Schwarzenegger vs. Interactivity

senataur

New member
Aug 21, 2008
109
0
0
I searched for the word Irony on google.

This page came up, then a fist extended through the screen and repeatedly punched me in the face until I clicked the link and read every single word.
 

bakonslayer

New member
Apr 15, 2009
235
0
0
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.
 

Altorin

Jack of No Trades
May 16, 2008
6,976
0
0
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.
 

Jachwe

New member
Jul 29, 2010
72
0
0
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 :p No seriously
 

LordVyreth

New member
Jan 22, 2010
44
0
0
Sikachu said:
LordOfInsanity said:
SenseOfTumour said:
I can't help but think it's a reasonable idea to prevent sales to minors of M rated games, and as for training, surely 'Hey guys, you know how you card people for Mature rated movies? do the same for video games please'. That's not $1000s of training to me.

I just think because people are crazy about the idea the kids playing violent games, if we don't as an industry keep them away from kids, the world will just go nuts and try to get them banned altogether.

Again tho, I think the main problem is parental responsibility, you buy GTA for your wailing 8 year old to shut him up, despite the clerk's desperate attempts to educate you about the games content, then you don't get to run off to FOX news because it taught him to call the family pet a ************, and reply to 'tidy your room' with 'what up, *****?'
The thing is, every game store that sells video games already cards people if they wish to buy M games. I know I've been carded multiple times after I turned 18 for buying an M game. Putting a law on it is a kick to the balls of all video gamers with a heavy, steel-toed boot with spikes on it.

This also opens the door for government to put laws on movies and stores. And it gets worse. What's to stop them from banning violence in all video games? What about political ideals? Heck, they could ban swear words from games.

That's why I like what the ECA/EMA is doing by fighting this. Our rights as citizens (Of the States since this is where it's happening), are being shot by a law like this.
What, your right to not be able to buy an 'M' rated game as a minor because no shop will sell it to you without ID? I think you Americans are just a bit too scared of laws. Comments like 'What's to stop them from banning violence in all video games?' are about as helpful as asking 'what's to stop them starting up a Battle Royale-style tv show?' - not very.
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

New member
Apr 20, 2010
464
0
0
LordVyreth said:
It could mean major stores won't cover M-rated games for fear of lawsuits should a single employee screw up.
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:
It could mean M-rated games can't sell ads anywhere with a significant percentage of children who read or watch it.
Where the hell's the harm in that? The tobacco industry seems to have survived having its opportunities to advertised slashed...

LordVyreth said:
And most importantly, it means video games are no longer legally recognized as art, period... [redacted for brevity] ...If we complain about the lack of mature stories in games now, imagine the state of games after that.
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:
So yes, the possibility of games being legally banned is a plausible one based on other countries and historical analysis. Is it likely?
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.
 

CRoone

New member
Jul 1, 2010
160
0
0
*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).
 

paragon1

New member
Dec 8, 2008
1,121
0
0
fundayz said:
Oh please, how about a little less fear mongering? In effect, all the Cali law is trying to do is add a fine to the selling of "M" and "violent" games to minors; calling that a chilling effect is plain and simple exaggeration.

Stores like Wall-mart "will have to restructure their entire business model" to abide this law? give me a break, all they will have to do is actually make sure their employees ask for IDs before selling any M games, like they are already supposed to do in many places.
Also, do you think games stores are actually going to stop selling M rated games instead of just asking for IDs? Seriously?

I agree that interactive media should be protected like all other kinds of media, but to claim that a law trying to uphold game ratings and their purpose is censoring is ridiculous.
What's next? Claiming that not selling porn to children is unconstitutional and that it uses a 'chilling effect' to oppress the people?
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?
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.
 

paragon1

New member
Dec 8, 2008
1,121
0
0
Therumancer said:
Owyn_Merrilin said:
Therumancer said:
snip, because, damn dude
I'm a little confused by several things in your post.
First, could you state whether or not you support the California law that is at the source of this thread please? For clarity's sake.
Second, Governor Schwarzenegger is a Republican and the sponsor of this law, isn't he? And similar laws have been proposed by members of both parties, so really, why are you talking like it's just one group that makes this kind of legislation?
Third, first you say that the constitution is a living document, then you argue that people shouldn't quote it or other documents without considering the context in which it was written. Aren't you contradicting yourself there? How can we call it living if we can only consider it in the context of men long dead? Wouldn't that quickly make it irrelevant? How would that context affect laws regarding things that simply didn't exist when the Constitution was written?
 

Arrogancy

New member
Jun 9, 2009
1,277
0
0
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.
 

King Toasty

New member
Oct 2, 2010
1,527
0
0
*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.
 

Therumancer

Citation Needed
Nov 28, 2007
9,909
0
0
paragon1 said:
Therumancer said:
Owyn_Merrilin said:
Therumancer said:
snip, because, damn dude
I'm a little confused by several things in your post.
First, could you state whether or not you support the California law that is at the source of this thread please? For clarity's sake.
Second, Governor Schwarzenegger is a Republican and the sponsor of this law, isn't he? And similar laws have been proposed by members of both parties, so really, why are you talking like it's just one group that makes this kind of legislation?
Third, first you say that the constitution is a living document, then you argue that people shouldn't quote it or other documents without considering the context in which it was written. Aren't you contradicting yourself there? How can we call it living if we can only consider it in the context of men long dead? Wouldn't that quickly make it irrelevant? How would that context affect laws regarding things that simply didn't exist when the Constitution was written?

I'm not a great writer, and perhaps I was not clear due to covering this in a number of threads.

I am against the law.

When it comes to my political statements, I have always pointed out that this is an issue that goes cross party. It is however a pet issue of the democratic party, and specifically of people like Hillary Clinton and her/her husband's supporters (referred to by many as Clintonistas), as well as our current president Barack Obama who uses the issue as a scapegoat for health issues and the like as opposed to Hillary's more "protect the children" type message.

