Supreme Court Agrees to Review California Game Law

[Proteus214]

The rallying cry of "think of the children" is NOT a valid argument against free speech.

 

[ZehGeek]

The rallying cry of "think of the children" is NOT a valid argument against free speech.

It's actualy more like "Think of covering our arses effectivly since ignorance is quite high", atleast to me.
Anyway, it's nice there atleast trying. But the thing there gonna realise, even if they put all those restrictions to stop people from freaking out over violent games, kids are still gonna get them. Friends, older brothers, other family members buying it, etc etc. It'd give them a excuse to do what they could to get it honestly. Kinda like how underage people get bear. Still illegal, but they find ways around the system. So honestly, putting all the restrictions would be pointless.

A) Games deserve the same protection like what everything else has in this "free" country.
B) You'd have a better impact if you teach parents to actualy BE parents, and show them to not get M rated games for there bloody 9 year old kids, and actualy know what the heck your kids are doing. >_<
(Probably was all over the place, I apologize for that)

 

[Mysnomer]

But last time I checked, you need to be accompanied by an adult to see a rated R movie,

The Government has absolutely nothing to do with the enforcement of the age restrictions attributed to movies. That's a decision of the businesses involved, namely the studios, theaters, and the MPAA. If a movie theater wanted to let little children see an R rated movie, then the government really can't do much about it. It is a business choice. They have to balance potential sales versus public condemnation.

In the same vein, any game seller, like Walmart or Gamesop, has the right to refuse sales of M rated games to persons under the age of 18. This is a business choice. Again, sales potential vs public sentiment.

The rating for both movies and games are not controlled by any government entity. Just as they have no voice in the settings of the ratings, they should have no voice in its enforcement.

I had guessed that was the issue, but wasn't sure. Thank you for clearing that up.

My question is, why did I have to come into this forum to get an actual, clear description of the issue? Why wasn't the actual controversy laid out in the article? I've read another article from the Escapist on this matter, and it didn't explain it either. And also, what's with the focal point of Arnold Schwarzenegger? I can't believe anything that goes on the record as the actions of an entire state government is decided by one man. Admit it, it was just so you could make some inflammatory rebuttal about all the violent movies he's been in. This sort of manufactured indignance is the domain of attention seekers trying to get posts in their thread or comments on their blog.

 

[Andy Chalk]

But last time I checked, you need to be accompanied by an adult to see a rated R movie, Pornography isn't sold to minors, and so on and so forth. So what rights are video games denied, compared to other mediums?

Movie ratings are entirely voluntary. So are ratings on music. Pornography, as "obscenity," is one of the few narrowly-defined exceptions to the First Amendment. A disturbing number of people don't realize this, but there is absolutely no law that says an eight-year-old can't enter a movie theater to watch Saw.

This case is important not so much because it's about videogames but because it's about the First Amendment. How much protection of your free speech rights are you prepared to surrender?

 

[Xanadu84]

But last time I checked, you need to be accompanied by an adult to see a rated R movie, Pornography isn't sold to minors, and so on and so forth. So what rights are video games denied, compared to other mediums?

Movie ratings are entirely voluntary. So are ratings on music. Pornography, as "obscenity," is one of the few narrowly-defined exceptions to the First Amendment. A disturbing number of people don't realize this, but there is absolutely no law that says an eight-year-old can't enter a movie theater to watch Saw.

This case is important not so much because it's about videogames but because it's about the First Amendment. How much protection of your free speech rights are you prepared to surrender?

Though a legit question, its also a bit of a loaded one: No one wants to be the asshole who says he is willing to give up freedoms. And certainly I agree that anything that limits a game developers capacity to make a game, and distribute it to adults and Children whose parents approve, is ludicrous and inappropriate. But we need to remember that we aren't talking about adults. We arn't even talking about children broadly. We are talking specifically about children who are getting the most violent of games without there parents knowing. If a child wants a game, there parents can decide that they choose to buy the game for their child. As long as this is possible, I don't think freedom of speech is being compromised. And most importantly, there's the practical side: Unless there is some hidden censorship that I'm not seeing (Which is entirely possible), the real life effect of this law seems to be that minors can't trick there parents as easily, and parents don't have a legitimate scapegoat in video games. What specific, real life ramification of this is negative, because Im not seeing any.

Honestly, I'm still on the fence about this law, simply because even symbolic victories can be incredibly powerful, and it's likely that video game stores will continue to enforce ratings. But the concrete reality of giving parents useful tools to make informed choices regarding there childrens video game consumption, thereby helping video games be accepted and understood by the public, seem to outweigh the abstract ideology of "Freedom" without any concrete examples.

If anything, in a video game forum, someone needs to play devils advocate, and I like taking up that mantle.

 

[Ne1butme]

What really bothers me is that the Supreme Court has decided this is a topic worth investigating. To me, the arguments against the ratings law are very simple to understand and correspond well with precedent. Open and Shut case. Somehow the Supreme court doesn't necessary believe this and wants its own say. I really worry that they'll side with the state of California.

Some will say that they believe the Court will affirm the ruling of the ninth district court and continue to an the ratings law because of their stand on 'money as free speech' in recent cases.

