Games on Trial

[MDSnowman]

This law shouldn't exist, period. It's simply an attempt to wipe one's backside with the 1st amendment and ignore some of the greatest principals the country was founded on.

In the end of the day parents needs to take responsibility for what their children are buying. If your child asks for a copy of Grand Theft Auto IV, then it falls upon you, as the parent, to know what they're asking for.

Frankly, that's the easy part, the hard part is keeping a tab on what a child may buy on their own, or trade with friends for. Then it requires you to do that kind of homework on the fly. It also requires that the parent is willing to accept the fact that their child went and actively sought out this game. It's not anyone's fault but the kid's.

The fact is many parents today don't have inclination to take that kind of interest in their children. Trust me, I work in the education field and the sheer amount of apathy I see from parents is disturbing. They can't be bothered to keep sick children home, look at their work, return notes, or even take the smallest degree of interest in what their child does all day.

If this naturally extends to the games they give their children to play with then naturally they WANT someone else to decide what's right for them, and to make it someone else's fault that they didn't take an active enough interest in their child's life.

 

[Delusibeta]

*snip*

It's speculation of the worst case, but considering that's a scenereo mentioned on the first page of this article, it's not an uncommon speculation. And no, the ESRB does not, as far as I know, have an equivilant to PEGI 16+. Yet. Of course, you can argue that M is the equivilant to 16+ and AO is equivilant to 18+, but considering AO is pretty much the same as if Germany refused a rating on it, it's a poor arguement.

Ironically, AO is also (currently) the only ESRB rating AFAIK that is legally binding. Hence the aforementioned worst case if California gets to legally bind the M rating as well.

 

[Sixties Spidey]

It's always postal 2 they go for.

Postal 2 is such a small blip on the gaming radar that it really shouldn't even be in the debate. It's ancient, we all know it's horrible, and its gimmick doesn't last long even in the hands of children. But politicians LOVE it, because they can point to it and say "Look at that horrible games industry, look what they did".

Does Anyone own that, that thing.

Anyone can get it off of a torrent. That's bad enough already. They aren't going after Postal 2 only. They also happen to be going after MadWorld, which to me just strikes me as fucking retarded. It seems as though they're only just going after the most violent looking games.

 

[JDKJ]

*snip*

It's speculation of the worst case, but considering that's a scenereo mentioned on the first page of this article, it's not an uncommon speculation. And no, the ESRB does not, as far as I know, have an equivilant to PEGI 16+. Yet. Of course, you can argue that M is the equivilant to 16+ and AO is equivilant to 18+, but considering AO is pretty much the same as if Germany refused a rating on it, it's a poor arguement.

Ironically, AO is also (currently) the only ESRB rating AFAIK that is legally binding. Hence the aforementioned worst case if California gets to legally bind the M rating as well.

No ESRB rating, from "E" to "AO," is legally binding. A wholly private regulatory scheme cannot, as a matter of law, be legislatively granted the force of a public law. To do so is unconstitutional because it effectively replaces the judgment of elected legislators with the judgment of some private entity who is in no way beholden to the electorate. You can call this some sorta Tea Party argument, if you'd like, but to me, at least, it makes perfect sense.

 

[Furbyz]

I don't understand why there's such a big fuss. Can't they just say that games with 'obscene violence' are R-rated (Or whatever the American equivalent is) and can only be purchased by adults upon presentation of a driver's license or proof of age card? It works for cigarettes and alcohol. No major restructuring would be necessary on anyone's behalf.

What am I missing?

This isn't really about minors playing games. There's a much bigger picture here. This has to do with Games First Amendment rights, i.e. are they protected by freedom of speech?

Imagine what would happen if these laws pass. First of all, there will have to be strict definitions of what is and isn't acceptable. Then to complicate things more, these laws will be defined at the state level, meaning that you could have very different standards to follow when making a game. That severely narrows what a designer can do. Games with violence (and lets face it, there are a lot) become riskier to make. That could shake the whole industry, and set the whole medium back a generation. They would be regulated by people that don't know and don't care about games.

The biggest insult though, is that this isn't even a question for other media. The Godfather and The Great Gatsby both depict murder and other immoral behavior, but they're both considered great pieces art. But violence in a video game? That's not acceptable

Actually, the Supreme Court decided that Motion Pictures were protected under the First Amendment, as they served as a vehicle to effectively carry an idea, in 1952. You see, it's not that no one has asked that question about movies, it's just that the answer has long been decided. Now it's Video Games turn. And while you are correct about those laws being decided at a state level you don't take into account that local government could also impose censorship laws. Which would be a whole different kind of hell. However, that should be irrelevant since, more than likely, there is no way that games won't be held as protected by the First Amendment. Which would render governmental censorship boards impossible.

I wouldn't be surprised to see any tests for deciding if something is too violent, though. The ESRB's self-regulation might need to be stepped up and education of Joe Blow Parent is a must.

 

[Ashoten]

make sweeping generalizations because that is what ignorance breeds.

Exactly, and well also that we as gamers sort of don't always show that we are as intelligent and normal and behaved just like anyone else which hinders peoples opinion of us. not saying all of us are hooligans but those who are have a bigger impact than those of us who aren't.

