Mock Trials Split Between Schwarzenegger and EMA

Jared

The British Paladin
Jul 14, 2009
5,630
0
0
Thank god its not the real trial. Thats all I gotta sat at least
 

ProfessorLayton

Brotha That Will Smotha Yo Motha
Nov 6, 2008
7,453
0
0
dannymc18 said:
http://www3.hants.gov.uk/underagesales/underagesales-videosales.htm

The maximum fine for selling or hiring an age-restricted video, DVD or computer game to someone who is under the age specified by the BBFC is £5,000.

Some computer games have a Pan European Games Information logo (PEGI) which is a voluntary rating. It is advised this rating is always observed and it is best practice to comply with this in the same way the BBFC rated games are controlled.
Age groupings are Universal, Parental Guidance (12), 12, 15, 18, R-18.
Exactly. If I'm 15 and try to buy a 15 rated film or game, that would be perfectly legal. But what this law is doing is making it illegal for me to buy a film or game that's even rated 12 because it contained violence of any kind.

Saucycardog said:
I am against this law and all but, do you really think that that many kids buy games behind their parents back? Many kids just have their parents buy the games for them. So, I don't think Fallout 3 and Left 4 Dead are going to be fine.
I never said that, but I know that a lot of kids buy games behind their parents' backs. It's just that it makes it even harder for a kid to buy so people will make games that are easier for kids to buy. Like I said before, imagine someone not being able to buy a Professor Layton game because they were under 18.
 

Rusty Bucket

New member
Dec 2, 2008
1,588
0
0
dannymc18 said:
Isn't it all just about stopping 18-rated games being sold to under 18s? Blown completely out of proportion, and things like this don't exactly help it. It's not some sort of contentious law, it's common sense.
I can't explain it properly, but just watch this video and it becomes clear why it's important.

Also, how can you possibly vote that this is constitutional? It quite obviously isn't.
 

WanderingFool

New member
Apr 9, 2009
3,991
0
0
theflyingpeanut said:
Greg Tito said:
Your Honor is correct that the study in Exhibit B does not contain effects on women. However, the article in Exhibit B does contain anecdotal evidence from a teenage girl who played the game and subsequently got pregnant because the game awoke something in her.
That guy had to be out on the piss the night before, and I mean the kind of heavy drinking where you're still half-cut the next day. I can see no other way that anyone could bring themselves to present that as evidence.
Okay, im slow today, anybody care to explain the reference?
 

Wicky_42

New member
Sep 15, 2008
2,468
0
0
WanderingFool said:
theflyingpeanut said:
Greg Tito said:
Your Honor is correct that the study in Exhibit B does not contain effects on women. However, the article in Exhibit B does contain anecdotal evidence from a teenage girl who played the game and subsequently got pregnant because the game awoke something in her.
That guy had to be out on the piss the night before, and I mean the kind of heavy drinking where you're still half-cut the next day. I can see no other way that anyone could bring themselves to present that as evidence.
Okay, im slow today, anybody care to explain the reference?
Your Honor is correct that the study in Exhibit B does not contain effects on women. However, the article in Exhibit B does contain anecdotal evidence from a teenage girl who played the game and subsequently got pregnant because the game awoke something in her.

...a teenage girl who played the game and subsequently got pregnant because the game awoke something in her.

... got pregnant because the game awoke something in her.

Yeah. He used that line in a court case. Genius ^_^
 

samsonguy920

New member
Mar 24, 2009
2,921
0
0
Banana Phone Man said:
Aww man. Why are American mock trials more fun than the one I had over here. I had to do one in a magistrates court about a woman who smashed a window. Not fun at all.
What might have added some fun to it was trying to present the window's opinion on it. Every voice should be heard, after all...even if it is tinkle tinkle.
 

