Schwarzenegger vs. Interactivity
- Thread starter Archon
- Start date
Jeez, how much does that needle you when video games are picked on over other forms of media as the 'interactive media'? Hopefully, if you are on the Escapist, it should needle you tremendously. We're talking, a brisk root canalling level of needling. Would movies, books, and music be subjugated to this kind of frivolous campaigning - getting state governments involved? No, because it would be ridiculous, and they shouldn't! This is bad because it singles out video games. Our hobby and their industry is, according to California's state government, DIFFERENT than that of film or music.
We are now different. And now that we have been ostracized from our brethren media forms we are susceptible to many different kinds of government controls. That needling feeling? That's the pen of the California lawyers pushing around words to bend what they can and can't do with this new found power that this bill gives them. And California LOVES power.
Hopefully, this is a lot of hyperbole, hopefully we're just making a mountain out of a molehill, but the chilling effect is very possible. I am needled.
Also, as far as all the political discourse on these comment pages goes - it is BEAUTIFUL. This is why I come here every week; every day. Thank you for being a broad and sensible community that not only loves video games passionately, but is also very aware of the bigger picture and can construct not only strong opinions, but strong counter-opinions as well. Always classy, Escapist.
We are now different. And now that we have been ostracized from our brethren media forms we are susceptible to many different kinds of government controls. That needling feeling? That's the pen of the California lawyers pushing around words to bend what they can and can't do with this new found power that this bill gives them. And California LOVES power.
Hopefully, this is a lot of hyperbole, hopefully we're just making a mountain out of a molehill, but the chilling effect is very possible. I am needled.
Also, as far as all the political discourse on these comment pages goes - it is BEAUTIFUL. This is why I come here every week; every day. Thank you for being a broad and sensible community that not only loves video games passionately, but is also very aware of the bigger picture and can construct not only strong opinions, but strong counter-opinions as well. Always classy, Escapist.
parents and reasonably responsible salespeople (which they are, generally, already).
It's all that really needs to be said. If the parents pass on it, then it's not the government's job to swoop in and parent for the parent. and parents should be offended by that connotation, but that's EXACTLY what's happening.
It's all that really needs to be said. If the parents pass on it, then it's not the government's job to swoop in and parent for the parent. and parents should be offended by that connotation, but that's EXACTLY what's happening.
I do not comprehend your problem. The way the article presents it is as follows as far as I understand: Violent video games are not to be made accesible to children. Means explicit content harmful to the development of the child to a reponsible und healthy member of the community. That is brillant and anyone can agree with this. That is that often laughed at "Think about the children" wagon. You are talking about censorship here but how is simply making explicit games not avaiable to anybody censorship? Yeah Gamestop won´t sell es many copies because those 13year olds cannot buy it any longer, but how does that factor into censorship?
It is good not to expose children to explicit content like porno, but so is violence. They are not the same but both have negativ effects on the development of children. I am not talking about cartoon violence but grim and gritty violence, the disturbing kind.
What is needed is a law that disables children to buy explicit media but adult still can. You do not have to prohibit advertisment or displaying this media but simply prohibit selling them to minors. And by no means do you have to forbid reporting on and reviewing said media. I say all media. That includes books, television, games and even the internet. You might think it impossible to do so but it is. There are other countries that have done so... kind of. All media must be classified according to its content. Classified into adults only and for everyone to buy. This does not mean 13year old will not be able to play the game per default because if the parents buy it and give it to him/her it is stil aokay. Remember the law is only supposed to prohibit to let them buy it not prohibiting to consume it with the parents approval. Would such a law touch the right of free speech? I don´t think so. Of course new problems will be coming if such a step is taken because every blessing has its curses. There would have to be an office testing the media with the approval of the gouverment. It will cost money I won´t lie to you.
But think of the children
No seriously
It is good not to expose children to explicit content like porno, but so is violence. They are not the same but both have negativ effects on the development of children. I am not talking about cartoon violence but grim and gritty violence, the disturbing kind.
What is needed is a law that disables children to buy explicit media but adult still can. You do not have to prohibit advertisment or displaying this media but simply prohibit selling them to minors. And by no means do you have to forbid reporting on and reviewing said media. I say all media. That includes books, television, games and even the internet. You might think it impossible to do so but it is. There are other countries that have done so... kind of. All media must be classified according to its content. Classified into adults only and for everyone to buy. This does not mean 13year old will not be able to play the game per default because if the parents buy it and give it to him/her it is stil aokay. Remember the law is only supposed to prohibit to let them buy it not prohibiting to consume it with the parents approval. Would such a law touch the right of free speech? I don´t think so. Of course new problems will be coming if such a step is taken because every blessing has its curses. There would have to be an office testing the media with the approval of the gouverment. It will cost money I won´t lie to you.