However, that case (like nearly all others) was 5 to 4. Kennedy has all the power and can swing it either way. They might see 'corruption of the innocent' as a strong enough reason to invalidate the 1st amendment for this instance.


EDIT - I had forgotten about the Crush video case. That's a step towards free speech.

 

[Raithnor]

The Supreme Court recent struck down a law that attempted to ban the sale of videos where women in high heeled shoes stomp small furry creatures to death. The decision wasn't even close, it was 8-1 with Alito being the dissenter.

If the Supreme Court is willing to strike down that law, it's going to strike down one aimed at video games.

 

[Ne1butme]

But last time I checked, you need to be accompanied by an adult to see a rated R movie, Pornography isn't sold to minors, and so on and so forth. So what rights are video games denied, compared to other mediums?

Movie ratings are entirely voluntary. So are ratings on music. Pornography, as "obscenity," is one of the few narrowly-defined exceptions to the First Amendment. A disturbing number of people don't realize this, but there is absolutely no law that says an eight-year-old can't enter a movie theater to watch Saw.

This case is important not so much because it's about videogames but because it's about the First Amendment. How much protection of your free speech rights are you prepared to surrender?

Though a legit question, its also a bit of a loaded one: No one wants to be the asshole who says he is willing to give up freedoms. And certainly I agree that anything that limits a game developers capacity to make a game, and distribute it to adults and Children whose parents approve, is ludicrous and inappropriate. But we need to remember that we aren't talking about adults. We arn't even talking about children broadly. We are talking specifically about children who are getting the most violent of games without there parents knowing. If a child wants a game, there parents can decide that they choose to buy the game for their child. As long as this is possible, I don't think freedom of speech is being compromised. And most importantly, there's the practical side: Unless there is some hidden censorship that I'm not seeing (Which is entirely possible), the real life effect of this law seems to be that minors can't trick there parents as easily, and parents don't have a legitimate scapegoat in video games. What specific, real life ramification of this is negative, because Im not seeing any.

Honestly, I'm still on the fence about this law, simply because even symbolic victories can be incredibly powerful, and it's likely that video game stores will continue to enforce ratings. But the concrete reality of giving parents useful tools to make informed choices regarding there childrens video game consumption, thereby helping video games be accepted and understood by the public, seem to outweigh the abstract ideology of "Freedom" without any concrete examples.

If anything, in a video game forum, someone needs to play devils advocate, and I like taking up that mantle.

If the state wins the right to prevent minors from buying these games, then they win the right to say what kind of material might purchased by anyone in their state. They would win to decide that the MSRB is not doing a good enough job and to take over the ratings system within their territory. The state gets to decide what is considered too violent. Then other states will do the same and institute fracturing 'community standards'. Soon developers will have to worry about meeting the individual standards of each market. We already see this on the global stage when developers are required to create a separate version for Germany or Australia. This is a slippery slope.

 

[hansari]

Movie ratings are entirely voluntary. So are ratings on music. Pornography, as "obscenity," is one of the few narrowly-defined exceptions to the First Amendment. A disturbing number of people don't realize this, but there is absolutely no law that says an eight-year-old can't enter a movie theater to watch Saw.

Because all hell would break loose every time some kid sneaks into an R rated movie.

And trying to somehow enforce it would be a joke. Buy a ticket to the next Pixar movie, then just "sneak" (as in walk into) an adult film.

Videogames are different in that the stores do actually have control over who gets what game. (not counting online purchases that is)

 

[Xanadu84]

If the state wins the right to prevent minors from buying these games, then they win the right to say what kind of material might purchased by anyone in their state. They would win to decide that the MSRB is not doing a good enough job and to take over the ratings system within their territory. The state gets to decide what is considered too violent. Then other states will do the same and institute fracturing 'community standards'. Soon developers will have to worry about meeting the individual standards of each market. We already see this on the global stage when developers are required to create a separate version for Germany or Australia. This is a slippery slope.

I'm Skeptical of most slippery slope arguments, because it generally requires the assumption that a long series of events will happen, when you can't be sure they will. I am not bothered by a legal backing behind prohibiting sale of adult material to minors, and think that the same should be done with all media. That position generally doesn't come up, though, because in these sort of debates, it's usually the people touting, "Family values" who are by far the greater of the evils. So really, if the law only has ramifications for sale of adult material to minors, then I'm not bothered by it. If this is a foot in the door to something that is actually damaging, then I am against it. And I would need a far more nuanced understanding of this bill to discriminate between the 2 possibilities. All I would like to add is to everyone is that little kids playing at adult hobbies without there parents knowing is bad. It will only reflect poorly on us. So even if you do see the law as dangerous, remember that there is legitimate, beneficial intent behind the law, and it should be considered before dismissed.

 

[Ne1butme]

If the state wins the right to prevent minors from buying these games, then they win the right to say what kind of material might purchased by anyone in their state. They would win to decide that the MSRB is not doing a good enough job and to take over the ratings system within their territory. The state gets to decide what is considered too violent. Then other states will do the same and institute fracturing 'community standards'. Soon developers will have to worry about meeting the individual standards of each market. We already see this on the global stage when developers are required to create a separate version for Germany or Australia. This is a slippery slope.

