Mock Trials Split Between Schwarzenegger and EMA

[WanderingFool]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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.

 

[Saltyk]

I wonder what factual and statistical evidence anyone could POSSIBLY use against video games. All these studies that show causation between violent games and real life violence could be applied to movies, books, music, paintings, and sculptures with the same results. Every little thing in this world affects whether you act out violently/sexually or not- even the type of chair you sit on at your work desk or your favorite food. It'll either make you less likely or more likely- there is nothing that has no effect.

And don't forget that linking violent crimes to video games is no harder than linking violent crimes to people drinking milk and for the same reason. Or that people have been ridiculously violent from the beginning of time. See the Celtics, the Spartans, the Vikings, the Huns, the Romans... The list goes on.

I don't really see the judges upholding this law. By and large, Judges are very intelligent. They would have to see the possible effects that this law could have not just on the medium, but on entertainment as a whole. And they have to know the history of these laws.

 

[justnotcricket]

A game 'awoke' something in her? =S Glad no-one let her read Lolita at a young age if she's that susceptible ;-) There is just so much wrong with that statement...

But seriously, I've heard amateur high-school debate teams that have come up with more compelling points than that. 'Comedy gold' is indeed the appropriate term =D

 

[Snotnarok]

I hate, HATE when they use one example of ONE person out of millions who enjoy something to try and put laws against it.

That makes no sense you're trying to oppress the majority opinion with the minority (probably wrong because you're saying a game got a girl pregnant basically, that's called a maternal clock)

 

[ShakerSilver]

/facepalm

Are they actually serious about this? I mean they represented the entire games industry by Postal!

Well obviously Postal shares so much with games like Half-Life, Katamari, and Street Fighter IV.... oh wait a minute NO IT DOESN'T!!!

Honestly, do these people understand what they're talking about? Go watch Extra Credits you hacks!