Utah's Attorney General Under Fire in Videogame Case

[quantum mechanic]

I'm sorry but i am COMPLETELY confused. I have no freaking idea what's going on. Can someone explain to me because i don't think i have the full picture. I've read the other news bullitens but i still don't get it.

Ok, here's the story as I understand it (please correct if I'm totally wrong): the ESA (Entertainment Software Association, not European Space Agency) challenged a California law (approved by Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger) that would impose substantial fines on retailers selling M-rated games to minors. This is sort of like enforcing the age recommendations from the ESRB with a law.

You could say it makes M-rated games "controlled products," like alcohol or tobacco, in that you would have to show ID to buy them. However, this does not stop a parent or other adult from purchasing an M-rated game (or alcohol or tobacco, for that matter) and giving it to a kid. I think the problem with this law is that the infringement on personal freedom would do little or nothing to stop kids from accessing violent games. Reasoning: most young kids don't have the disposable income and leeway from their parents to buy violent games. If there is a problem with kids getting their hands on extremely violent games, I think it's more a case of the parents not reading the labels or the box or just not caring what their kids are exposed to. That's a parenting issue, not a matter for the law, in my opinion.

 

[Caligulust]

I'm quite frankly surprised about his stance.

Not so much with that of those criticizing him.

When I was younger, I was never once sold an M-rated game. I had to have an adult be there.

This guy is pretty cool.
Utah never stops embarrassing me.

 

[FinalHeart95]

Read: "THE CHILDREN! DO IT FOR THE CHILDREN! IF YOU DISAPPROVE OF US YOU HATE CHILDREN! FOR GOD'S SAKE, THINK OF THE CHILDREN!"

Also;

Fisher, in turn, chimed in by saying "If we took a poll here in Utah, most people would be outraged that our children have access to those games."

People like Mr. Fisher are why my generation is so fucked up. It's not the state's job to parent your kids, IT'S YOURS. Your kids shouldn't have access to these games, and they wouldn't if people like Fisher got off their asses every once in a while and actually PARENTED. Statements like this hit my berserk button.

 

[Denamic]

"According to the Desert News, Ruzicka, 'said people she talks to assume Utah already prohibits children from buying video games in which participants have sex with prostitutes and then kill them; shoot innocent shoppers walking in a mall and decapitate people with shovels and have dogs fetch the severed heads.'"

Whoa, does a video game like that exist? Why haven't I found it yet?

Postal 2 might be for you, or the upcoming Postal 3.
You can actually get dogs to fetch body parts. And you can use kittens as silencers!
Also, you can't have sex with prostitutes. You do kinda get raped though. Like, literally. Yes, you play a man.
You can actually decapitate people with shovels too.

It's one of those really bad and tasteless games that you end up liking because it's so outrageous.
I wouldn't recommend it to kids though.

 

[Kenjitsuka]

"people would be outraged that our children have access to those games."
Guess they need more parental supervision then. Duh, outraged parents; watch yer kids instead of spending time away bashing at stuff you don't really know much about.

 

[whaleswiththumbs]

THis is really annoying. I was fine, relative, with the other idiots screaming, because atleast they pointed something as example. These people don't even name a game. It's just an arbitrary "the games". I could take their argument and give it to the movie industry. Although I'd be laughed profusely at, because movies have had time to grab hold of our balls and tighten their grip so hard it's a wonder we can still feel them.

 

[T-Bone24]

I'm just thankful that soon people in the know about games will be the parents and these people will eventually quiet down after their knees get tired from all that jerking.

 

[Formica Archonis]

According to the Desert News, Ruzicka, "said people she talks to assume Utah already prohibits children from buying video games in which participants have sex with prostitutes and then kill them; shoot innocent shoppers walking in a mall and decapitate people with shovels and have dogs fetch the severed heads."

Ah, Postal 2. Invoking the worst (or at least soundbite-iest) parts of a game no one bothered with except for the controversy cred. It's like holding up FATAL as representative of all RPGs. (Don't look that up if you want to stay sane.) With quality fearmongers like that at the fore perhaps someone will be using push-polls next.:/

A question: Were these pro-family groups half as mad when the Attorney General was using his Twitter account to talk about killing a real person? (Remember, this is the same guy who Tweeted about the execution he greenlighted.)

 

[Canid117]

There is a thing that prohibites children from buying those games. It's called an age limit. Y'know, that big M or red 18?

Except that rating isn't the law, it's up to the retailer's discretion as to whether or not to use the rating system on the boxes to restrict sales.

And all major games retailers do.

[HEADING=1] It's Called Peranting![/HEADING]

Uhh...dude...

It's called late night beers. An i hate this keybaord! Grrrrr....

Thats what the edit key is for.

 

[LetalisK]

It really amazes me that gamers can be against legislation like this. First, ESRB ratings are not legally binding everywhere. There are places where is is alright for a child to purchase an M rated game. Both these "family values" groups and many gamers agree that children should not have access to these materials on their own. Then the two groups diverge, with the "family values" groups using M rated games as a bludgeon against retailers, publishers, and developers, while gamers exclaim it's the responsibility of the parent to monitor what their child is doing.

Then, when the "family values" group wants to push legislation making it illegal to sell M-rated games to children, there is a knee-jerk reaction from the gamer community against it, wherein the previous notion of putting the responsibility on the parent is quickly forgotten in favor of fighting against any kind of legal involvement with the art.

To put it in crayon, making it illegal to sell M-rated games to children removes whatever responsibility previously existed with the retailer and developer and puts it firmly on the shoulders of the parents, which is exactly what gamers do or should want. "Family values" groups can no longer use violent games to attack the video game industry when the source of the game is the parent.

 

[Seventh Actuality]

Stay strong, Mister Attorney General Sah!

