Supreme Court Agrees to Review California Game Law

[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.

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?

My comment was supposed to be outrageous. It got you attention and but you didn't argue any of the merits. How about a more recent example. Arizona, my current home, just passed a law banning illegal immigrants. I don't think it's a very good law, and it's enforcement will probably lead to racial profiling. But unless people start to think I'm an illegal from Canada, i very much doubt that I'll be personally affected. But i'm against the law on principle, because i see it as a bad idea and a first step to something uglier.

As to your second point, no one said that giving violent games to children was a good idea. My general point (illustrated in my previous posts) is that businesses have the right to sell to anyone they want. If they want to sell violent video games to children, they should be able to. Of course they will reap the consequences from the community and the press, but the government should have nothing to do with it.

The California law uses words like 'cruel' and 'heinous' to describe the ultra-violent video games that would impacted by this law. This is starting to sound a lot like community standards. I don't want to get into obscenity law (mostly because i don't know enough and it's very fragmented and complicated).

TLR - Mandating that businesses follow some type of rating system for video games is a violation of the first amendment to the US constitution, no matter how often someone yells "Who will think of the children!!!??".

 

[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?

My comment was supposed to be outrageous. It got you attention and but you didn't argue any of the merits. How about a more recent example. Arizona, my current home, just passed a law banning illegal immigrants. I don't think it's a very good law, and it's enforcement will probably lead to racial profiling. But unless people start to think I'm an illegal from Canada, i very much doubt that I'll be personally affected. But i'm against the law on principle, because i see it as a bad idea and a first step to something uglier.

As to your second point, no one said that giving violent games to children was a good idea. My general point (illustrated in my previous posts) is that businesses have the right to sell to anyone they want. If they want to sell violent video games to children, they should be able to. Of course they will reap the consequences from the community and the press, but the government should have nothing to do with it.

The California law uses words like 'cruel' and 'heinous' to describe the ultra-violent video games that would impacted by this law. This is starting to sound a lot like community standards. I don't want to get into obscenity law (mostly because i don't know enough and it's very fragmented and complicated).

TLR - Mandating that businesses follow some type of rating system for video games is a violation of the first amendment to the US constitution, no matter how often someone yells "Who will think of the children!!!??".

There is a world of difference between a racist profiling law and holding video games to the same standards that many other commercial entities are.

Movie theaters are not allowed to sell R-Rated movie tickets to minors. Nor is Blockbuster allowed to rent them out. Liquor stores, restaurants, and bars are not allowed to sell booze to minors under penalty of law.

Why should video games be any different? Do they posses some inherent positive value that films, tobacco, alcohol, and firearms do not and need to be sold to children? I am not getting into decency laws. And I will not even say that M rated games are always appropriately rated M. However I think they largely are rated appropriately and deserve the ratings and restrictions that come with that they get.

Should a minor have a real problem with this, they should convince their parents to buy it for them/with them. If their parents are fine with the content, then they will have no problem accompanying their little charge to buying it. And if they aren't, buck up Junior. 18 is never that far away.

 

[Ne1butme]

Movie theaters are not allowed to sell R-Rated movie tickets to minors. Nor is Blockbuster allowed to rent them out. Liquor stores, restaurants, and bars are not allowed to sell booze to minors under penalty of law.

Why should video games be any different? Do they posses some inherent positive value that films, tobacco, alcohol, and firearms do not and need to be sold to children? I am not getting into decency laws. And I will not even say that M rated games are always appropriately rated M. However I think they largely are rated appropriately and deserve the ratings and restrictions that come with that they get.

Should a minor have a real problem with this, they should convince their parents to buy it for them/with them. If their parents are fine with the content, then they will have no problem accompanying their little charge to buying it. And if they aren't, buck up Junior. 18 is never that far away.

Sigh, you really don't know what you're talking about. There's no law that says movie theaters have to card. There's no law that says Blockbuster has to card. Your attitude of "it doesn't affect me, so i don't care" is very apathetic.

Strike that. Apathy isn't the right word. I think lazy is better. That's right. That attitude is lazy.

"THEY CAME FIRST for the Communists,
and I didn't speak up because I wasn't a Communist.

THEN THEY CAME for the Jews,
and I didn't speak up because I wasn't a Jew.

THEN THEY CAME for the trade unionists,
and I didn't speak up because I wasn't a trade unionist.

THEN THEY CAME for me
and by that time no one was left to speak up."
Martin Niemöller

That's right, i just godwin'd this entire thread.

Also, tobacco, Firearms, and alcohol are not forms of speech.

 

[GL2814E]

Movie theaters are not allowed to sell R-Rated movie tickets to minors. Nor is Blockbuster allowed to rent them out. Liquor stores, restaurants, and bars are not allowed to sell booze to minors under penalty of law.

Why should video games be any different? Do they posses some inherent positive value that films, tobacco, alcohol, and firearms do not and need to be sold to children? I am not getting into decency laws. And I will not even say that M rated games are always appropriately rated M. However I think they largely are rated appropriately and deserve the ratings and restrictions that come with that they get.

Should a minor have a real problem with this, they should convince their parents to buy it for them/with them. If their parents are fine with the content, then they will have no problem accompanying their little charge to buying it. And if they aren't, buck up Junior. 18 is never that far away.

Sigh, you really don't know what you're talking about. There's no law that says movie theaters have to card. There's no law that says Blockbuster has to card. Your attitude of "it doesn't affect me, so i don't care" is very apathetic.

Strike that. Apathy isn't the right word. I think lazy is better. That's right. That attitude is lazy.

Also, tobacco, Firearms, and alcohol are not forms of speech.

