Games on Trial

[Mordwyl]

When I look at this from outside the box, I see once shit hits the fan again with the law in place they can't blame the video games but the people, giving us the right to a BIG "I told you so".

 

[Terminate421]

Question, if this bill passes, does that mean law systems would be totally different for each state? Wouldn't that just confuse retailers.

Lets say one gamestop sells games in California
Another gamestop sells them in Wisconson (Assuming they make a law too)

They both probobly have two totally different laws. So videogames would have to be regulated through more than 30 different states just to be sold (Some states are on our side)

 

[JDKJ]

Question, if this bill passes, does that mean law systems would be totally different for each state? Wouldn't that just confuse retailers.

Lets say one gamestop sells games in California
Another gamestop sells them in Wisconson (Assuming they make a law too)

They both probobly have two totally different laws. So videogames would have to be regulated through more than 30 different states just to be sold (Some states are on our side)

That's precisely what it means. The result could well be a patchwork quilt of 50 differently worded laws (bear in mind that it is only the Attorneys General (i.e., the states' chief prosecutor of laws) of some states opposing California, not their legislatures (i.e., the ones who actually pass their laws)).

 

[TwistedEllipses]

"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."

Yes, because there are just so many games where you can do that.

And this hyperbole is coming from the Chief Justice of the United States of America.
Holy. Fucking. Shit.

On the brightside with hyperbole like that, he could fill in for Zero Punctuation if he gets sick...

 

[Kevonovitch]

How about if a parent doesn't want their kid to play a game they tell them they can't?

That would be responsible.

dude, haven't you heard? nobody is responcible for anything they do, and disciplining a child/teaching them might result in the child going crying to social services! we can't have ACCOUNTABILITY, and REAL PARENTING getting in the way of lawyers making money now can we?

seriously, i was the problem child in the family, still am (hehe ^_^ 22 now btw ) my parents actually dialed up social services to talk to them about me, and whenever they did, i was like the best behaved kid for months on end every time they did.

on the topic of games; my bro wasen't allowed M rated games, till he proved to my parents that 1-he was old enough (he's 5 years older), and mature enough to play that specific game responsibly, and 3-NEVER allowed to play them while i was awake, or home, atleast till i was 14, then they were like "meh, just shut the door to your room." (he always had headphones at his comp, for music and games n vids) same thing when i turned 16, they woulden't even think about talking to us about it, till we turned 16.

omg, my parent's were responsible, and took action going "no diddly them M rated doodlies, not yet." and they always checked on what we were playing, till we graduated highschool.

 

[Alar]

*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.

Didn't the IRS start in a similar way, though? They were a private company and they were granted special rights by the government. I don't know exactly how it would work, but couldn't something similar happen here for the ESRB?

The short answers to your questions are: no, that isn't at all how the IRS was started and therefore, no, something similar cannot happen for the ESRB.

Then what the hell is it I'm remembering? Perhaps I just got some bad information somewhere in the past.

 

[Amarsir]

It will be a sad day when Scalia retires.

 

[spartan231490]

How about if a parent doesn't want their kid to play a game they tell them they can't?

That would be responsible.

The problem is that this law is writen to "protect" parents that do not review what their children ask for. The parents that walk into Game stop with scribbled christmas lists and ask for games without understanding the ratings system or even looking at the ESRB designations.

As a parent who is an avid fan of the medium, I make it a point to keep my copies of M rated games put away and play them when my child is asleep. When he is around and he wants to play with his dad, I let him play drums on Lego Rock Band or we play some more rated E games. To me, it's common sense. To most of those who were born just 5 years before me, it's a mystery.

We have to accept that it is those people, around age 40 to 60, that are in charge of the country at the moment. Those people, who would never even look at the true experience behind a solid M rated game like Mass Effect or Bioshock, are just more prone to seeing a story about a game like Postal or Rape Lay and make sweeping generalizations because that is what ignorance breeds.

Even if we loose, in 5 to 10 years when a more informed generation comes to power these restrictions can be changed. It's just a matter of having people who actually care in the right place.

It takes much longer than a decade to change the supreme court. They don't get replaced until they die.

And it's nice to see that you treat your games and children who play games in a responsible manner, but the sad fact is, the american people, for the most part, don't want any more responsibilty, because then when something goes wrong, they would have no one else to blame. The sad fact they don't seem able to grasp is, when u give up ur responsibilty, you also give up your freedom. In order for it to be someone elses fault, it must be able to happen with or without your consent.

