72 Percent of Adults Support California Game Law - UPDATED

[Cynical skeptic]

Yeah, this is a bit ridiculous. You can't go to any major retailer and buy an M rated game if you're under 17 already. Why make it illegal, if it's already regulated internally. Are we going to have to worry about people making fake ID's to buy video games now, too?

Their logic is because it is illegal to sell alcohol or tobacco if you, the till monkey, even suspect it is for a minor, the same should be true for video games.

Since most retailers already refuse to carry AO games, adding a level of exploitable legal bullshit to any game that can trip the miller test would prompt retailers to just not carry most video games. Thus would alter what video games would be made.

[sub][sub][sub]I feel like I'm either high or drunk right now. and I don't know why[/sub][/sub][/sub]

 

[Delusibeta]

Not wanting to "attack the messenger" here, but This "survey group" seems like it has an agenda and I'd be very quick to question their practices. Where did they pole? What was the makeup of the polled population? How were the questions worded? Were the surveyees shown the violent montage before being polled? How many of the polled population understand the ESRB and its role in enforcing parental controls.

Mark Twain once said, "There are lies, damn lies, and statistics."

Common Sense Media seems to be one of those sites that basically go around and declare if movies and suchlike are suitable for children. Case in point: the new Resi Evil movie, which they reviewed [http://www.commonsensemedia.org/movie-reviews/resident-evil-afterlife] and declared it "iffy for 16-18". It's the sort of site I wouldn't turn to for opinion polls.

 

[Altorin]

This Just In: 72 percent of parents polled feel that the government can raise their kids better then they can.

Seriously, how on earth do these parents not feel utterly insulted by the very notion.

It's NOT illegal to sell mature movies to kids. If you can't control what's happening in your own house then you're the one with the problem, and if you're worried about other peoples kids, don't. They have parents too, and whatever their parents choose to let them have is none of your fucking business.

Isn't there already laws against the sale of these games to minors?

No. The system is entirely voluntary. So are MPAA and PMRC ratings.

Really? That's rather surprising.

I think this issue could be resolved by requiring the stores to ID minors for the purchase of rated M games unless a parent comes with them and approves of the purchase, thus ending the bitching of the "Media Wacthdogs" and subsequently putting full responsibility on the shoulders of the parents if the law is put into effect (as they would have only themselves to blame if their fourteen year old kid decided to buy, let's say, Manhunt, as they would've need the parents permission to begin with[footnote]Unless the kid had a fake idea, then it's both the kid's and the parent's fault[/footnote]), which I'm sure the court ruling will likely end in.

Most stores (the big ones at least) have policies like this already in place.

The problem with a law, is if you make it so the store can get into LEGAL trouble for inadvertently selling to a youngster, they may just decide to completely avoid selling M-rated games at all. To anyone.

Walmart would probably jump at the chance to do so, and blame the law as a scapegoat.

 

[LightOfDarkness]

Isn't there already laws against the sale of these games to minors?

No. The system is entirely voluntary. So are MPAA and PMRC ratings.

Really? That's rather surprising.

I think this issue could be resolved by requiring the stores to ID minors for the purchase of rated M games unless a parent comes with them and approves of the purchase, thus ending the bitching of the "Media Wacthdogs" and subsequently putting full responsibility on the shoulders of the parents if the law is put into effect (as they would have only themselves to blame if their fourteen year old kid decided to buy, let's say, Manhunt, as they would've need the parents permission to begin with[footnote]Unless the kid had a fake idea, then it's both the kid's and the parent's fault[/footnote]), which I'm sure the court ruling will likely end in.

Wait, what? You're saying that minors need to show ID? But you're speaking as if the clerk KNOWS the customer is a minor (I know it can be easy to tell at times, but what about the tallest-in-class grade 9/10s?) which means that no ID will be required to prove that they're over 17 (they're not).

 

[Delusibeta]

Oh, look what I found on website in question. [http://www.commonsensemedia.org/impact-media-violence-tips] First line:

The facts: Kids' TV shows are really violent

Enough said, really.

Elaboration: this is the sort of site that would probably say that all violent media should be banned. Ergo, this poll should be ignored.

 

[Woodsey]

Oh good, so this'll affect the rest of the world too.

