Jaffe: Gamers' Rights Efforts are "Pointless and Naive"
- Thread starter Andy Chalk
- Start date
I both agree and disagree with him. I do agree that ultimately, this will come down to the legal matters of the Supreme Court. All the petitions and campaigns in the world aren't going to change the legal procedures in the courtroom case. Really, until the day of the case, things are more or less going to be the same.
But this isn't a waste of time. We need to let the lawmakers (senators, governors, mayors, representatives) see that what they are doing isn't classy, isn't smart, isn't popular, and (most importantly) ISN'T CONSTITUTIONAL. The precedent for this case is firmly on the side of pro-gaming (not everyone who doesn't like this law are gamers, so I call this side pro-gaming).
on a side note:
But this isn't a waste of time. We need to let the lawmakers (senators, governors, mayors, representatives) see that what they are doing isn't classy, isn't smart, isn't popular, and (most importantly) ISN'T CONSTITUTIONAL. The precedent for this case is firmly on the side of pro-gaming (not everyone who doesn't like this law are gamers, so I call this side pro-gaming).
on a side note:
Sadly, this statement is becoming more and more true every day...DannibalG36 said:
I think it's the creeping regulatory aspect that bothers people - me among them. Recent studies seem to suggest that the ESRB is a more effective informal regulatory body than the MPAA, but videogames are still repeatedly singled out for special legislative attention while movies slide under the radar. Why? Courts around the country don't seem to have received a good answer to that question yet, so they keep striking down these laws. We can only hope that California will have the sense to do the same.Wolfram01 said:
Keep your laws out of my videogames until you can prove there's a *real* problem, not some cheap shot you think will get you votes as a crusader crying "For the children!"
It's not that simple in the US. First off, the UK is a significantly smaller market, so changes there don't effect the industry as much as they do in the US, but that's mostly besides the point. The problem is the WAY that they're going about this case. They're trying to single out games and put them in a legal category currently occupied mostly by pornography. In the UK you also have legally binding film ratings, so games aren't being set apart from other media in your case. Not so in the US. This WILL have drastic consequences for the industry if violent games are deemed obscene.Danzaivar said:
It won't be the ESRB rating the games or enforcing the rules, the state will take over both duties costing taxpayers millions of dollar a year and delaying the release of games in that state. More likely it will just mean that people in California will do what people in states that have tougher anti-porn laws than others do: they will go out of state or online to get the games.Wolfram01 said:
I don't really see the difference this is going to make. I haven't been to a store and bought an M-rated game without the cashier asking to see my ID.
I don't really see the big deal. Is this already illegal in Canada?
I don't really see the big deal. Is this already illegal in Canada?
They won't ban video games because all the stocks invested in various developers will become worthless and the market will take quite a hit. Not another depression but certainly significant.Daemascus said:
They are not going to bankrupt an entire industry.
Except this is the SUPREME Court making this call. They're going to be dealing with a constitutional issue, not a state policy one. The defense that has been used to prevent the implementation of almost a dozen similar laws in other states (and this one, too) has been a constitutional defense based on the first amendment's obscenity clause. If they say that California can regulate sales like this, they are giving that power to EVERY OTHER STATE, too. How much you wanna bet that in the months following a ruling in California's favor, we see similar bills pop up in almost every state? If the supreme court invalidates that defense, they're not going to stop with just California.asinann said:
Actually, after reading the briefs, the arguments, a few of the precedents and seeing some of the amicus curiae; I strongly believe that Schwarzennegger (California) doesn't have a chance. Unless, of course, the Supreme Court wants to rewrite the First Amendment.ProtoChimp said:
Also, I've come to learn that this isn't just a fight for gamers. All artists are supporting the EMA/ESA on this one. Mainly because if Schwarzennegger wins, then it can have a chilling effect on every other art (including movies, books, paintings, etc).
You're not alone, I've been over most of that stuff, too. It's mostly ridiculous. The EMA and ESA also have precedent from something like nine circuit courts backing them up - the odds are pretty good they'll maintain the appeals ruling that repealed the law.SubManCow said:
Would that really be such a bad thing? Doesn't the US have the largest and richest pornography industry in the world?hitheremynameisbob said:
Playboy is practically a household name and even the Escapist features porn stars more frequently than game developers. If the porn stigma was such a bad thing, then surely I Hit It With My Axe wouldn't be a weekly feature and it would be replaced with a video featuring game developers instead.
As far as I can tell, the obscene label hasn't damaged the porn industry very much, and maybe that label would mean that the games industry gets the respect and success that seems to be afforded to the porn industry.
Gamers have to make a public counter argument to blatant public prejudice and condemnation. Just in case SOME trickles down to the actual Supreme Justices.
Also, what the fuck with referencing the 2000 recount decision? That is almost completely different, and was a simple and obvious decision that needed to be made quickly that even AL GORE agreed with! I mean if anyone was better informed and motivated to complain it would be him but no. Still professional trolls like Michael Moore have spent the best part of a decade obfuscating the issue.
Better example would be comparison with a LAW the supreme court had to decide on.
Also, what the fuck with referencing the 2000 recount decision? That is almost completely different, and was a simple and obvious decision that needed to be made quickly that even AL GORE agreed with! I mean if anyone was better informed and motivated to complain it would be him but no. Still professional trolls like Michael Moore have spent the best part of a decade obfuscating the issue.
Better example would be comparison with a LAW the supreme court had to decide on.
The difference is that the ESRB is an effort, largely successful in my opinion, by the industry to regulate itself. If the ratings system were to become law it would allow the government to not only define the system used to assign ratings but also to regulate where and if they can be sold. Also when the game ratings become part of a law regulating their sale then the rating system then becomes beholden to the government.Wolfram01 said:
To my understanding Australia already has a similar law which bars games from even being sold if they have not yet been rated which allows those who control the rating board to bar games they don't want in the market simply by refusing to grant a rating.
In general the system works now, the problem is not with the ratings system but rather with the parentss who will buy whatever their spawn are screaming for with out even looking at the rating or understanding what it means and then vilifying the industry instead of taking personal responsibility for their own decision to make ignorant purchases.