Ok, I looked it up and you are right. It is voluntary for theaters to use the ratings system. Score one for you. Or it would be, if you hadn't missed the Erotica/Porn one.

There are penalties for selling Erotica to minors, so if violent games are okay, why should porn/erotica be exempt? And before you say it, yes, I have watched porn with deeper social commentary than many, many violent video games. And while that is incredibly sad, I still don't think kids need to see it.

And it isn't lazy or apathetic of me to support a law that will support my style of child-raising. I don't believe kids need access to that sort of material. And while I do know that kids will get it one way or another regardless of a parent's best efforts, making obtaining it just a little bit more difficult helps me.

And again, less racist twelve year olds on games means a more enjoyable experience for the rest of us.

 

[Xanadu84]

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.

First, as for defining adult material, well that's pretty easy. ESRB does a good job of it.

Yes, bad things generally had good intentions. But on the flip side, you could use that argument to say that we should never do anything to fix anything ever, because of the dangers inherit in trying to make things better.

And of course the law has to be carefully worded. They have the time to do so, and this is the reason why I'm still on the fence.

 

[Andy Chalk]

I don't believe kids need access to that sort of material.

And once again, we come to the heart of the matter. Who are you and why should what you believe have a bearing on what I believe?

I've had this conversation so many times before.

Here's the thing a lot of you non-US types (and a disturbing amount of Americans, too) need to know: The First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution guarantees freedom of speech in all but a few very narrowly-defined instances. This is why pornography is illegal to distribute to minors, but violent, gory horror films are not. It's also why wackos like Jack Thompson have tried in the past to have violence classified as pornography (and why they still sometimes refer to "pornographic violence" in their ravings): Because it's the only way to impose legal restrictions upon its sale to kids.

Why is this important? Because freedom of speech, not just as a vague, pleasant-sounding platitude but enshrined in the bedrock of law, is one of the core principles upon which the United States was founded. This is something they took VERY seriously, but sadly, successive generations of slackjaws appear to have increasingly lost sight of that.

Do you find it odd that I, a Canadian, am explaining this and feel as strongly about it as I do? It's because the First Amendment is the one thing I envy Americans: It's one badly fucked-up country in more ways than I can count (but I love you anyway, guys) but god damn, that First Amendment is absolutely awesome. See, those of us who live in countries without one of our own don't really have much recourse when our government tells us what we should or should not be watching, or listening to, or playing.

I'm more fortunate than most, because when it comes to content ratings we pretty much just roll along with the Americans, so if it's good enough for them, it's good enough for us. It's given us de facto First Amendment protections without actually having to go to the hassle of earning them or defending them. But in a country like Australia, say, which most people probably wouldn't consider a place where freedom of speech is an issue, one man with a belief system that may be vastly different than yours or mine has the power to dictate what games we can and cannot legally own and play.

That can't happen in the US as long as games are protected by the First Amendment. But if the Supreme Court decides otherwise, then everything changes and you better hold on to your asses, because it won't necessarily be just about videogames. Someone said earlier that he's not really a fan of "slippery slope" arguments and I'm inclined to share that sentiment, but if the Constitution of the United States suddenly becomes conditional, all bets are off.

And at some point after that, some of you may start to clue in about why First Amendment protections for videogames are important.

 

[Ne1butme]

And at some point after that, some of you may start to clue in about why First Amendment protections for videogames are important.

Amen

 

[Adzma]

Wait, are you telling me that in the US if a game or film or whatever is rated Adults Only, children can still buy it simply because it's unconstitutional otherwise? What the hell is the point of having a rating system then? I wish my government put as much faith in children as yours does.

 

[rorsch4ch]

to the post above me: i was pretty surprised to read that too.
speaking of slippery slopes (and the reason why i registered) i can give you a first hand account from germany. in this beatiful country we have the FSK which sticks a legaly binding label on every tv series, film and game. if the FSK doesn't rate it, it can't be sold (politics says its "Jugendschutz" [protection of minors]). the problem is this: despite the FSK being somewhat more "liberal" in recent times, you still can't tell for sure what they aren't going to like. also, and seeing the comments above me a pretty unimaginable fact for americans, many game developers and publishers censor their games BEFORE submitting them for ratings which leads to FSK 18 (the number is the legal age, in this case adult only) still being censored. a the nice republic i live in which totaly doesnt tell its citizens whats ok for them to watch or play^^

edit: as pointed out before i'm german so keep your spelling mistakes

 

[Andy Chalk]

Wait, are you telling me that in the US if a game or film or whatever is rated Adults Only, children can still buy it simply because it's unconstitutional otherwise? What the hell is the point of having a rating system then? I wish my government put as much faith in children as yours does.

Americans are pretty powerfully obsessed with things like "freedom" and "the rights of the individual" and other crazy shit like that, to the point that it's codified in law. This is the result: A situation in which nobody wants kids to have access to this stuff, but one of the most basic founding principles of the country is that the government will not place restrictions on the freedom of expression.

The solution is compromise: Voluntary, industry-regulated rating systems that impose and enforce ratings. So if a videogame retailer, for instance, is busted selling Liberty City Stories to a six-year-old, punishment (in the form of fairly hefty fines) will be leveled by the ESRB, not the police or some form of anonymous governmental oversight agency.

The system works. Compliance with videogame ratings is very high the US, outstripping all other media without infringing upon the rights of the individual. But yes, as I said earlier, it might seem a bit strange to non-Americans - and, more and more, to a lot of Americans.

 

[Adzma]

SNIP

So in other words it's up to the retailer whether to enforce the rating or not? Hmm strange, however if it works I guess you can't complain.