samsonguy920

New member
Mar 24, 2009
2,921
0
0
dannymc18 said:
Isn't it all just about stopping 18-rated games being sold to under 18s? Blown completely out of proportion, and things like this don't exactly help it. It's not some sort of contentious law, it's common sense.
You haven't been around The Escapist as long as quite a few of us, and obviously not as much a participant, but I will give you a couple examples of what we have to look forward to. Feel free to reference Australia and its current games ratings, and how they have to censor every game that would otherwise fall under a Mature rating that they still do not have.
That is what we would have to look forward to if this goes through. It would start with California, but then other states would follow suit. Publishers would choose to censor their games so they would fall under the T rating in order to keep their sales up. Which would dampen the point of the game. Unless you want every game from now on made to Pokemon standards, you may want to start hoping that this law is deemed unconstitutional.
It's not just a slap on the games industry itself, but it will suppress the content that we as gamers, ages 18-99 should have a right to having. But if you want another example of the effects, consider right now this nation and others are in a recession. Passing this law would hurt sales of games, put more people out of work and do even more harm to the economy.

Common sense is an oxymoron. There is nothing common about the sense people should have, and there is no sense being applied to this law. If parents and guardians did the job that God appointed to them when they chose to have children, actions like this would not be necessary.
 

Cousin_IT

New member
Feb 6, 2008
1,822
0
0
Greg Tito said:
Your Honor is correct that the study in Exhibit B does not contain effects on women. However, the article in Exhibit B does contain anecdotal evidence from a teenage girl who played the game and subsequently got pregnant because the game awoke something in her.
 

starwarsgeek

New member
Nov 30, 2009
982
0
0
ProfessorLayton said:
And in America, right now it's mostly different stores' policies to choose who to sell to. In GameStop a minor has to have direct parental permission to buy an M rated game and in other places people don't care and you can buy whatever you want. But this law would make it illegal for even someone with parental permission to buy a game like Call of Duty 1 or even Ratchet & Clank. As in a criminal offense. I personally don't agree with selling Gears of War to a 9 year old and I think it's just bad parenting to let your child play something like that but it's not up to me to decide something like that and it's certainly not up to the government who know as much about video games as I do the French stock exchange.
This is great summation of why the law is faulty. I'd like to add a couple of things to this, though.

If the Supreme Court sides with California, then the law will go into effect in California. The problem is, they are not using the ESRB for their guideline and will be much more strict. This is where the problem starts. According to an interview in gameinformer, thirteen other states support California officially. Without Free Speech protection, these states can do practically anything in relation to gaming within their state (censorship, deciding that gaming is harmful to children and making it illegal for a minor to even play one of these games with parental permission, banning certain titles, banning games altogether...) Without free speech rights, any level of government can make laws pertaining the sell and use of video games. And developers would have to keep track of ALL of them.

More than likely, most--if not all--States will get in on this. Considering it will taken care of at the State level, not Federal, there is a very high chance that developers planning on selling games in the USA will have different rules for different states. I would be pleasently suprised if this situation would not lead to another crash.

Not to mention this sets nasty precedent for limiting free speech protection in other mediums (music, film, books).

All because the California State government thinks it can rate games better than the ESRB and can parent better than the parents.
 

Canid117

New member
Oct 6, 2009
4,075
0
0
theflyingpeanut said:
Greg Tito said:
Your Honor is correct that the study in Exhibit B does not contain effects on women. However, the article in Exhibit B does contain anecdotal evidence from a teenage girl who played the game and subsequently got pregnant because the game awoke something in her.
That guy had to be out on the piss the night before, and I mean the kind of heavy drinking where you're still half-cut the next day. I can see no other way that anyone could bring themselves to present that as evidence.
Or he realizes how retarded the law is and was having fun with it.
 

ArmorArmadillo

New member
Mar 31, 2010
231
0
0
ProfessorLayton said:
And plus since this is coming from Arnold Schwarzenegger, the guy who's been in more ultra-violent movies than I can count, is the one behind this.

And by the way, I doubt that when you were under 18 (assuming that you aren't right now) you never played an M rated video game or at least watched an R rated movie. Ratings are just parental guidelines.
Just as a note, the reason that Schwarzeneggar's name is being used is because he is the governor and due to some constitutional law doctrines you can't name the actual State in the suit, you have to name the state officer. So, this isn't necessarily "from Schwarzenegger" and he isn't "behind it", it's from the state of California (which has a lot of heavily Conservative fringe legislators of which Arnold is specifically not one) of which he is the named head.