*incoherent mumbling about America ruining it for the rest of us*

EDIT: Wait, not if it's only in one state surely? Although is this what the supreme court case is about too?

I hate to quote videos, but nearly every state has a similar law that was simply bitchslapped by the supreme court.

If this one is upheld, all the others revive.

*continues incoherent mumbling*

Might have to join you. *Joins incoherent mumbling*

Just to add to the ominous setiment, there would probably be states that take this pretty vauge law to it's extream of extreams taking it to mean "Any form of violence". Don't be surprised if we see some evangelical group patitioning the State that Stomping goobas is somehow violent.

There is literally a legion of ravenous game haters out there who would take this ruling as a sigal for open season since it rreally removes 1st amenedment protection form games.

All we need is to get Valve out of the country and I'll be fine. BioWare's Canadian so it's all good.

 

[Motiv_]

Okay, so what this poll tells me is..

72% of parents are incompetent guardians and are not aware of the tools at their disposal. These parents could have just as easily told little Timmy that they think the game case with a joint, several guns, and a scantily clad woman is a little too mature for his age.

 

[zombie711]

what percent of the parents bother to check the games rating. my dad always checks the rating and asks the cleck whats in the game if its rated M

 

[cerebus23]

polls show that polls can be made to come out however you want the poll to come out depending on how you phrase the question.

i.e

should kids be allowed to play violent video games?

should the government be able to make it illegal for children to buy violent video games?

now i bet 70% of adults would say well yes and yes or maybe therefore i can come out and say see 70% of parents think the ca law is ok.

now if i dug into the specifics of the ca law...
should the government be allowed to make retailers create seperate adults only areas of their stores to hold "violent" video games in?

should the government be deciding what games need to be labeled as violent?

should the government make games have a cover over them so the game package is not displayed?

should the government be able to fine and sanction retailers if one of their employees sells a game to person under the age of 17?

should video games be classified in the same area as pornography?

i bet i would get a much lower than 70% favorable to the law. you can get any result you want and i am willing to bet this poll was massaged to be broad and appeal to peoples "wanting to protect their innocent children from evil corporate fat cats that want your 5 year old to be running around with shoguns blowing peoples brains out and hacking them up with chainsaws." kinda way.

 

[Necromancer1991]

May I say a few things:

72 Percent of Adults Support California Game Law
"What we've learned from this poll is that parents want to be the ones who decide which games their kids play, not the videogame industry."
Permalink

1.It's not the industry's responsibility to police and protect the kids, that's YOUR job as parents, secondly do you drive your kid to the store, if you do walk in with him/her and check what game they're buying, why I need to tell you to do this is beyond me.

2.Banning the sale of violent videogames to minors won't prevent them from exposure to said content (Let's just say my older brother owned the GTA games growing up)

3.Violence against women and racial stereotypes can be learned without the aid of videogames, please excuse me for using this example but it's a perfect example, back when African Americans were treated as sub-human farm equipment, pong did not exist, the concept of racism and violence predate videogames!!

 

[ThatOtakuGuy]

Honestly, fellow posters, while the implications of this law are chilling, we have nothing to worry about.

1. The bill was found unconstitutional and denied by the 9th District Court, which is, in all seriousness, the most liberal court in all of the US. If they had approoved it, we would have been screwed. But they didn't.

2. ITS FREAKING UNCONSTITUTIONAL! It violates the 1st Amendmant by not allowing free speech, freedom of press, and assuming that video games don't deserve rights because they are "interactive". ITS UN-FREAKING-CONSTITUTIONAL and we have nothing to worry about.


TOG

 

[F-I-D-O]

