Lawyer Predicts Gaming Win at the Supreme Court

[AbsoluteVirtue18]

Minors shouldn't be allowed to buy violent videogames...and this would actually make them enforce it?

I whole-heartily agree with this. It's not like they're banning them outright, it just means kids can't buy them...which they already can't.

Which is good.

 

[uppitycracker]

Am I the only one that immediately read the lawyers last name, and thought "oh shi-" before realizing it wasn't him?

The question isn't "did someone else think that?" it's "How many others thought that?" In my particular case, I didn't realize it untill I read the quote.

haha i had to do a triple take, mainly because his first name starts with a J... JT... JTHompson... oh jeez... hopefully he redeems the initials!! haha

 

[SenseOfTumour]

America has a restricted firearms laws?

Most countires already have this law in place, I was surprised to learn America wasn't first in line. Oh yeah, what was with the opening line about child porn?

Yeah, fuck me that was a shitty media whore move on Thompson's part, it's no wonder so many people saw J Thompson and thought 'who gave that fucknozzle his lawyer badge back?'

He's just bringing up child porn so that people who aren't really paying attention, that is, most people who'll read his statements in the newspaper, will go 'blah blah child porn, blah blah video games, blah blah evil.'

It's a highly shitty move, equivalent to me going 'Cancer kills millions each year, on an unrelated note, Pepsi is bad for you too.' Sure I'm not drawing a link, but it's still there.

In your head, some small part of your brain is locking the two words pepsi and cancer together.

Anyways, rant over, but damn, in the UK we have a ratings system and stores are fined if they don't adhere to it, and if they sell mature games to minors. If the US doesn't do it, why not, and if they do, then where's the problem?

 

[The Random One]

Am I the only one who's amused by the fact that this was said by a lawyer called J. Thompson?

*looks around* Yeah, seems so. *walks away*

 

[Knight Templar]

I'm turning 18 soon so a law such as this in my nation wouldn't really affect me, however I don't really see what good it would do. Oh no, young people can't buy "violent" video games, what effect does that really have? None. I can think of many minor negative impacts, but no positive impacts.

 

[SenseOfTumour]

I dont know if this happens, as I don't have a current gen console, but just as an extra push, how about a leaflet, attached to the warranty card (as I imagine that's the only part of the paperwork a parent will look at when they buy one for their kid), explaining in simple terms the ratings system?

I know we can't force parents to care, or educate themselves, and it's already pretty simple, but I do think we need to do something to break thru this 'ah it's only a game' mentality, so they don't just run to Fox or the papers when their 8 year is chainsawing hookers to bits (in game, that is).

Even tho it's not ideal, just a thing explaining that M rated games may involve extreme violence, sex, drugs, profanity, and should be considered on a level with an 'R' or 18 movie.

Teen rated games may have milder references to the above, and will be around a PG13 or '12' movie.

 

[VirusHunter]

I think that the gov should work with the ESRB so that it becomes illegal to sell M rated games to minors. "Violence" is just way waaaaay to vague a word.

 

[Trogdor1138]

Um, so what's wrong with stopping minors buying higher rated games? That's how it should have been all along.

 

[Kelethor]

Wait...the lawyers are on our side?

Im getting to old for this.

 

[Enigmers]

I think that video game regulation, as it is now, is fine (no selling of 17+ games to people under 17); if there's any kid out there that got seriously messed up from playing some violent video games, he probably already had problems. People should take responsibility for their own actions (or their own children or whatever) instead of using videogames as a scapegoat and inconveniencing the rest of us.

I know I'm preaching to the choir at this point, but that's my opinion, that video game selling rules are fine just the way they are.

 

[theSovietConnection]

Hmm, they've gotten all the way to the highest court in the land, and they are stumbling on a definition for what consitutes a violent videogame. This is hilarious.

 

[Canid117]

If all this passes my liking of Arnold will change big time.