Note that the case to overturn Prop 8 (the Gay Marriage ban) is "Perry v Schwarzenneger" even though Arnold is publicly against Prop 8.
 

Lullabye

New member
Oct 23, 2008
4,426
0
0
Isn't one of the real main issues here that games are being more harshly than every other entertainment medium in a America currently?
And that it would put pressure on developers to be more careful about the content they put in games as it may or may not offend some asshat excuse of a parent?
Just what devs need. More pressure.
 

inkblood

New member
Sep 4, 2010
55
0
0
dannymc18 said:
Isn't it all just about stopping 18-rated games being sold to under 18s? Blown completely out of proportion, and things like this don't exactly help it. It's not some sort of contentious law, it's common sense.
Game stores are already doing this out of company policy. The case going on right now is trying to make this a law, but at the same time taking away the freedom of expression away from the video game medium. this in turn would mean the other states can start tacking on additional laws for their states since videogames would have lost their right to freedom of expression. This means games could be banned, censored, and companies can be sued. think of all the religious fanatics that would want to sue assassin's creed out of existence
 

mjc0961

YOU'RE a pie chart.
Nov 30, 2009
3,847
0
0
Greg Tito said:
An attendee said that the only videogame that was mentioned during the proceedings was Postal, implying that all games are similar. Perhaps that's why the court voted that the law was Constitutional if it prevented Postal from getting into the hands of a child.
*facepalm*

Worst mock trial ever.

Okay, you see this guys fighting California for real? Make sure you don't let them only talk about Postal.
 

dalek sec

Leader of the Cult of Skaro
Jul 20, 2008
10,237
0
0
I hate to say it but at this point I kinda hope the industry uses every dirty trick and hired gun they can dig up to stop this. I've talked to a few people about this and each one of them agree's with me on this, it's un-American(sp) and the first step towards state run censorship.
 

RatRace123

Elite Member
Dec 1, 2009
6,651
0
41
This is bullshit, how can people even support this law? Furthermore, why the hell was Postal the game that they judged all games on? That'd be like the Postal movie being the film that people judge that medium on.

I hope the real case actually has some good games to represent us. We need to get Mass Effect and Bioshock up there, not Postal.
 

erztez

New member
Oct 16, 2009
252
0
0
RatRace123 said:
This is bullshit, how can people even support this law? Furthermore, why the hell was Postal the game that they judged all games on? That'd be like the Postal movie being the film that people judge that medium on.

I hope the real case actually has some good games to represent us. We need to get Mass Effect and Bioshock up there, not Postal.
Actually, we desperately need to have Hello Kitty: The Island Adventure up there. Mass Effect has all them nasty "almost half a second of partial alien nudity" scenes and Bioshock promotes "rebelion against the established system of government" and "child abduction and/or killing"...I could go on, but really, what's the point?
ROFLMAO at choosing Postal as the representative game. That's like citing Hiroshima when arguing for gun control.
 

erztez

New member
Oct 16, 2009
252
0
0
dalek sec said:
I hate to say it but at this point I kinda hope the industry uses every dirty trick and hired gun they can dig up to stop this. I've talked to a few people about this and each one of them agree's with me on this, it's un-American(sp) and the first step towards state run censorship.
Son, sad to tell you this and shatter your innocence, but you already HAVE censorship. It's just that it's Rupert Murdoch running it, not the state. Oh well, come November, there won't be any difference, will there?
 

random_bars

New member
Oct 2, 2010
585
0
0
Basically, there's three levels on this. Firstly, there's the question of, can they see through the protect-the-children guise and realize that the proposition will equate to making video games a controlled substance?

Secondly, can they realize that video games are just a medium, like books or movies, and the idea of judging every single game by looking at a couple of examples of violent games is akin to watching The Human Centipede and passing off every single other movie as the same kind of pointless bloodshed?

Finally, will they see that there's just as much artistic potential with video games as any other medium, and so making violent games illegal to buy under the age of 18 would be a violation of free speech?

To be honest, although there are three hurdles, once you see them they're blindingly obvious. As long as someone actually points this stuff out, I think we'll be fine.