I wonder if the people who made the video played out those scenarios to make it worse.
Plus, everything done there is pretty much optional. You can (I'm assuming, never played it) just shoot people in Postal 2, not pee on them, tazer them, or set them on fire.
In GTA, you don't have to randomly kill passerby.
Etc.
If a parent doesn't want the player exposed to it, then DON'T LET THEM GET IT. Pretty simple. We have ratings for a reason. A minor wants to buy bioshock, the store can't sell it without parental consent. It is up to the parent having to do more research, or even read the back of the box. This is parents wanting to do less work.
Also, the website sounds(/ the video shows) like a website that is heavily biased. the people who vote on that site are there because of x bias, which is probably very protective parenting. The survey is biased and inaccurate, which means it will be likely to be shown as evidence in the case. It's like asking a bunch of D&D fans if D&D is stupid. How would you expect them to respond? [sub]I like D&D by the way[/sub] They are asking a group of people who will respond the way they want them to. The only way I would believe this if it was a survey asked to random parents on the street, with at least 1,000 people asked.
If I'm wrong and it was like this, a site can always skewer the results by ignoring some responses.
Video Games already have parental control. turn on your Wii, Xbox, or PS3 and you will find parental controls somewhere on the system, so you can limit the games your child plays even AFTER the protections taken by developers and game sellers. The only thing is PCs, but I don't believe they are the main target here.

 

[Nukey]

Isn't there already laws against the sale of these games to minors?

No. The system is entirely voluntary. So are MPAA and PMRC ratings.

Really? That's rather surprising.

I think this issue could be resolved by requiring the stores to ID minors for the purchase of rated M games unless a parent comes with them and approves of the purchase, thus ending the bitching of the "Media Wacthdogs" and subsequently putting full responsibility on the shoulders of the parents if the law is put into effect (as they would have only themselves to blame if their fourteen year old kid decided to buy, let's say, Manhunt, as they would've need the parents permission to begin with[footnote]Unless the kid had a fake idea, then it's both the kid's and the parent's fault[/footnote]), which I'm sure the court ruling will likely end in.

Wait, what? You're saying that minors need to show ID? But you're speaking as if the clerk KNOWS the customer is a minor (I know it can be easy to tell at times, but what about the tallest-in-class grade 9/10s?) which means that no ID will be required to prove that they're over 17 (they're not).

Ack, my apologies, I worded that a bit poorly. Just about everyone who goes into the store (save for those who are very visibly over the age of 17, such as my dad and brother in law) are carded to see if they're old enough to purchase the game and if they don't have an ID, they need an adult.

Does that clear things up?

 

[Delusibeta]

All we need is to get Valve out of the country and I'll be fine. BioWare's Canadian so it's all good.

Considering that I wouldn't be surprised if the majority of Valve's profits come from Steam, and that it's generally speaking safe to assume you're 18 or over if you have a credit card, all Valve needs to do if this law passes is to break PayPal and Click&Buy on Steam in the US, and they'll be set. Probably.

 

[Yureina]

*sigh* I'm depressed now.

 

[Parugraph]

I tought the whole issue was to stop video games as an artform maybe I am wrong about that.
And while your at it stop the movies as an artform too since some movies are too violent and scary so let the goverment pick out movies for us to watch.
But than again I cant control what parents want for their children ir not.

 

[LetalisK]

Isn't there already laws against the sale of these games to minors?

No. The system is entirely voluntary. So are MPAA and PMRC ratings.

Really? That's rather surprising.

I think this issue could be resolved by requiring the stores to ID minors for the purchase of rated M games unless a parent comes with them and approves of the purchase, thus ending the bitching of the "Media Wacthdogs" and subsequently putting full responsibility on the shoulders of the parents if the law is put into effect (as they would have only themselves to blame if their fourteen year old kid decided to buy, let's say, Manhunt, as they would've need the parents permission to begin with[footnote]Unless the kid had a fake idea, then it's both the kid's and the parent's fault[/footnote]), which I'm sure the court ruling will likely end in.

Which is pretty much what this law does. Whether the law passes or not, nothing is really going to change, contrary to what Chicken Little Gamer says. The decision in this case will result in a philosophical distinction, not a practical one. That distinction being between treating video games like film, regulations being voluntary, or treating video games like tobacco, regulations being mandatory. Either way, children won't be able to obtain M-rated games without parental consent, adults still will, and M-rated games will still be produced like normal.

Originally I was entirely in favor of the law(though I did see it as unconstitutional) because it would be something to put in the face of whiny parents when they start bitching about their little child playing a violent video game. Making the parents legally responsible, as opposed to pointing at a corporate policy, is a stronger argument. However, I got tired of appealing to the lowest common denominator and said "fuck 'em." If they don't understand their responsibility, it's their own fault.

 

[rembrandtqeinstein]

Is it wrong that the video makes me want to play Postal 2?