Even if he ultimately doesn't come down on our side, the fact that he's thinking it through puts him so far above this bunch of scaremongering pondlife fucks.

 

[Seventh Actuality]

It really amazes me that gamers can be against legislation like this. First, ESRB ratings are not legally binding everywhere. There are places where is is alright for a child to purchase an M rated game. Both these "family values" groups and many gamers agree that children should not have access to these materials on their own. Then the two groups diverge, with the "family values" groups using M rated games as a bludgeon against retailers, publishers, and developers, while gamers exclaim it's the responsibility of the parent to monitor what their child is doing.

Then, when the "family values" group wants to push legislation making it illegal to sell M-rated games to children, there is a knee-jerk reaction from the gamer community against it, wherein the previous notion of putting the responsibility on the parent is quickly forgotten in favor of fighting against any kind of legal involvement with the art.

To put it in crayon, making it illegal to sell M-rated games to children removes whatever responsibility previously existed with the retailer and developer and puts it firmly on the shoulders of the parents, which is exactly what gamers do or should want. "Family values" groups can no longer use violent games to attack the video game industry when the source of the game is the parent.

All that was mine (and most people's, I think) initial reaction to this, but a couple of articles on the Escapist rightly pointed out that this is less about the law's nominal purpose and more about setting a precedent for not treating video games the same as other mediums under the First Amendment.

 

[yamitami]

There is a thing that prohibites children from buying those games. It's called an age limit. Y'know, that big M or red 18?

Except that rating isn't the law, it's up to the retailer's discretion as to whether or not to use the rating system on the boxes to restrict sales.

This MIGHT be an issue with mom and pop type stores, but if it's any kind of chain they're going to hold their employees to the standard even if it's not technically illegal. I work at Wal*Mart and if anything age-restricted is scanned the register will beep at you and ask if the person is however old, and if the minor brings a parent over then we have to explain about the rating before getting any kind of permission. If you're 20 but have no ID then you come back. If a manager catches you skipping over any of this then you get a coaching.

However, even if we are talking about a mom and pop game shop, it's still UP TO THE PARENTS to monitor what media their kids are taking in. Before I turned 13 I could still watch some PG-13 movies but only if my parents watched it first and decided it was acceptable. Same for R before I was 16 or so when they turned me loose. As for games, I was a late gamer and didn't get my first console until high school my parents didn't play the game first, but they did look at the boxes for the first year or so. The only game they had any issue with was Metal Gear Solid: Twin Snakes and that's only because Dad took offense to the idea of a helicopter being able to take out two F-16s since he was an F-16 pilot when he was in the Air Force.

And you know what? This checking to see what I was getting into? Didn't take a lot of time. Next to the rating they even say WHY it's rated that, since there is a difference between M for explosions and shooting and M for pole dancing. So if I had gotten into gaming when I was younger and they felt the need to check, they could have easily weeded out the ones with the pole dancing. And as for how violent is too violent (I was allowed explosions and blood in movies by age 12 or so, though actual GORE less so), honestly, how long does it take to figure out the tone of the violence? If a parent plays the game and hasn't seen entrails or decapitation in the first hour or two of actual gameplay then it's probably NOT going to happen. Those types of games have the gore as part of the hype so they have to deliver on it pretty quickly.

Cliffnotes: My folks had no problems screening what I watched when I was younger, and they both worked. Hell, I didn't even resent them for it since they made it clear it was a 'not yet' thing instead of 'never', and Roger Rabbit is cooler than anything R rated anyway. Or for a gaming example: Pokemon has sold over 30 times as many games as GTA.

In the realm of parenting this is not even in the top ten of difficult things to do. JUST PAY ATTENTION.

 

[Seventh Actuality]

<is retarded, triple posts>

 

[Jared]

A man tries to stand up for the gamer and is gettick kicked to the curb...rediculous. We need more men like him to stand up for us!

 

[Andronicus]

According to Bunker, "As the most family-oriented state in the nation, Utah should support this law that promotes the protection of children."

If I ever decide to take a trip to America, remind me never to go to Utah.

 

[LetalisK]

It really amazes me that gamers can be against legislation like this. First, ESRB ratings are not legally binding everywhere. There are places where is is alright for a child to purchase an M rated game. Both these "family values" groups and many gamers agree that children should not have access to these materials on their own. Then the two groups diverge, with the "family values" groups using M rated games as a bludgeon against retailers, publishers, and developers, while gamers exclaim it's the responsibility of the parent to monitor what their child is doing.

Then, when the "family values" group wants to push legislation making it illegal to sell M-rated games to children, there is a knee-jerk reaction from the gamer community against it, wherein the previous notion of putting the responsibility on the parent is quickly forgotten in favor of fighting against any kind of legal involvement with the art.

To put it in crayon, making it illegal to sell M-rated games to children removes whatever responsibility previously existed with the retailer and developer and puts it firmly on the shoulders of the parents, which is exactly what gamers do or should want. "Family values" groups can no longer use violent games to attack the video game industry when the source of the game is the parent.

All that was mine (and most people's, I think) initial reaction to this, but a couple of articles on the Escapist rightly pointed out that this is less about the law's nominal purpose and more about setting a precedent for not treating video games the same as other mediums under the First Amendment.

I suppose I wasn't addressing it to any specific person, but I have noticed this trend. As for the First Amendment issue and it being treated differently, which was even brought up in the last line of the article, that doesn't make sense either. An enforced M-rating would be more lenient than an R-rating for movies. An R-rating requires the parent to purchase tickets for and accompany the child to the movie. An M-rating only requires a parent to be present at the time of purchase.

edit: Yes, I do know that the reason parents would not be legally required to "accompany" a child during a video game is a matter of practicality. The point is that video games wouldn't be treated any different than other forms of media.