Nine States Support Game Industry Against California

[Starke]

Protectorate, actually. It doesn't pay taxes, and its citizens don't have the ability to cast votes in national elections. Its representatives in the Senate and Congress are non-voting (I'm not sure if they can take the floor or not, but they can't vote).

EDIT: The population of Peurto Rico could incorporate themselves as a state, basically, any time they wanted by a majority vote, and it does come up every 8 - 10 years or so, but always fails.

Considering they would have to start paying taxes, I don't blame them.

To my understanding, that's basically what it comes down to each time. Well, that and they don't have to pay for their own military, but do retain their own national budget, and semi-autonomous government.

Now, one of the issues IIRC is that if the United States voted to re-institute the draft, Peurto Rico citizens would be eligible in the lottery, but, would not have any say in the legislative process that led them to this. (In practice it is unlikely, but this topic does come up in debate on the subject.)

Finally, Peurto Rico citizens can serve in the US Military.

Okay, this little addendum is recollection, I haven't verified, the CIA has jurisdiction, The FBI and NSA don't. Posse Comitatus does not apply. (Now, again, this is off the top of my head, and I could have all of this precisely backwards. Though, if one of these is incorrect, then all of them are.)

 

[CrimsonRegret]

I'd like an explanation on how the "game law" would work. Would this mean that a 16 year old would be committing a felony for playing Halo?

 

[I Max95]

damnit doesnt include illinois
my home state

 

[Logic 0]

It's always comforting to know some goverment officials are on our side.

 

[MWMM]

Illinois is on California's side. I keep hoping my
state will stop disappointing me. They keep crushing
my hope.

 

[Macgyvercas]

Good to know we have allies.

Now let's crush this anti video game law once at for all.

 

[Druyn]

Im going to be optimistic here and just be happy that so many states actually recognize what is happening here. California is solving nothing and adding censorship to the industry, and thats bad for everyone. Im very happy that at least some states realize this. Games are a means of speech, and should be treated as such.

 

[Andy Chalk]

I'd like an explanation on how the "game law" would work. Would this mean that a 16 year old would be committing a felony for playing Halo?

No, the proposed law would make it illegal to sell "violent" videogames to people under the age of 18. The onus would be placed entirely on game sellers.

 

[Pojo-san]

Even if they do get the bill passed, it would not matter because there will always be parents who will buy those games for their children anyway regardless of the rating. I guarantee it.

 

[Andy Chalk]

That's not the point. That couldn't possibly be less the point. The point is that if this law is allowed to stand, it will have a detrimental effect on the videogame industry that could easily spread to other media. It's an attack on the First Amendment. That's the "free speech" one, by the way - one I'd say is worth protecting.

 

[dalek sec]

That's not the point. That couldn't possibly be less the point. The point is that if this law is allowed to stand, it will have a detrimental effect on the videogame industry that could easily spread to other media. It's an attack on the First Amendment. That's the "free speech" one, by the way - one I'd say is worth protecting.

I have to admit, this is pretty much my biggest fear if this law get's passed. Once one medium of art can be censored by the government you damn well know they will go after the books, movies, and tv show's they don't like and outlaw them as well.

 

[MisterColeman]

Yay, Nebraska is my home state. Its good to see them supporting (at least indirectly) the game industry.

Also glad to see Nebraska on this list. We fought for free speech on the internet too.

 

[SenseOfTumour]

I'm in favour of legal age limits on video games, as it helps parents make informed decisions...

But there's already the ERSB, foregoing that at least three independent parent-focused rating websites, and foregoing that they can just LOOK AT THE DAMN GAME. Hell, even then most stores have the decency to have a policy basically mirroring this law.

Even in the hypothetical situation where all this First Amendment stuff didn't apply, it's still a stupidly unnecessary and counter productive idea; parents have an excuse to be lazy, and thus minors try to (and will) get their hands on MORE violent games, due to the taboo surrounding them. There is nothing positive about the concept.

OP; There is, however, plenty of positive value here. How nice it feels to have the words "artistic merit" and "videogames" put together so well by someone so significant.

