Jaffe: Gamers' Rights Efforts are "Pointless and Naive"

starwarsgeek

New member
Nov 30, 2009
982
0
0
Wolfram01 said:
I must be missing something, but isn't this basically they want to make ESRB law? (I mean, in essense)... so selling M games to minors is a crime. I'm not sure how that really affects much. But I must be missing something deeper on this issue.
That's what california's law is about. The supreme court case will decide if video games are protected by free speech (as long as video games are free speech, that law would be unconstitutional.)
If that were to happen, any legislation could do whatever they want to video games: banning, censoring, ridculously strict rating system. You know how places like China and Australia sometimes have censored versions of games? If the court sides with California (spoiler: they won't), then we could possibly find ourselves with the same being true for the US...possibly with 50 different sets of regulations. California doesn't like violent games...maybe Utah will dislike games with sexual content, and Alabama games with drug use, ect. Considering how many American developers have a strong market right in their own country...and how they like M-rated games, this could possibly cause another market crash (at least in the US...maybe not worldwide).


Edit: Oh, forgot to mention that California does not think the ESRB is strict enough, so their definition of "too-violent for kids" would probably include tons of games.
 

theultimateend

New member
Nov 1, 2007
3,621
0
0
Anton P. Nym said:
At best the court will use solid judgment, facts, and president to make a decisions.
I think the underlined word should be "precedent". If that's not a transcription error, you may want to stick a (sic) in there.

Substantially, though, he's correct. Popular demonstrations won't (or shouldn't, at least) influence the Court... folks should be targeting legislators, just as the controllers to Yee thing is.

-- Steve
Obama is a huge gamer.

I think the hint here was that we are clear. Obama has our back yo.

(Why is it I use terms like "homeboy" and "yo" all the time, but I suddenly feel racist when I use them in reference to a black person? White guilt perhaps?)

Regardless, I'm hoping the court doesn't act on their feelings and instead motions on the laws, if they do this case will be over very quickly. Since it shouldn't be a case at all.
 

cobra_ky

New member
Nov 20, 2008
1,643
0
0
Okysho said:
kobra_ky: Thanks for clearing that up. I didn't realize ESRB ratings were able to be dismissed that easily... it makes me think... Maybe they should be illegal for children, (I mean children 13 and down really) to play those kinds of games... I know they're not quite comparable, but porn is illegal for minors to view. As for the movies, maybe they should be restricted more too. If people don't want their children exposed to media that's that violent, then the restriction should be more universal perhaps.
Or maybe we should stop expecting the government to raise our children for us.

bahumat42 said:
Seriously theres no way the industry is going to collapse, worst case scenario we get a lot more scrutiny on ratings, and for a worst case scenario, thats not all that bad.
there's no way it's going to collapse, it's just going to be heavily censored, restricting both the commercial and artistic growth of the industry. This is exactly what happened to comics in the 1950's, and it's what happens to porn now.

bahumat42 said:
the difference being that gaming is not frowned upon because it doesn't hurt anybody, hell anybody under the age of 40 knows that, and a lot of people over 40 probably do as well, its a socially accepted norm, now gaming and spending all your time on the computer different things and the latter is frowned upon because it is unhealthy
Who does porn hurt, and how?

Staskala said:
Really?
I think the porn industry is incredibly diverse and constantly exploring new things.
Kidding aside, yes, saying that it won't affect the industry was a little short-sighted, but the comparision with the porn industry is rather exaggarated. The porn industry is having a hard time not because of its negative stigma, but because noone cares about professional porn. There are thousands of sites on the internet where you can watch porn for free, so why would you take on the embarassment of buying a sex tape in a store?
The video game industry won't suffer the same problems just because it recieves a similar stigma. Surely there will be repercussions, but the extent won't change an awful lot. It will scare off new customers to a certain extend, but most new customers use casual games, which will be unaffected, as a gateway anyway.
Still, no repercussions are obviously better than a few, so let's continue to hope for the best.
There are thousands of sites on the internet where you can watch movies for free, too. Why does the film industry survive? Because we have big, well-publicized theatres that sell the movie-watching experience. Because DVDs are easily available at a number of retail outlets. Because there are a number of convenient, reputable services on the internet which allow you to easily buy, rent, or stream movies.

