Utah's Attorney General Under Fire in Videogame Case
- Thread starter vansau
- Start date
Which Arnold is set to change to make it law, as age limits for alcohol, tobacco, and porn are already.Stryc9 said:
This in itself isn't so bad, since it would appear the majority of parents would rather have the government do their job while they play Farmville or watch Survivor. But it can only too easily spiral out of control to where censorship can start coming into play. In the end it would be best that this was struck down.
Most retailers will openly state they do control sales of Mature and higher rated games, while looking the other way when sales are down and there does need to be a profit. This makes me think of GameStop, and makes me wonder how this would play into their used game sales.
Hearing about Attorney Generals and videogames gave me deja vu on Michael Atkinson. And yet in this case we have a friendly face who hopefully supports the right thing to do in this regard.
That last comment:
Doesn't leave me with a lot of hope.
I've been trying to hash that through my head myself, as it is against most of his platform which he has been quite faithful to through his administration. (How unpolitician of him)The_root_of_all_evil said:
It makes me think with the current state congress acting like a bunch of babies in a day care begging for their piece of the pie and getting nothing done, he is throwing this out as a concession to win some support for more critical things so as to keep California from being sold to China for a song.
At least I hope that is what is going on. Either case he chose the wrong thing to use to win support. Probably just as well he will be retired from office soon when his last term is up. I feel pity for whoever actually wants the job after him.
Pro-family seems like another way of saying "over-protective nut-jobs with attention issues", if I'm frank.
One has to wonder, though, if they're so pro-family... why does the government need to make laws about video game ratings?
Shouldn't these people be at home right now, making sure all of their little ADHD eight year olds aren't playing GTA 4 and Modern Warfare 2?
Oh wait, that'd be too easy, it's gotta be convenient! I forgot about that...
One has to wonder, though, if they're so pro-family... why does the government need to make laws about video game ratings?
Shouldn't these people be at home right now, making sure all of their little ADHD eight year olds aren't playing GTA 4 and Modern Warfare 2?
Oh wait, that'd be too easy, it's gotta be convenient! I forgot about that...
ffs.........just...eugh....they could just watch their kids but....gah........why can't they just understand? why can't they be reasonable?, props to the defender btw, how can they decry him? isn't freedom of speech an american philosophy? i mean just.......just..........nnnnnnnnnnnnnnnggggggggggggggggggggggggggGGGGGGGGGGGGGGG FUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUU-
I just sent this letter to James Steyer, a man amongst those who were hassling the Attorney General. Tell me what you think:
Dear Mr. Steyer,
I'm not a particularly political man, with cynicism often outweighing my optimism in times of crisis. As I'm sure you're a busy man, and as I have no political influence or importance, I'll understand if this correspondence is one-sided and ineffectual. That said, I think its of vital importance that a few misunderstandings you seem to have about video games, not as a recreational medium, but as an industry are cleared up. I promise, brevity is in both our interest and I'll hasten to my point.
You see, I work peripherally in a number of positions within the fringe of the video game industry and I want to assure you that litigation which directly interferes with video game sales, in essence turning games themselves into a restricted item such as tobacco or alcohol, is entirely unnecessary. Your passionate words toward Attorney General Mark Shurtleff are misplaced and unethical. Allow me to qualify that somewhat heated statement.
Yes, games can be brutal, often needlessly so and without artistic merit. C'est la vie, it is simply the demand of the more mature audiences, which make up the bulk of video game's demographics and target market. However, to think that video games are somehow against child safety or in favour of child endangerment is simple lunacy. If you mean to insinuate that any group of people within the industry would put profits before children than I ask you sir, to have more evidence than pop-culture science that has been disputed by more reputable sources for years now, (such as the infamous Silvern and Williamson report of 87, which has been shown as conducted in entirely bad faith, even those in support of those findings found the test samples too small and the results entirely inconclusive), or the error-ridden reporting of FOX News. Obviously, anyone who watched the Early 2008 report featuring the "Mass Effect" sex scene debate should know that they put absolutely no research into their reporting, instead playing on the fears of concerned parents to maximum effect. Yet, in essence, claiming that video games are somehow opposed to child safety is a very offensive thing to say to the hundreds of thousands of hard working individuals in that industry. The fact remains that game developers and publishers are both committed to the standards and guidelines laid down by the truly admirable ESRB (Electronic Software Ratings Board). So much so, that retailer cooperation has made customer adherence to the ESRB guidelines the absolute highest in the country. Such adherence cannot be found in movie-goers or what parents allow their children to watch on TV. Explicit song lyric warnings are an absolute joke in comparison. Additionally, it is worth noting that nearly every home console and personal computer has parental controls that a savvy guardian can use to more closely monitor their children. This is a sign of the major companies ongoing commitment to child safety.
Second, I ask you to consider the law submitted by California itself. The basic premise is that the sale of interactive media to children should be legally restricted based on its content. It's an idea with some precedence and merit I'll grant you, no one wants a ten year old boy walking into a convenience store to by a copy of Playboy, and no one wants young children acting out violence on their television screens. I beg you however, to think of the larger implications of the this law, as your Attorney General no doubt has. California's repeated attempts to pass this law have been rejected due to Video Games being protected by the First Amendment. Overturning that decision, effectively robs all interactive media of that fundamental right. This sets a dangerous precedent in the internet age, which could be used by the less noble to censor, ban or distort the internet. The internet itself is an amazing tool for expression and communication, but it is also certainly considered interactive media. Or what about radio call-in shows? A slippery slope argument may be a cliche but it is so for a reason.