Unfortunately that's the case in every demographic. Where people are judged by one bad example out of 100 otherwise good examples. The nature of the news medium is to be sensational and outrageous to attract attention.

 

[hitheremynameisbob]

There's also Americans on this forum that think that you either have Freedom Of Speech or you're in 1984 territory, no middle ground. It's the sort of argument the Tea Party would make, frankly.

Look, nobody thinks that this would be a big form of censorship. Nobody thinks that it's going to lead to big brother and doublespeak in ten years. But this is missing the point. Some people are looking at this law and saying "what's the harm?" but you can't make law just on the basis of "why not?" There has to be good reason, justification, and logic behind your decision to restrict anything, and as it stands there is very little in play here. Specifically, they are trying to say that video games AND ONLY VIDEO GAMES are harmful enough to warrant censorship. That's just ridiculous. No study says that. What some studies say is that violent video games can do harm to minors, but not one says that movies, books, etc... do not do the same thing. Even if video games do more damage then these others, which hasn't been shown, it's still silly to regulate one and not the others. It's bad legislation, period.

And then there's the matter of what message this sends about games. Games aren't like movies and books. Games hurt kids! While this law may not restrict much, it could lead to more. Once you have a decision from the SUPREME COURT that says video games are okay to regulate, you will see, gradually, stricter and stricter attempts at controlling them. And even if the currently proposed $1000 dollar fine isn't enough to make the big retailers take them off shelves, once you declare that regulation is okay there's no guarantee that this will be the worst restriction we see. It has the potential to get harsher, and it probably will. How much harsher is a question of the power of the groups that want to censor games and how much legislative support they can drum up, but let's put it this way: they've managed to get at least ten states to try and restrict game sales already, and this is without the Supreme Court having said that it's okay to do it.

As to the suggestion that it has worked alright in other countries, without big retailers limiting their stock on these games: most other countries aren't the US. I seriously doubt that any other country has such a strong interest group presence arrayed against video games. The reason things may be different here will be that we have dozens of parents groups, religious organizations, ect... who legitimately do want games to be censored. Even then, I'm sure other countries have their fair share of these groups, but they likely don't have the sort of legislative clout that they do in the US. These groups are the driving force behind laws that restrict games, and if emboldened by a victory, there's really no telling how far they're willing to push this.

Again, refer to the first paragraph here. "Why not?" is not justification for legislation restricting free speech, even if only doing so in a very small way. Unless it can be shown that the decision to single games out is rational, and not being done simply because they know they can't win against other mediums, this law has no place on the books.

 

[acosn]

ESRB has the highest compliance rate of any self imposed rating system in the market. You're more likely to get through an R rated movie than you are to buy an "M" Rated game. I'm bloody 21 and they still card me.


The rating system is for all intents legally binding. If a store doesn't want to sell you a game on the basis that you're not old enough, they're not going to sell it to you. There's no legal ramifications if your parent does for you though. If that's what you mean.

 

[mobsterlobster]

I live in the UK, and I once worked for a store called Argos. When people were buying video games or movies that were rated 18 or 15, I always had to point it out to the customer, even if they were obviously over the age, just to let them know. Why can't that be the law? That way, an ignorant parent buying a rated R game for their child will know it's unsuitable before they buy it. Then it's the parent's decision to buy the game.

 

[jono793]

I fail to see the issue here. All California is attempting to do is put legal weight behind a classification system that already exists. We've had a similar situation here in the UK with the BBFC classifications (with PEGI supposedly taking over at some point in the near future). While there were certainly teething problems, British game development is hardly stifled by a climate of censorship.

As for: "major game retailers," having "to restructure their entire business model to ensure minors are not sold games," that's exactly the sort of shrill exaggeration that polarizes the debate! At most, games retailers would need to re-train their staff to ask for ID when selling an M rated game, something that could be achieved in a single orientation day!

 

[vallorn]

ERM, why has California suddenly declared war on the video games industry? Sorry, i dont live in America so im not really sure of some of the political issues over there but, over here in Britain we more or less allow anything and everything. The government over here is more concerned with getting us out of the recession than imposing ridiculous laws which, in the long run, wont make a bloody difference anyway ^^

actualty our old game review board (the BBFC) was a government body. it did a pretty decent job until it was replaced by Pegi(damn you EU!).they banned 2 games in the last 10 years and one of those was Guess what! Postal 2!

its illegal here to sell 18 games to under 18's the other ones are guidelines for parents.

 

[addeB]

"We do not have a tradition in this country of telling children they should watch people actively hitting schoolgirls over the head with a shovel so they'll beg for mercy, pour gasoline over them, and urinate on them..."

Does a game like that even exist?

 

[ThePurpleStuff]

A simple solution here parents, "DON'T. BUY. IT!" Your two year old child should have those shitty v-tech video games they make, not the next Call of Duty and Halo games. Are they so dumb and so uncaring they'll just pick up a game that is obviously not meant for kids and just toss it at their child's feet? "That'll keep you quiet for a while, welfare check." God, its shit like that that really makes me wish none of this generation ever became a parent and the human race would evolve into some sort of smart, super being.