This seems to happen in every thread I post in on this subject, someone takes the one line I put about supporting the idea that kids probably shouldn't be playing Manhunt or Postal 2, as a general rule, BUT that this law is stupid in the extreme, and only pandering to ignorance, and someone always takes it as an attack. So I should clarify my position, I'd not mind a law passing to cover this, IF it was very carefully worded and not just designed to demonise games as to show Mario as eighteen times worse than the Hostel movies.

Here's an idea, how about allowing the law to criminalise parents who buy stupidly innappropriate games for their kids. It would be almost unusable in practice, but would at least give stores the legal backing to refuse sales to idiot parents. (Yes I know there's huge problems with this idea too, but it's a dozen times more reasonable than rating all games of any kind as less worthy than porn.)

Also, Activision, Valve, EA, Popcap and any other large companies, get bribing some politicians, you really think Hollywood doesn't have a bunch of them already in their pockets?

I reckon Blizzard could buy 90% of the people voting on this without wincing.

I only say this because it's such a dumb law and only would take a moment of considering it with common sense to have it thrown out. Which is why I'm worried.

 

[Terminate421]

Thank god Georgia is on my side. I would hate to live in a state where its against videogames.

I would be proud to live in this state even further if they helped defend our case in the actual court

 

[ZombieGenesis]

It's already illegal to sell M rated content to minors here.
Seems like common sense really, it was made for adults after all. I've seen how kids react after playing Grand Theft Auto San Andreas, I had to go to school with them.

 

[RatRace123]

Yes, we have supporters fighting with us. Take that California!

 

[Terminate421]

Yes, we have supporters fighting with us. Take that California!

HAHAHAHA!

Nothing can stop me now!

(She's california by the way)

 

[Irony's Acolyte]

To all those wondering, the reason why this bill passing isn't so much what it will do, but what it may allow further down the line. This may start off a series of laws and regulations that stiffle possibly not only the video game industry and its creativity, but also other entertainment businesses' as well.

I also wonder if some other states will come to the defense of California. This may become a big deal and, if things keep escalating may lead to some serious divisions within the US. This might be interesting.

But I'm still happy to see that some states (or at least the leaders of those states) are with us when it comes to defending video games.

 

[aeroz]

To clearify the impact abit. This isn't about getting a law passed. The supreme court doesn't do this, they decide constitutionality. In US legal system law follows a decending heirarchy. There is no appeal. One way or another this arguement is over. If california gets its way, games become subject to state censorship. Not even just games, but potentially all media since this case can be sited as presidence for censoring something.

We should not fear this because Timmy cant get Halo, we should fear this because it means the goverment gets to decide what we as americans can and cannot watch. This says games aren't covered under freedom of speech. They dont have to stop at "minors cant buy" they can extend this to "no one can buy". While there is no garentee this will happen this will make it possible. Which is what the first amendment was created to stop.

 

[manaman]

Washington, represent.

Seriously. Washington is what California wishes it could be.

Nine States Support Game Industry Against California

Rhode Island Attorney General Patrick Lynch filed a brief with the Supreme Court on behalf of
1.Arkansas, 2.Georgia, 3.Nebraska, 4.North Dakota, 5.Oklahoma, 6.Puerto Rico, 7.South Carolina, 8.Utah, 9.Washington and 10.his own state [i.e. Rhode Island],

Anyone else count 10 states? Or is one of these listed not a state?

Puerto Rico is not a state, it is a territory. How that is different from a state, I do not know, but it is not counted as such.

OT: Yay, my home state backs the game industry (my home state being Washington)! I am so proud.

Again yay Washington!

Puerto Rico is an unincorporated territory. Basically they are owned by the US but the US does not directly control the area, they are federally managed, this is different from a possession of the US. A possession would be an incorporated (either organized or unorganized) territory, which is directly controlled by the federal goverment. Puerto Rico has commonwealth status as well, votes for it's own goverment, and are US citizens. Since they are not residents of a state or DC they do not get a vote in federal elections, but plenary powers mean federal laws still apply to residents of Puerto Rico. They only have a non voting representative in congress as well. Puerto Rico still reserves the right to apply for statehood.

...so why not games? "Because they are interactive." That is such a bullshit reason...

Everything covered under free speech is interactive to some degree. The intent was to never allow the goverment to stifle a message from the people. The goverment was never supposed to be able to control the flow of information. This conversation here is definably interactive, and covered under free speech as well.