 

[JDKJ]

Even if we loose, in 5 to 10 years when a more informed generation comes to power these restrictions can be changed. It's just a matter of having people who actually care in the right place.

sadly, we wont have many gamers in politics.

they will still be trying to level their rogues........

I am 100% honest about this, I brought this up to my cousins who are in 7th and 8th grade, one of the main targets in this, and they could of cared less.

up until I twisted the words of the pro-law lawyer around saying that he said "they have the same mental capabilities of a 5 year old".

Were any of the arguments made in light of the already present self-labeling system, the type of thing that allowed movies, music and comics to avoid national censorship? The "M" on a game allows a parent to know what they are buying, as well as what is on their kids' shelves, at a glance, just like the DVDs and (ahem, out dated I know) CDs they have there. If we are talking about enjoining physical retailers in California (and anywhere else these control freak laws pass), that just gives a real advantage to digital and illegal means of getting the same content, which equals LESS REVENUE FOR THAT STATE TO TAX.

Smart move, Gulivornia.

ITS FUNNY BECAUSE CALIFORNIA HAS A HUEG STATE DEFICIT........


LIEK XBAWKZ HUEG!


ahem, sorry about that. You see, politicians dont look at the long term since they are really of any influence for a couple of years, thusly any and all problems that are in the state/federal government are 'inherited' and 100% the fault of the other guy.

California is a prime example of this, they DO have the ability to start breaking their state budget deficit through taxes, sales and otherwise, yet it has never occurred to them that some of the stuff they ban actually pays more taxes than anything.


cigarettes, for instance, have the highest tax associated with them in some parts of the country/world due to 'sin' tax, which is placed on alcohol and other vices.



I am not saying Videogames should be placed under the 'sin' tax umbrella, but it might end up being a posibility with all the 'studies' and 'reports' that are quickly paraded as 'fact' that shows they have harmful effects on young/adult minds.

if that happens, expect to see $70-85 dollar games [console, non-collector/special editions] that you must show your ID to buy.


[small] its a very long stretch to say that it could go that far, but I wouldn't be surprised if such an option isnt brought up, California being the most health conscious state ever.........[/small]

That's the part that leaves me scratching my head 'til it bleeds. The State's laying off teachers left and right and closing fire stations on every other Friday of the month (keep your fingers crossed and hope your house doesn't catch fire on one of those Fridays) because it hardly has two thin dimes to rub together but yet thinks it's a great idea to blow more than a million dollars appealing an asinine law to the Supreme Court. Tell me the terms "moron" and "politician" aren't perfectly interchangeable.

 

[spartan231490]

It scares me that even one of the justices on the Supreme Court would side with this law.

Amazing how the people who were put in place to protect the constitution are now some of the most influencial in it's destruction. The Irony is almost poetic.

 

[JDKJ]

It scares me that even one of the justices on the Supreme Court would side with this law.

Amazing how the people who were put in place to protect the constitution are now some of the most influencial in it's destruction. The Irony is almost poetic.

Your hyperbole is impressive. Do you overstate the case on other issues, too? Or only on those related to the Constitution?

 

[spartan231490]

It scares me that even one of the justices on the Supreme Court would side with this law.

Amazing how the people who were put in place to protect the constitution are now some of the most influencial in it's destruction. The Irony is almost poetic.

Your hyperbole is impressive. Do you overstate the case on other issues, too? Or only on those related to the Constitution?

Overstate? Really, look around. Patriot act, Kelo vs. New london, this case, and to top it off, the 16th amendment. All of these are blatant attacks on the rights we have, by method of overruling or changing the constitution.
The 16th amendment is the worst. The constitution specifically says that the federal government shall have no power over education, among other things. And also that all powers not mentioned belong to the state or the people. by way of the 16th amendment, they completely reversed something in the original constitution, which wasn't done by any other amendment, and they use these changes to deny federal funding to states whose schools don't meet their requirments, or to states who change the drinking age to under 21, or to states whose speed limit is over 55/65 on freeways. This is the federal government taking powers it is explicitly and implicitly told it has no place in by changing the tax system.
The patriot act suspends all rights you have on nothing more than the suspicion of terrorism, and a suspicion isn't due process. In Kelo vs. New london, the federal supreme court ruled that it was acceptable for the government to use eminent domain to force individuals to sell thier land to a private company, specifically phizor.
This case is obviously an attack against free speach, the only question is which way the decision will go.