Porn has none of these things because our society shuns it. You said it yourself: "why would you take on the embarrassment of buying a sex tape in a store?" Buying porn in public is embarrassing precisely because it has a negative social stigma.

Staskala said:
Any by the way, a lot of art is also considered obscene, so maybe we'll get somewhere after all ;)
Art by definition cannot be obscene. An obscene work has no artistic value.

GamerMage said:
yOU'VE JUST BEEN Reported.
um, what exactly did you find objectionable about that post?
 

Okysho

New member
Sep 12, 2010
548
0
0
Andy Chalk said:
Okysho said:
Andy Chalk said:
Okysho said:
A 12 year old died a couple years ago because his dad took his x-box away. it caused a massive uproar and CBC (Canadian Broadcasting Company) did a special on it. It wasn't very encouraging..
Which 12-year-old is this?
I can't recall his name.. Brandon maybe? He lived out in Barrie, this news hit Ontario pretty hard I know for a fact

edit: in the end we found out that he died of either hyopthermia or falling out of a tree, but the media and the CBC special still focused on the harm of video games
That's who I thought you were talking about. Brandon Crisp. He didn't die because his dad took his Xbox away. He died because he fell out of a tree, which he'd climbed because he had an argument with his parents. Happens all the time, for a thousand different reasons. There was really no gaming angle to it at all, aside from what his parents whipped up in the media.

I think I see what you're saying, but it just illustrates why we have to keep hammering our points to ensure the facts get out. Which is why Jaffe is off the mark. Rolling over and hoping for the best isn't good enough.

Oh, and here:

http://www.escapistmagazine.com/articles/view/columns/the-needles/5839-The-Big-Lie-of-Brandon-Crisp [http://www.escapistmagazine.com/articles/view/columns/the-needles/5839-The-Big-Lie-of-Brandon-Crisp]

;)
Thanks again Andy, I should try searching more.

Fact is, the media still pinned the blame on video games. What as video game players, what steps can we really take? We have the organizations and I suppose the petitions that they have for us, but before it's too late (nov 2nd is just around the corner and I'm freaking out a bit) What can we do? and in the situation in which we're safe, what steps might be taken to enforce the tiny tots from getting their hands on the big-kid toys? Maybe I'm just tired now, but nothing else comes to mind.

We can't arrest anyone and we can't pass laws (even then people will find ways around them). Should we picket? or send angry letters? Maybe we could get gamestop to impose obligations to tell parent buyers about the dangers of letting kids playing the games?

but it's not as simple as that is it?

You're a pretty smart guy Andy, I'd like to have an at-length discussion about this with you one day
 

Okysho

New member
Sep 12, 2010
548
0
0
cobra_ky said:
Okysho said:
kobra_ky: Thanks for clearing that up. I didn't realize ESRB ratings were able to be dismissed that easily... it makes me think... Maybe they should be illegal for children, (I mean children 13 and down really) to play those kinds of games... I know they're not quite comparable, but porn is illegal for minors to view. As for the movies, maybe they should be restricted more too. If people don't want their children exposed to media that's that violent, then the restriction should be more universal perhaps.
Or maybe we should stop expecting the government to raise our children for us.
You've got a point there, but we can't tell people how to raise their children... it's parent negligence, but what can we do?
 