But think of the children
No seriously
Considering the state of video games in Germany, Australia, and what happened only a few years ago in Greece, Americans are more than right the be scared of laws regarding free speech. And don't forget the Manhunt debacle in England. And that's just the video game industry. Don't forget what happened to similarly vilified artistic mediums, like the Comic Code. That stunted an entire industry, one that's still trying to recover and mature. So yes, the possibility of games being legally banned is a plausible one based on other countries and historical analysis. Is it likely? Hard to say. But there are other ways it can ruin the industry. It could mean major stores won't cover M-rated games for fear of lawsuits should a single employee screw up. It could mean M-rated games can't sell ads anywhere with a significant percentage of children who read or watch it. And most importantly, it means video games are no longer legally recognized as art, period. The closest thing we could use to compare to games, whether they're Grand Theft Auto or Dora's Pony Adventure, are pornography and other materials considered too obscene to be protected by the first amendment. If we complain about the lack of mature stories in games now, imagine the state of games after that.Sikachu said:
Similar to how pubs in the UK have stopped serving alcohol since employees and the pub could get a massive fine for selling to under-age drinkers? Oh wait.LordVyreth said:
Where the hell's the harm in that? The tobacco industry seems to have survived having its opportunities to advertised slashed...LordVyreth said:
Way to go for a non-sequitur. Videogames won't be protected in the USA by the First Amendment and suddenly the storylines will get worse because you can't do Manhunt style violence? Get a grip on yourself. Porn storylines aren't bad because it isn't protected, they're bad because they don't need to be good. Similar to videogames.LordVyreth said:
It is a plausible one with or without passing legislation regulating what you can and can't sell to children. As for comparing it to other countries, Germany bans more or less anything to do with the Nazis, and you can still legally buy any game of any type there, just so long as you get it off the internet. The UK has overturned the bans on both games it has ever banned. Australia is a shit-hole for games. But then Americans got sanitised versions of games like Indigo Prophecy because of worries about not getting a licence. Perhaps if you had laws delineating who can buy what, adult American gamers could finally have games made for them that didn't cut bits out because the industry would be confident enough in its standing, rather than having the threat of uncertain legislation always hanging over it like the sword of Damocles.LordVyreth said:
*sigh*
[insert three-page-long rant about Nanny State Alarmists, California, the separation of Church and State, the Moral Myopia of Senators and Ministers alike, the unfeasibility of the law, the true Currency of Society, my ever-growing and nigh-unto-complete-pessimism about the country I no longer even want to *identify* with, and how the Industry will live on, no matter if the movement is passed or not]
Let's just say this, and leave it at that.
I agree with Sir John the Net Knight on every aspect, and anything else I say about the issue will - and, indeed, already has (elsewhere) - come off as either a rehash of the same material, or my own pessimistic, at times overly-dramatic, musings about the state of society and what will *really* cause its collapse (hint: it's not 2012, Jesus returning for His people, or a Communist Invasion).
I'll leave it at that...or else, I'll be sitting here all night, ranting behind my computer screen, but not wanting my post to dominate the page (not that there's anything wrong with that, so long as you've got a good enough arguement and point).
[insert three-page-long rant about Nanny State Alarmists, California, the separation of Church and State, the Moral Myopia of Senators and Ministers alike, the unfeasibility of the law, the true Currency of Society, my ever-growing and nigh-unto-complete-pessimism about the country I no longer even want to *identify* with, and how the Industry will live on, no matter if the movement is passed or not]
Let's just say this, and leave it at that.
I agree with Sir John the Net Knight on every aspect, and anything else I say about the issue will - and, indeed, already has (elsewhere) - come off as either a rehash of the same material, or my own pessimistic, at times overly-dramatic, musings about the state of society and what will *really* cause its collapse (hint: it's not 2012, Jesus returning for His people, or a Communist Invasion).
I'll leave it at that...or else, I'll be sitting here all night, ranting behind my computer screen, but not wanting my post to dominate the page (not that there's anything wrong with that, so long as you've got a good enough arguement and point).
I've got a question for you. You almost make it sound like this law won't have any effect on the games industry. If that's the case, then why is the law necessary in the first place, and why has it been repeatedly struck down?fundayz said:
Whether or not this article exaggerates the effects such a law will have on the games industry is beside the point. Such a law would still remove from games the same First Amendment protection that other media have, and would that would establish a precedent that will allow further restriction and censorship in the future.
I agree that the United States has the power to regulate certain speech. This is a valid power that has been exercised in our nation's history, but the cases in which it has been exercised have been national emergencies. To envoke this emergency power when no threat or immediate danger can be found is not just illegal it is a slap in the face of democracy. Our founders built for us a nation where the people enjoy a series of freedoms that few in the world at the time had. To censor speech without rhyme or reason save "Well, it COULD be dangerous" is not just stupid and pointless, it's threatening to the pillars that support the United States.
*insane grin*
Big days are ahead, aye? Finally. I live in Canada, so it's safe up here for now. But I still want to fight, or at least petition, for my southernly gamer neighbors. Good luck, Californians. What happens there will affect us, too.
Big days are ahead, aye? Finally. I live in Canada, so it's safe up here for now. But I still want to fight, or at least petition, for my southernly gamer neighbors. Good luck, Californians. What happens there will affect us, too.