I do not know how much the Governator is actually connected to this law. I believe the real mastermind behind it is a California Senator named Leeland Yee. This law had better get shot the hell down. There is no good reason for its existence if games rated mature and above are already restricted by the private store owners. From what I remember way back when all this started it was a rather shallow attempt by Senator Yee to make it look like he was doing something that got out of hand and now has to be smacked down by the supreme court.

 

[WhiteTigerShiro]

"the proposed Californian law that would ban the sale of violent games to minors"

So this isn't only games that are rated (to the equivalent of, I don't know American ratings) 15+ and 18+, but anything deemed to contain violence?

Well, therein lies the whole problem of the "violent" definition that I think he was talking about.

I remember back around the PS-X days, my mom commented that every game is violent in some way. When I retorted with Tetris, she said that the object of the game is to destroy lines of blocks. She was obviously jokingly exaggerating, but she was right... subtle as it might be, Tetris can be described as a violent game. That said, Arnold has a bit of a chore ahead of him giving a simple description of a "violent game". After-all, even Mario's games have some pretty violent things going-on, what with stomping on the heads of his enemies and all. >.>

 

[Arcane Azmadi]

*cough* I'm sorry, why is this being treated as a good thing? While I'm not familiar with the specifics of the proposed laws, it SHOULD be illegal to sell violent games to minors. Violent games should NOT be played by minors. If it's not a case of outright censorship or restricting the sales of violent games to anyone then gamers don't have a leg to stand on in arguing against this.

 

[Fidelias]

If they get rid of my violent video-games, I'm going to learn a British accent.

Why is this such a big deal? There's violence in movies, but nobody seems to give a rat's ass about that.

I believe that anyone who actually thinks that this bullshit with violent video games and other media affecting the behavior of a 12-year-old is an idiot. As someone who was a 12-year-old only 7 years ago, compared to many critics of violent video media, I know that I didn't let some computer screen make me want to beat something to a bloody pulp.

Hey! Guess what! I play Gears of War! I like Metallica and Rob Zombie and hard rock in general! That doesn't mean I have bodies hidden under my floor-boards or something. Just ask anyone I know, I've been told I'm the nicest guy you'll ever meet. There are TONS more just like me! So quit complaining about pointless crap to get the parents and grandparents to vote for you, and FIX THE ECONOMY!

 

[Fidelias]

I still don't see the problem with this. No selling M games to Minors......Wheres the problem? They can't buy smokes or Beer either so why games?

EDIT: Oh and Porn.

But it's not M games, it's VIOLENT video games. Do you know what they consider violent? Everything including fighting. That means not just Gears of War, but also games like Golden Sun, or even Pokemon. And sure, banning it from minors doesn't affect me, but it's a very short step from banning it for minors to banning it for EVERYONE.

 

[BlackStar42]

Am I the only one that immediately read the lawyers last name, and thought "oh shi-" before realizing it wasn't him?

And unfortunately, on topic, there are already too many white-collar ignorant individuals that think violent video games do lead to violent acts, thanks to a few morons in the media. As much as I want to believe otherwise, I am convinced that this will end up passing. Please prove me wrong, Supreme Court. Please.

No, you're not the only one. I was like "Wait, Jack is AGREEING with us?!" *checks* Oh. I think we have a good chance, it's impossible to take the Governater seriously about violence when you see his movies.

 

[PhunkyPhazon]

A lawyer named Jomo Thompson?

...

J. Thompson?

Oh good god, He Who Must Not Be Named has slightly altered his name so that he may fool us into thinking that he is on our side. His goal is to make us THINK this won't get passed, but at the last second he'll reveal his face to us.

Okay, that aside I really don't see what the big deal here is. Some stores already don't sell M-Rated games to minors, anyways. I'm not saying I really agree with the government trying to censor what children see when it should really fall to the parents, but that brings me to my next point. There's nothing here stopping parents or someone of legal age to buy this FOR the minor if they know they can handle it.

If the government is allowed to regulate what constitutes a "violent game" then the ESRB becomes completely ineffectual. The days of private regulation and developer responsibility will be officially over.

Just look at what happened when the government got involved in Rockstar's affairs after San Andreas.

Hmmm...alright, pretty good point there. Screw it, I have no idea.