SageRuffin

M-f-ing Jedi Master
Dec 19, 2009
2,005
0
0
Someone please enlighten me; what is this whole issue about? I'm getting mixed messages from reading the other various comments.
 

milkkart

New member
Dec 27, 2008
172
0
0
well hopefully they'll ignore the 'dem gon make mah boy kill sum'n!' crowd just as much as the gamers and point out that interactive speech gets the same freedom all the other kinds get.

and its precedent /shudder
 

ProtoChimp

New member
Feb 8, 2010
2,236
0
0
derelix said:
ProtoChimp said:
*massive depressed sigh* Unfortunately I agree with him. I genuinely think we don't stand a chance.
Then where have you been?
I'm so sick of this attitude that gamers have today.
"Oh the governments taking our games away again"
They couldn't do it back when the fear was at an all time high. People are not that ignorant to video games anymore, even adults that don't play games know the whole debate is silly and childish.
SubManCow said:
ProtoChimp said:
*massive depressed sigh* Unfortunately I agree with him. I genuinely think we don't stand a chance.
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.

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).
InterAirplay said:
ProtoChimp said:
*massive depressed sigh* Unfortunately I agree with him. I genuinely think we don't stand a chance.
He's not saying we don't stand a chance. He's saying that whatever happens will not happen because of what we say, it will happen because the judgements and decisions made by the supreme court will be based on facts and hard evidence, instead of public outcry. Which actually gives me MORE hope, because I think the supreme court is at least intelligent enough to see that games are not causing damage to society, and remember that similar hysteria surrounded every other new type of media.
Superhyperactiveman said:
ProtoChimp said:
*massive depressed sigh* Unfortunately I agree with him. I genuinely think we don't stand a chance.
You dumbass! Don't talk like that! The strength of men is in their fighting spirit! Whether it's impossible or laughable, great men open up paths of battle! If there's a wall, we break it down! If there's no path, we forge one with our hands! If you want to give up, give up! But don't expect me to lie down and take it. Who the Hell do you think I am!?!
samsonguy920 said:
ProtoChimp said:
*massive depressed sigh* Unfortunately I agree with him. I genuinely think we don't stand a chance.
Just because the Supreme Court isn't determined by the people's voice, it doesn't mean we don't stand a chance. Keep in mind their job is to determine the constitutionality of an issue brought forward to them. This bill taken at its simplest is frankly, unconstitutional. For one it unlawfully makes a volunteer organization(The ESRB) into a lawmaking force for California, something it was never meant to be done. The ESRB was and should remain a form of recommendation for adults to determine whether their kids should be exposed to it. Same as for movies and music. But through this it will force gamemakers alone, with no affect on other media like motion picture, television, books, and radio, to consider the consequences of including situations in a game that would get it rated M or higher. People over 18 will not stand idly by and be carded for games as they are for alcohol, firearms, and tobacco. Therefore most won't want to purchase the game. Therefore gamemakers would have to censor themselves in order to get the game sold. It institutes a police system for a form of speech, not a controlled substance. That is the inherent flaw in this and why it will be found unconstitutional.
Keep in mind also that this is just a California law. It has no jurisdiction over other states or federal. Speaking out now is all the more important so legislators over the US know our position on this law so they take that into consideration before making such a law themselves in other states. If this is found unconstitutional then the matter is settled as it is worded and we shouldn't have any worries. But if it passes then you can bet other states might start thinking it is a good idea to follow suit. They need to know NOW that it is not a good idea and to keep California politics to California.
That is why it is NOT "pointless and naive." And it saddens me that a person whose job will be affected by this law is so cynical and defeatist. David Jaffe would be better served by either going to Washington now and speaking out, letting legislators in his state and for his state know his position, or resign his job now.
It's been said many times before and I will say it now: All for evil to succeed is for good men to do nothing. Policing games is an evil act as it suppresses those freedoms that allow us to grow in our mind and imagination.
*Wipes away tear* I take back everything I said. I had no idea about how much support people are giving this. I thought most people were just saying "it'll pass" but to see all you people willing to do all this for the cause... it's just beautiful. As well as the actual laws and facts which basically mean we WILL win just fills me with hope.