Several of these were argued in the supreme court, and allowed to continue, despite the fact that they obviously violate the constitution. The supreme court was put in place to prevent legislatures from passing laws that did just that, and yet here they are supporting the very laws they were supposed to overturn.

 

[JDKJ]

It scares me that even one of the justices on the Supreme Court would side with this law.

Amazing how the people who were put in place to protect the constitution are now some of the most influencial in it's destruction. The Irony is almost poetic.

Your hyperbole is impressive. Do you overstate the case on other issues, too? Or only on those related to the Constitution?

Overstate? Really, look around. Patriot act, Kelo vs. New london, this case, and to top it off, the 16th amendment. All of these are blatant attacks on the rights we have, by method of overruling or changing the constitution.
The 16th amendment is the worst. The constitution specifically says that the federal government shall have no power over education, among other things. And also that all powers not mentioned belong to the state or the people. by way of the 16th amendment, they completely reversed something in the original constitution, which wasn't done by any other amendment, and they use these changes to deny federal funding to states whose schools don't meet their requirments, or to states who change the drinking age to under 21, or to states whose speed limit is over 55/65 on freeways. This is the federal government taking powers it is explicitly and implicitly told it has no place in by changing the tax system.
The patriot act suspends all rights you have on nothing more than the suspicion of terrorism, and a suspicion isn't due process. In Kelo vs. New london, the federal supreme court ruled that it was acceptable for the government to use eminent domain to force individuals to sell thier land to a private company, specifically phizor.
This case is obviously an attack against free speach, the only question is which way the decision will go.

Several of these were argued in the supreme court, and allowed to continue, despite the fact that they obviously violate the constitution. The supreme court was put in place to prevent legislatures from passing laws that did just that, and yet here they are supporting the very laws they were supposed to overturn.

And, be everything as you say it is, this amounts to the "destruction" of the Constitution?

You're scaring me. In a "Timothy McVeigh-scary" kinda way.

 

[felixader]

This law would practically protect Ignorance on part of parents.

I think it is always a better way to educate instead to ban/forbid/criminalize.

 

[Mechsoap]

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.

i think my uncle did. it was horrible to watch.

 

[duchaked]

fight the power!

...wait did I just say that? :/

 

[Amarsir]

It scares me that even one of the justices on the Supreme Court would side with this law.

Amazing how the people who were put in place to protect the constitution are now some of the most influencial in it's destruction. The Irony is almost poetic.

Well, power corrupts. How many people have the restraint to respect freedoms even when disagreeing with their use? There's a pretty big difference between "I don't think the games are that bad" and "games are protected speech, like it or not." Even the "right" ruling here sounds like it would be made the wrong way...

 

[Jumplion]

I really wished that it was televised or something, I like hearing the specific context of what happened in the court room.

Was there any mention of the ESRB and how video game retailers abide by this self-regulatory system %80 of the time (too lazy to link the article)?

What about how it's the responsibility of the parent to decide what is and isn't right for their kids? It is not the government's job to tell us what games "are" and "aren't" appropriate for someone, and HELLO, there's a big "M For Mature" sign on the fucking box!

This is really getting me nervous, as some other people have pointed out, if the Supreme Court ruled against this it could mean that they only ruled against it because of how vague and broad the law is, and that could spring up more specific, and lethal, laws against the industry.

 

[Voltano]

Actually a thought just occurred to me that if the Supreme Court goes in favor of California and publishers decide to not make anymore M-rated or violent games for sales, it still won't remove the violence in these games. There are tons of Flash games online people could play for free which may be more violent then any game on the consoles or PC these days. Plus there are a lot of indie games made with explicit sexual images which are released as free--made either in other countries or by people in North America. These games are not sold in retail stores like Wal-Mart or digital distributions like Steam, but given away for free by people who may create these games just for the fun of it. They're kind of like "fan-fiction" stories which are just released for free so they could hear people's opinions on them. Kind of like Yahtzee's "Chzo" series.

How does California expect to keep these games out of any child's hand? Sure the content in these "indie, free" games could be questionable to anyone, but they would be hard to govern since they are easily distributed online. Plus their existence means that people who make them are interested in those content, and may not get it legally so they create it and distribute it to other people that are interested. If California wins, what is to stop a person from making the next "Bioshock" or "Dragon Age" game to be released for free, bypassing any retailer and any Government censorship?