The thing is that during the last sets of elections the Democratic party took a "who cares if we're right or not, let's do anything to win" approach to a whole new level. Believing that it was dissent due to differant ideas in the party, the leadership pretty much decreed that the Democrats are all going to rally behind specific issues and promote specific people irregardless of what they might personally believe, or they are out of the party.

There is a lot more that can be said about this, but the whole thing where Hillary was given a position in Obama's administration was a big deal because it ended a divide within the party and pretty much brought the only divisive faction that could have bucked this proclaimation into the fold.

Unfortunatly for us, video games are the scapegoat of choice for both Hillary AND Obama and when push comes to shove very few people within the democratic party are going to oppose them (though it does happen) out of concern for their careers.

There are indeed Republicans who support these issues, however right now what your dealing with is the entire democratic party with any dissent quashed, and the Republicans going cross party that are the force behind this. That level of support is why a bill like this (giving the goverment censorship powers, irregardless of why) which should by rights be shot down instantly has become such a big deal.

Right now the opposition includes the Republicans in the "against it" camp, and a relatively scant handfull of democrats who are willing to buck their own leadership.

Arnie himself is a Republican, but also consider who he's married to, and whom that marriage connects him to (The Kennedies, and if you think his marriage and so on didn't influance his political career I think your naive). Arnie himself does have a lot of right wing ideals but has also claimed as I recall to be a social liberal.

Having one of the best known Republicans out there pull the trigger to start this is also a calculated move, because on a lot of levels it shows both parties moving for the same thing, in hopes that it's going to influance people, and even The Supreme Court, when they see this. The image they want to present is one of everyone coming forward to beg the Supreme Court to give them the power to save all of us poor pathetic peasants from the burden of our own freedom, since we obviously can't handle parenting and deciding what media we want to consume on our own.


This is an old discussion so I'm not going to say more on it, and apologies for the length. Whether you agree with me or not, this hopefully clarifies what I think and why I say the things I do.
 

paragon1

New member
Dec 8, 2008
1,121
0
0
Therumancer said:
paragon1 said:
Therumancer said:
Owyn_Merrilin said:
Therumancer said:
snip, because, damn dude
I'm a little confused by several things in your post.
First, could you state whether or not you support the California law that is at the source of this thread please? For clarity's sake.
Second, Governor Schwarzenegger is a Republican and the sponsor of this law, isn't he? And similar laws have been proposed by members of both parties, so really, why are you talking like it's just one group that makes this kind of legislation?
Third, first you say that the constitution is a living document, then you argue that people shouldn't quote it or other documents without considering the context in which it was written. Aren't you contradicting yourself there? How can we call it living if we can only consider it in the context of men long dead? Wouldn't that quickly make it irrelevant? How would that context affect laws regarding things that simply didn't exist when the Constitution was written?

I'm not a great writer, and perhaps I was not clear due to covering this in a number of threads.

I am against the law.

When it comes to my political statements, I have always pointed out that this is an issue that goes cross party. It is however a pet issue of the democratic party, and specifically of people like Hillary Clinton and her/her husband's supporters (referred to by many as Clintonistas), as well as our current president Barack Obama who uses the issue as a scapegoat for health issues and the like as opposed to Hillary's more "protect the children" type message.

The thing is that during the last sets of elections the Democratic party took a "who cares if we're right or not, let's do anything to win" approach to a whole new level. Believing that it was dissent due to differant ideas in the party, the leadership pretty much decreed that the Democrats are all going to rally behind specific issues and promote specific people irregardless of what they might personally believe, or they are out of the party.

There is a lot more that can be said about this, but the whole thing where Hillary was given a position in Obama's administration was a big deal because it ended a divide within the party and pretty much brought the only divisive faction that could have bucked this proclaimation into the fold.

Unfortunatly for us, video games are the scapegoat of choice for both Hillary AND Obama and when push comes to shove very few people within the democratic party are going to oppose them (though it does happen) out of concern for their careers.

There are indeed Republicans who support these issues, however right now what your dealing with is the entire democratic party with any dissent quashed, and the Republicans going cross party that are the force behind this. That level of support is why a bill like this (giving the goverment censorship powers, irregardless of why) which should by rights be shot down instantly has become such a big deal.

Right now the opposition includes the Republicans in the "against it" camp, and a relatively scant handfull of democrats who are willing to buck their own leadership.

Arnie himself is a Republican, but also consider who he's married to, and whom that marriage connects him to (The Kennedies, and if you think his marriage and so on didn't influance his political career I think your naive). Arnie himself does have a lot of right wing ideals but has also claimed as I recall to be a social liberal.

Having one of the best known Republicans out there pull the trigger to start this is also a calculated move, because on a lot of levels it shows both parties moving for the same thing, in hopes that it's going to influance people, and even The Supreme Court, when they see this. The image they want to present is one of everyone coming forward to beg the Supreme Court to give them the power to save all of us poor pathetic peasants from the burden of our own freedom, since we obviously can't handle parenting and deciding what media we want to consume on our own.


This is an old discussion so I'm not going to say more on it, and apologies for the length. Whether you agree with me or not, this hopefully clarifies what I think and why I say the things I do.
Yes, it does, and I thank you for taking the time to clarify and explain.
I basically agree with most of your points, though I think you may be seeing too much in Mrs. Clinton's appointment. It'd be interesting to see the Democrats try to rally behind certain issues in the manner you describe, since they'd be doing the exact same thing the Republicans did during Bush's first term.

Wish I could say that seeing parts of the government try to gain censorship powers surprised me, but I guess that's just the nature of the beast, isn't it?