Also is that some Gurren Lagaan speak there I hear Superhyperactive man? Well, in for a penny in for a pound.
 

hitheremynameisbob

New member
Jun 25, 2008
103
0
0
As glad as I am that we've lifted your spirits, Protochimp, let's not get too cocky. Do I think we're in the right here? Oh yeah. Do the facts back us up? Hell yes. Is the other side completely driven by ideological and or political goals? Absolutely. Is this case a sure thing? Err... not quite. The biggest thing you have to wonder is why the supreme court took this up in the first place. Prior rulings on the matter have been unanimous - no state has been able to pass a law that was not immediately put on hold and repealed by courts, despite several having tried. Why, then, is the supreme court wasting its time with this? It could be that they want to go on record and put the whole matter to bed in our favor, sure, but it could also be that we're about to get ambushed. It's just STRANGE that they've decided to hear this case, and that worries me. Regardless of the facts, we should all keep a close eye on this one, I think, because the court doesn't always go with the facts and logic. Despite their supposed status as the "impartial" body of our government, these are men and women, flesh and blood, and they can be moved by sentimentalities or politics just like you or I. I'm confident, but not overly so - let's just wait and see, and be ready to take action with our local reps if the need does arise.
 

Staskala

New member
Sep 28, 2010
537
0
0
cobra_ky said:
There are thousands of sites on the internet where you can watch movies for free, too. Why does the film industry survive? Because we have big, well-publicized theatres that sell the movie-watching experience. Because DVDs are easily available at a number of retail outlets. Because there are a number of convenient, reputable services on the internet which allow you to easily buy, rent, or stream movies.

Porn has none of these things because our society shuns it. You said it yourself: "why would you take on the embarrassment of buying a sex tape in a store?" Buying porn in public is embarrassing precisely because it has a negative social stigma.
If you respond 5 hours later, please also read my other comments.
Like I said, I didn't know that America could possibly make such a big deal out of it. Most other countries also enforce mandatory ratings systems and you can buy games just fine at retail stores. And no, you also can't buy porn there.
It is the worst case scenario, but not something that will happen with certainty. Though the possibility is apparantly higher in the 'states than anywhere else.
 

cobra_ky

New member
Nov 20, 2008
1,643
0
0
Staskala said:
cobra_ky said:
There are thousands of sites on the internet where you can watch movies for free, too. Why does the film industry survive? Because we have big, well-publicized theatres that sell the movie-watching experience. Because DVDs are easily available at a number of retail outlets. Because there are a number of convenient, reputable services on the internet which allow you to easily buy, rent, or stream movies.

Porn has none of these things because our society shuns it. You said it yourself: "why would you take on the embarrassment of buying a sex tape in a store?" Buying porn in public is embarrassing precisely because it has a negative social stigma.
If you respond 5 hours later, please also read my other comments.
Like I said, I didn't know that America could possibly make such a big deal out of it. Most other countries also enforce mandatory ratings systems and you can buy games just fine at retail stores. And no, you also can't buy porn there.
It is the worst case scenario, but not something that will happen with certainty. Though the possibility is apparantly higher in the 'states than anywhere else.
i did read your other comments. None of them seem to address my point, which was that contrary to what you stated, the porn industry does indeed suffer because of its negative social stigma.
 

SL33TBL1ND

Elite Member
Nov 9, 2008
6,467
0
41
Wolfram01 said:
I must be missing something, but isn't this basically they want to make ESRB law? (I mean, in essense)... so selling M games to minors is a crime. I'm not sure how that really affects much. But I must be missing something deeper on this issue.
That's what I've been thinking. Practically every other country has legally enforceable classification systems. What's the big deal?
 

hitheremynameisbob

New member
Jun 25, 2008
103
0
0
Staskala said:
If you respond 5 hours later, please also read my other comments.
Like I said, I didn't know that America could possibly make such a big deal out of it. Most other countries also enforce mandatory ratings systems and you can buy games just fine at retail stores. And no, you also can't buy porn there.
It is the worst case scenario, but not something that will happen with certainty. Though the possibility is apparantly higher in the 'states than anywhere else.
The US is wierd, ain't it? There's a few reasons for this, not the least of which is the way the first amendment was built, with the obscenity clause being pretty much the only feasible way to deny something its protection if it's got halfway competent lawyers defending it, and even then it isn't easy. Unfortunately, this means that any media the federal government wants to regulate has to be lumped into the same box as some other stuff that's come before, even if it's not nearly as bad as that. Case in point - hard core porn is probably a lot more deserving of government regulation than Call of Duty, but the way our constitution works they don't have much other choice but to go after it this way, unless you want to amend the damned document, which takes a hell of a lot more work. So while I wouldn't be necessarily opposed to some regulation, the way they've been forced to do it is just unacceptable to me. It's overly harsh and leaves little in the way of room for compromise.

