Mock Trials Split Between Schwarzenegger and EMA
- Thread starter Greg Tito
- Start date
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.dannymc18 said:
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.Saucycardog said:
I can't explain it properly, but just watch this video and it becomes clear why it's important.dannymc18 said:
Also, how can you possibly vote that this is constitutional? It quite obviously isn't.
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.WanderingFool said:
...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 ^_^
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.Banana Phone Man said:
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.dannymc18 said:
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.
This is great summation of why the law is faulty. I'd like to add a couple of things to this, though.ProfessorLayton said:
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.
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.ProfessorLayton said:
Note that the case to overturn Prop 8 (the Gay Marriage ban) is "Perry v Schwarzenneger" even though Arnold is publicly against Prop 8.
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.
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.
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 existencedannymc18 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.
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.
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?RatRace123 said:
ROFLMAO at choosing Postal as the representative game. That's like citing Hiroshima when arguing for gun control.
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.
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.