not governments. This leads us further down a road we have grown far too acustomed to in this country. Shirking parenting responsibilty onto the government and giving up rights in the process.

I disagree that this sets a precident however, as the one others are proposing has already been set. We don't believe in freedom of speech in this country we believe in freedom of speech we like.

http://www.escapistmagazine.com/news/view/98325-Hentai-Collector-Sentenced-to-Jail-Over-Obscene-Material

Glaring example, this guy, while a bit wierd, has hurt no one, but he has been publicly humiliated and defamed, will likely face difficulty in any future professional settings and was sentenced to 6 months of jail time. All of this because we as a country have decided he's not allowed to read about fictional characters doing things that disgust us.

How long til we see a 18 year old facing jail time because he bought Gears of War 3 and played it with his 17 year old best friend? Legislation is far too clumsy to navigate the nuances of situations and apply appropriate action. If the letter of the law says the 18 year old is guilty of aiding a minor in circumventing the law, then there are mandatory penalties outlined in the legislation, and he'll be treated as a criminal even though no victim is to be found. All because his 17 year old friend's parents thought this law was a good idea and they thought it would keep Gears 3 out of thier sweet babies brain, but it was all ruined by the criminal scum, and they intend to hire the best lawyer money can buy to make him pay for it. Don't think it will happen? If this law passes, I give it a year before it turns some average joe into a criminal facing jail time.

Our laws are full of hypocracy and violations of personal liberties for the sake of some public consensus on things that are ok to do. We do not need more legislation like this we need less.

 

[BehattedWanderer]

I've said this once before--What I would like to see in response to this, to settle this issue, is for the ESRB to do a series of commercials, across the networks. They have ads in gaming magazines, but aren't addressing the uninformed. They need to pitch to the mainstream, and they need to understand that these ads need to be prominent, and publicly displayed. The ESRB as it is now is an effective system, more effective than the MPAA. I support the system we have now.

 

[RicoADF]

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.

Beats me, in Australia we have coloured ratings markings the same as film/TV so parents can easily tell what the game's rating is and games rated MA15+ are not allowed to be sold to people under 15 by law and thats how I think it should be, then its the parent's choice to allow the child to play them or not, and the kids can't buy them behind their parents back.