Sale of violent games to minors can and is being upheld by dedicated industry professionals, third-party organizations and honorable retailers everywhere. This law, as it stands, will do far more harm than good. I realize where your commitments lie, but I assure you, video games are not endangering children. Children's access to violent games is lower than any other kind of violent media. The causation or correlation between video game violence and genuine violence is entirely unfound and disreputable. The proposed law would have harsh ramifications that far outweigh its supposed benefits.
It is entirely possible that you are not actually an enraged member of the parental community, seeking to protect children. Perhaps, as in my darkest and most quiet suspicions, you are merely a political opportunist seeking a popular scapegoat. If this is the case, then by all means, disregard this.
But if you are who you claim to be, if you are a man who wants to help children, then I ask you to stop. Stop belittling politicians and rabble-rousing. Stop turning pro-family groups into anti-video game groups. Let our children grow up in a world that has given everyone the chance to speak freely and with anyone they choose, worldwide. Don't support this first step in the destruction of the First Amendment.
Thanks you for your time,
Blake Treleaven
Dear Mr. Steyer,
I'm not a particularly political man, with cynicism often outweighing my optimism in times of crisis. As I'm sure you're a busy man, and as I have no political influence or importance, I'll understand if this correspondence is one-sided and ineffectual. That said, I think its of vital importance that a few misunderstandings you seem to have about video games, not as a recreational medium, but as an industry are cleared up. I promise, brevity is in both our interest and I'll hasten to my point.
You see, I work peripherally in a number of positions within the fringe of the video game industry and I want to assure you that litigation which directly interferes with video game sales, in essence turning games themselves into a restricted item such as tobacco or alcohol, is entirely unnecessary. Your passionate words toward Attorney General Mark Shurtleff are misplaced and unethical. Allow me to qualify that somewhat heated statement.
Yes, games can be brutal, often needlessly so and without artistic merit. C'est la vie, it is simply the demand of the more mature audiences, which make up the bulk of video game's demographics and target market. However, to think that video games are somehow against child safety or in favour of child endangerment is simple lunacy. If you mean to insinuate that any group of people within the industry would put profits before children than I ask you sir, to have more evidence than pop-culture science that has been disputed by more reputable sources for years now, (such as the infamous Silvern and Williamson report of 87, which has been shown as conducted in entirely bad faith, even those in support of those findings found the test samples too small and the results entirely inconclusive), or the error-ridden reporting of FOX News. Obviously, anyone who watched the Early 2008 report featuring the "Mass Effect" sex scene debate should know that they put absolutely no research into their reporting, instead playing on the fears of concerned parents to maximum effect. Yet, in essence, claiming that video games are somehow opposed to child safety is a very offensive thing to say to the hundreds of thousands of hard working individuals in that industry. The fact remains that game developers and publishers are both committed to the standards and guidelines laid down by the truly admirable ESRB (Electronic Software Ratings Board). So much so, that retailer cooperation has made customer adherence to the ESRB guidelines the absolute highest in the country. Such adherence cannot be found in movie-goers or what parents allow their children to watch on TV. Explicit song lyric warnings are an absolute joke in comparison. Additionally, it is worth noting that nearly every home console and personal computer has parental controls that a savvy guardian can use to more closely monitor their children. This is a sign of the major companies ongoing commitment to child safety.
Second, I ask you to consider the law submitted by California itself. The basic premise is that the sale of interactive media to children should be legally restricted based on its content. It's an idea with some precedence and merit I'll grant you, no one wants a ten year old boy walking into a convenience store to by a copy of Playboy, and no one wants young children acting out violence on their television screens. I beg you however, to think of the larger implications of the this law, as your Attorney General no doubt has. California's repeated attempts to pass this law have been rejected due to Video Games being protected by the First Amendment. Overturning that decision, effectively robs all interactive media of that fundamental right. This sets a dangerous precedent in the internet age, which could be used by the less noble to censor, ban or distort the internet. The internet itself is an amazing tool for expression and communication, but it is also certainly considered interactive media. Or what about radio call-in shows? A slippery slope argument may be a cliche but it is so for a reason.
Sale of violent games to minors can and is being upheld by dedicated industry professionals, third-party organizations and honorable retailers everywhere. This law, as it stands, will do far more harm than good. I realize where your commitments lie, but I assure you, video games are not endangering children. Children's access to violent games is lower than any other kind of violent media. The causation or correlation between video game violence and genuine violence is entirely unfound and disreputable. The proposed law would have harsh ramifications that far outweigh its supposed benefits.
It is entirely possible that you are not actually an enraged member of the parental community, seeking to protect children. Perhaps, as in my darkest and most quiet suspicions, you are merely a political opportunist seeking a popular scapegoat. If this is the case, then by all means, disregard this.
But if you are who you claim to be, if you are a man who wants to help children, then I ask you to stop. Stop belittling politicians and rabble-rousing. Stop turning pro-family groups into anti-video game groups. Let our children grow up in a world that has given everyone the chance to speak freely and with anyone they choose, worldwide. Don't support this first step in the destruction of the First Amendment.
Thanks you for your time,
Blake Treleaven
Is it wrong that I laughed maniacly when I found out I could do that?Silvance said:
Here are a list of other things I did that give me a special place in hell without being required to do in the game
1. Set fire to an entire parade
2. Made dogs attack eachother while pissing on them
3. Tasered a man until he wet himself, then pissed on him
4. Burnt a drug dealer half to death, then pissed on him
5. Threw a diseased cow head in a crowded shopping mall, then pissed on the corpses
6. Killed about 10 or so elephants, then set fire to them, then pissed on them
7. Killed everyone in existance, then pissed on them
8. PISSED ON EVERYTHING AND EVERYONE
9. ?????
10. Profit!