I'm Skeptical of most slippery slope arguments, because it generally requires the assumption that a long series of events will happen, when you can't be sure they will. I am not bothered by a legal backing behind prohibiting sale of adult material to minors, and think that the same should be done with all media. That position generally doesn't come up, though, because in these sort of debates, it's usually the people touting, "Family values" who are by far the greater of the evils. So really, if the law only has ramifications for sale of adult material to minors, then I'm not bothered by it. If this is a foot in the door to something that is actually damaging, then I am against it. And I would need a far more nuanced understanding of this bill to discriminate between the 2 possibilities. All I would like to add is to everyone is that little kids playing at adult hobbies without there parents knowing is bad. It will only reflect poorly on us. So even if you do see the law as dangerous, remember that there is legitimate, beneficial intent behind the law, and it should be considered before dismissed.

Define 'adult material'. That could be pornography. That could be any type of violence. That could be anything to do with smoking. Since children are not allowed to purchase cigarettes, then perhaps a movie which depicts people smoking can be defined as adult material. What about games where the characters smoke?

Don't forget, nearly all bad decisions and laws in human history had a 'beneficial intent', at least to someone. If we limit this discussion to just "How do we prevent children from playing games with violence?" then there are better (and more legal) methods than banning it at the local, state, or federal level.


To the slippery slope issue, unless the court words its decision very very carefully, then this could set a precedent that the lower courts would follow. A bunch of states will immediately try to pass game restriction bills. If they differ from the California law in any way, then they can be sued. But the precedent has been set and states will more likely win in court. Opening the door is a slippery slope.

 

[Ne1butme]

Movie ratings are entirely voluntary. So are ratings on music. Pornography, as "obscenity," is one of the few narrowly-defined exceptions to the First Amendment. A disturbing number of people don't realize this, but there is absolutely no law that says an eight-year-old can't enter a movie theater to watch Saw.

Because all hell would break loose every time some kid sneaks into an R rated movie.

And trying to somehow enforce it would be a joke. Buy a ticket to the next Pixar movie, then just "sneak" (as in walk into) an adult film.

Videogames are different in that the stores do actually have control over who gets what game. (not counting online purchases that is)

Why is it different? Because movie theaters have a certain general architectural layout? Ok, how about movie rentals instead? Should there be a law that requires Blockbuster to enforce film ratings? They currently do it for political and social reasons, but there's no law. And Blockbuster has as much control over who gets the material as any game shop.

So why is Blockbuster different than Gamestop when it comes to this particular issue?

 

[Sneaky Paladin]

AHHH CRAP I ACTUALLY LIVE THERE. It's not like australia where I don't live there

 

[Baldr]

The law could be applied to games like Super Mario Bros. where you violently jump or fire a fireball to kill or incapacitate an enemy.

 

[Ne1butme]

The law could be applied to games like Super Mario Bros. where you violently jump or fire a fireball to kill or incapacitate an enemy.

I think we can also categorize Frogger as a crush video.

 

[GL2814E]

Exactly what part of this law irritates gamers so much? (Other than the snot-nosed brat ones who want to do a line of coke off of a whore's ass in GTA V. Sorry kids but you don't need to do that.)

I am just curious what is precisely that has gamers in such an uproar. Especially the adult ones to whom it shouldn't make a damn bit of difference. If the number of racist twelve year-olds is cut down on in Halo Reach, do we adult players really suffer? I think not.

 

[rekabdarb]

I'm glad that i'm no longer a child, and HEY according to jack thompson cali will never get a colombine

 

[Ne1butme]

Exactly what part of this law irritates gamers so much? (Other than the snot-nosed brat ones who want to do a line of coke off of a whore's ass in GTA V. Sorry kids but you don't need to do that.)

I am just curious what is precisely that has gamers in such an uproar. Especially the adult ones to whom it shouldn't make a damn bit of difference. If the number of racist twelve year-olds is cut down on in Halo Reach, do we adult players really suffer? I think not.

It's the principle. Your example is like saying "I don't care about slavery, because I'm white and it doesn't affect me." Bad laws affect everyone.

 

[GL2814E]

Exactly what part of this law irritates gamers so much? (Other than the snot-nosed brat ones who want to do a line of coke off of a whore's ass in GTA V. Sorry kids but you don't need to do that.)

I am just curious what is precisely that has gamers in such an uproar. Especially the adult ones to whom it shouldn't make a damn bit of difference. If the number of racist twelve year-olds is cut down on in Halo Reach, do we adult players really suffer? I think not.

It's the principle. Your example is like saying "I don't care about slavery, because I'm white and it doesn't affect me." Bad laws affect everyone.

A) That is incredibly offensive to compare the plight of gamer's Free Time with African Americans struggle for Freedom. World of difference there.

B) What exactly does the law do that is so horrible to gamers? Other than restrict the content that Minors can see and enforce that?

I have no problem with a porno store owner getting fined for selling porn to children, why should I be bothered by a game store not selling GTA V- WHORE WARS to minors?