 

[JDKJ]

There's also Americans on this forum that think that you either have Freedom Of Speech or you're in 1984 territory, no middle ground. It's the sort of argument the Tea Party would make, frankly.

Look, nobody thinks that this would be a big form of censorship. *snip*

What tickles me is how no small amount of those outside of the United States seem all too willing to use the "Tea Party" brush to paint Americans who disagree with them. While, conversely, it would be just as easy to paint them with the "British National Party" brush -- but I don't see anybody doing that.

 

[JDKJ]

ESRB has the highest compliance rate of any self imposed rating system in the market. You're more likely to get through an R rated movie than you are to buy an "M" Rated game. I'm bloody 21 and they still card me.


The rating system is for all intents legally binding. If a store doesn't want to sell you a game on the basis that you're not old enough, they're not going to sell it to you. There's no legal ramifications if your parent does for you though. If that's what you mean.

How is the ESRB's rating system for all intents legally binding? It's a completely voluntary system. If a store wants to sell you a game despite the fact that you're not old enough to buy it, there's no law that says they can't and no legal ramifications if they do.

 

[Sad Face]

Correct me if I'm wrong...but didn't Arnold Schwarzenegger make a fairly decent living off of pretending to kill people? A bit of a moot point I know considering he was an adult at the time...except didn't he also star in video games aimed at children where you killed people?

It all seems a little willy nilly to me, poorly investigated.

 

[eLdritch247]

hai.

first post on the escapist

I live in Germany and we had that sort of "censorship" for years... given we have it for movies, books, etc as well but yeah...

basically any game that gets an 18+(your M) rating MUST not be sold to minors... the laws are pretty strict and you get your ID checked in stores when buying such games...

It's not really a problem for the industry though... we have GameStop and WalMart as well and they still sell the games... they just check your ID. I couldn't think of a single store that doesn't sell the full plethora of games, other than the ones that are outright BANNED in GER of course like postal 2.

I do sympathize with the freedom of speech issue... but I also strongly believe in laws to protect kids from stuff that might hurt them in their development...

You might think that germany is super strict and the laws are dumb... then again you can buy alcohol starting at 16 here and 21 as the "alcohol age" weirds me out f.e.

so yeah... booh for censorship! but I don't think it'll stop big stores from selling them... there's too much money in games.

 

[Velocirapture07]

From Article:

Chief Justice Roberts responded, "We do not have a tradition in this country of telling children they should watch people actively hitting schoolgirls over the head with a shovel so they'll beg for mercy, pour gasoline over them, and urinate on them... We protect children from that."

Um....what kind of f'ed up video games is this guy playing? I seriously doubt these guys actually know what a video game is, let alone what many of them entail. Does anyone know if he's referencing an actual game or just pulling stuff out of his ass?

 

[whaleswiththumbs]

Justice Breyer has somewhat of a point. Parents should regulate their children, if a parent doesn't want a kid to watch a Rated R movie, they don't let them go see it, if they don't want them watching a bad TV show, they don't let them. The video games industry has been supplying the tools for parents to do this for years. Just because the parents don't want to use them does not mean that the industry as a whole should be punished. I feel them winning i feel an aging of the fire that drives some, we have been playing the same broken record for years, and they remain ignorant from fear. I see that I'm preaching to a choir here, i give it no chance that any Justice will come to this site and look at comment #120-whatever and change their mind. So i leave it to the choir, to take their actions as needed.

And which game was being referenced with the schoolgirl torture bit? If California's argument is based on some obscure (or even semi-obscure) pile of trash that even gamers barely know about, it's kind of hard to argue that little kids will want to get their hands on that game, isn't it? In which case, publishers are being responsible enough to not advertise such material to kids in the first place.

It's a game from the late 90's early 00's, it is very crude and wasn't very popular, this being obvious by the fact that most people involved in the gaming scene don't remeber it, yet thios one judge who wants to do away with it, does.

 

[JDKJ]

Justice Breyer has somewhat of a point. Parents should regulate their children, if a parent doesn't want a kid to watch a Rated R movie, they don't let them go see it, if they don't want them watching a bad TV show, they don't let them. The video games industry has been supplying the tools for parents to do this for years. Just because the parents don't want to use them does not mean that the industry as a whole should be punished. I feel them winning i feel an aging of the fire that drives some, we have been playing the same broken record for years, and they remain ignorant from fear. I see that I'm preaching to a choir here, i give it no chance that any Justice will come to this site and look at comment #120-whatever and change their mind. So i leave it to the choir, to take their actions as needed.

And which game was being referenced with the schoolgirl torture bit? If California's argument is based on some obscure (or even semi-obscure) pile of trash that even gamers barely know about, it's kind of hard to argue that little kids will want to get their hands on that game, isn't it? In which case, publishers are being responsible enough to not advertise such material to kids in the first place.

It's a game from the late 90's early 00's, it is very crude and wasn't very popular, this being obvious by the fact that most people involved in the gaming scene don't remeber it, yet thios one judge who wants to do away with it, does.

I don't think he "remembers" it. I think California brought it to the Court's attention and he's decided to latch on to it.