When Games are Sold Like Guns: An Interview with the ECA's Hal Halpin

[Irridium]

Yes, there are areas where kids sometimes get a hold of games on their own. But these areas and times are few. Very few. So few it may as well be negligible. Most of those few times may simply have be mistakes.

Plus, stores won't just stop checking for ID or stuff like that. Because if it doesn't, it will have a lot of angry consumers on their hands. Plus, movies, books, and music are protected by the first amendment. They don't have to follow any rules when selling them, yet they do. Because its common sense. Because A) they will have a lot of angry consumers on their hands, which would lead to bad press and less profit, and B) no one wants to give kids violent stuff.

And besides, do you really think someone should be fined, or possibly jailed for selling a violent game to a kid? Especially when it would have been a simple mistake?

Well as far as I know, it would only incur a fine. I 've never heard of someone getting jail time for providing minors with alcohol, let alone R rated media. And I'd see no problem if they were fined.

I think, like I was implying in my message to Root_of_all_Evil, that there's a big issue of cultural difference here. We already have laws like this in place here in Australia and things work fine, some would disagree, but I'm quite happy with things.

Indeed. Culturally it is a big clash, since the general "freedom" of everything we have in the U.S. compared to, well from my perspective, a lot of control and censorship in Australia.

From the way the bill is advertised, it seems that selling violent games to kids would possibly be a jailable offence. And what would be considered "so violent its jailable" is a whole other can of worms.

This whole thing is a mess really. Twelve other courts voted for games on laws just like this. Hell, according to a recent news post on this site, everyone knows these laws are unconstitutional. This is why I'm so against them. Well, that and the fact that they would cause many restrictions on my favorite hobby, but mainly it infringes on the rights guaranteed by our constitution.

 

[wonkify]

Much like EIC Russ Pitts I am also a gamer and a shooter. In today's world it really sucks to be me. Seems like all the things I enjoy are coming under attack.

I don't get it. I'm just minding my own business, either trying to play single player PC games or shooting zombie targets and trying to core out the 10 ring at the range. Who did I piss off just trying to enjoy myself?

 

[halfeclipse]

2) (THE POINT) If the case wins, Videogames will not be protected by the First Amendment (freedom of speech, press, and freedom of religion) Since it isn't covered, it CAN be restricted for content, censored, banned, and games will have creative limitations placed on to them by the GOVERNMENT

That sounds like the UK's games regulations to me.

No, seriously. It's illegal to sell 16+/18+ games to children under said ages, and the government has the powers to censor, restrict and ban games (which, AFAIK, they've used twice: Carmageddon and Manhunt 2. Both eventually got released).

And yet I don't hear people asking for the restrictions to be lifted.

Ultimately, I can't help but feel the lot of you is making a mountain out of a molehill.

Thats fine and dandy for the UK, but the US is a different beast.

The only way for this regulation to be legal in the US is if videogames were not covered under the First Amendment (The one that prevents the government from restricting free speech, etc). This (obviously) has one of two situations.

One, videogames are covered under the First Amendment. If they are covered, the regulation would be against the Constitution of the United States and should be opposed on that alone.

Two, videogames are not covered under the First Amendment. If they are not covered then the government is free to restrict them however the hell they please, with no (Or very, very, little.) legal recourse to prevent it. So if some politician in america decides to propose a bill saying violent video games are banned and anyone found possessing one, gets fined/imprisoned, and gets it passed then there jackshit that can be done about it. Given that people are great at justifying things if they have a "Think of the children." mentality, theres a decent chance of it happening to some degree or another. In this case, it should still be opposed because of all the unpleasant places it can and likely will lead.

 

[Scars Unseen]

If anything, this thread proves that arguing against the merits of this law is a fool's game. All it does is let those that want the law passed keep the debate in the realm of opinion(i.e. government regulation vs. industry regulation). There is only one thing that matters where this law is concerned. Whatever California's opinion on the effects of games, whatever their feelings on the effectiveness of current industry regulation(and the industry isn't the weak link here), the government does not have the authority to restrict free speech in America. That right is, and should continue to be beyond their reach.

Forget what the legislators want you to hear. This is what the law is about.

 

[Hisshiss]

I have yet to hear anyone mention that, legal matters aside, the passing of this bill simply damages the reputation of video games as a whole, and considering how bitchy and greedy game companies are acting right now, another huge hit to their ability to sell games could risk crushing the whole industry, at some point gaming is going to get so heavily repressed that companies will give up on it altogether.

This thing passing at the very least is going to further reduce the amount of games and the quality of said games being made. There is just going to be a certain point when being a game company just doesn't pay the bills anymore.