Part of what makes the anti-game movement so strong here is the much higher rates of violence in the US. "Concerned parents organizations" and such are actually pretty formidable forces when they mobilize around something like this because everyone is always hearing about school shootings and such. The news media is just as much to blame as anything for highlighting incidents of teen violence as much as they do, along with many other factors, but for whatever reason - yeah, people here really care about that ****. It's ridiculous in a lot of ways, and there's not much conclusive evidence to back up the link between games and teen violence, but people sure as hell make a stink about it over here, and they have been for almost twenty years now. It's not even necessarily that the majority of the population thinks that the link exists - it's just that the portion that does (for whatever reason) has become far more vocal than the portion that doesn't. This is why we've seen laws attempting to restrict the sale of games pass through the legislature in at least eight states. Thankfully the courts have killed every single one, but these groups aren't going to stop trying until there's clear NATIONAL precedent that says they pretty much can't really win.

Another difference is that the US is much more litigious than other countries. The rate of lawsuits compared to many other Western countries is pretty damned high. People will sue for just about anything here, including selling little Timmy a game he shouldn't have been able to buy and doing "irreparable harm" to the stupid kid. Big retail brands have to be constantly worried about silly lawsuits from things like this - settling those cases will be expensive and will really be a slap to their public image. Right now, they don't need to bother themselves over this because they're not doing anything wrong by selling these games to minors, at least legally. If they suddenly have to worry about real penalties for doing it, though, they may decide that it's just impossible to enforce perfectly (which it is) and that it's just not worth stocking them any more. While I doubt they're going to face significant trouble from the government over this, what they'll really be worried about is getting sued.

Technically they're vulnerable to this now, anyway, but the legal record, at least for the moment, says that they're not doing anything wrong because every time the matter has gone before court the judge's opinion has said something along the lines of "I find no conclusive evidence that games are harmful to children or are in any other way objectionable." If the supreme court provides an opinion that contradicts any part of that, though, the floodgates may just open, and lawsuits against retailers who fail to fully enforce the regulations (I.E. All retailers) will have a chance at success, and that may just be what it takes to make them conclude that it's not worth the trouble. I'm sure they'll still stock non-obscene games that they can't possibly be sued over, of course, and hence that's what developers will make.

You're right that it's more of a danger in the US than other countries. It's partly because we've put ourselves into a difficult position with the way we've structured the first amendment and its obscenity clause, partly because some people here are particularly vocal about the video game violence issue, and partly because we love suing people, among other things. Basically, though, the ESRB is doing a pretty decent job of regulating it as things stand, even if their ratings aren't legally binding. I see no good reason to go from that to something that may cause real damage to the industry.
 

Spectre4802

New member
Oct 23, 2009
213
0
0
It's hard to admit, but the supreme court isn't going to change it's ruling just because the people who are going to be affected start crying out. They'll make a decision based on what they hear on The Day (that's the 2 of November (I think)).

Provided they haven't decided already. In which case, we're/they're fucked anyway.

[P.S. I think we need a new name for this day. Something dramatic.]
 

cobra_ky

New member
Nov 20, 2008
1,643
0
0
bahumat42 said:
really you don't know who porn hurts. Its renowned as one of the most demeaning industries to work in, aside from the moral indignation of being paid for sex, you also lose all self respect, the actresses in that business really do not live good lives.
I don't want to get too far off-topic here, but I think it's demeaning precisely because of the moral indignation surrounding it. Bad things happen when a form of expression is deemed less than art.