Am I the only one who thinks California is right?

[Vuljatar]

I actually come from a place where it IS illegal to sell 18+ material to minors and I think it's the right way to go. A lot of argument has been said along the lines of "kids can decide this for themselves", and "parents should regulate kids, not the courts"- both of these arguments I disagree with. First of all, kids don't care aboutt he same issues a more mature audience would, many would pick up a game like GTA simply because it has guns, and blood, and harsh language. Parents can be equally as helpless in this regard, I've seen parents actually go and buy hardcore M rated stuff for their children!

Just because some parents are fucking terrible at being parents doesn't mean the government should do their job for them.

California's bullshit law is government censorship, nothing else. It is a direct, clear, and obvious violation of the first amendment, and if it passes I hope there is rioting in the streets.

 

[Danpascooch]

Okay I made that the title for attention purpose (mostly) but hear me out first.
As I understand it the issue being judged is whether it should become illegal for retailers to sell M rathed content (18+) to minors (below 18).

Now is it just me, or should that have been how it ALWAYS was? I mean honestly now, these games aren't being made for kids, the content put in them is specifically meant for adults. You don't see R rated movies letting kids in, do you? No, of course not.
I actually come from a place where it IS illegal to sell 18+ material to minors and I think it's the right way to go. A lot of argument has been said along the lines of "kids can decide this for themselves", and "parents should regulate kids, not the courts"- both of these arguments I disagree with. First of all, kids don't care aboutt he same issues a more mature audience would, many would pick up a game like GTA simply because it has guns, and blood, and harsh language. Parents can be equally as helpless in this regard, I've seen parents actually go and buy hardcore M rated stuff for their children!

And believe me... I had to go to a school full of freshly pubescent teens who played San Andreas. This is a BRITISH school, and I've never seen such an increase in bandanas, gang activity and reckless use of the N word.
Guys, I'm as much a Gamer as they come, and I realise this is mainly an American argument (yadda yadda First Ammendment, yes I am a law student) but sometimes common sense just has to win through. I don't support ALL of the California bill of course, after all I know enough to be certain how far they will try and take this, but I really can't see California not winning this one. Judges will go on fact and nothing else- and the fact is kids should NOT be a able to buy adult content. That's kind of why we have the distinction.

We've all seen stupid kids and stupid parents, but I strongly believe that the law should not be used as a substitute for common sense, lest we lose the freedom this country is based on.

Basically, my rule of thumb is this. Anyone should be allowed to do whatever they want, as long as it doesn't harm anyone but themselves. This is an example of a law trying to step in and say you can't do something that it believes will harm you, using flawed studies to support this claim at best.

 

[Danpascooch]

I don't think you understand the law.

You get the general idea but in the US it's already illegal to sell a game to a minor, just like it is here.

California are trying to ban the game from even hitting the shelves. The problem won't be minors buying the game, it'll be no one buying the game.

That's wrong, it's not illegal to sell games to minors, it's just that story policy is usually that they won't (in the US anyway, I can't speak for other countries). And the law doesn't ban them from hitting shelves, it just makes it so that if a store sells a violent game to a minor, they will be fined a large sum.

You should read up on what the law actually is, before you cause confusion.

 

[Novania]

NEVER EVER use that phrase in your fucking title!!!

 

[The_root_of_all_evil]

As I understand it the issue being judged is whether it should become illegal for retailers to sell M rathed content (18+) to minors (below 18).

Nope, it's whether the retailers should police it, or the Government.

If retailers police it, which I agree with, we would get the 86%(?) coverage, and the only people breaking it would be the parents.
If the Government police it, it would make adult games - and that's their definition btw - difficult to get hold of - almost impossible, financially, to produce - and it would eliminate all mature video games.

AND it wouldn't make a bit of difference because the parents who still wished to give the game to their kids still would. It's just the rest of us who don't mind seeing footage that you can see on the news, magazines or internet every day.

That's the problem. That's why California is wrong. And even more importantly, it's being headed by someone who ACTIVELY does this sort of thing in another media form. (Arnie in his films)

What they're basically saying is that WE decide for YOU what your allowed to see in case you might give it to children.

If you agree with that, then I'm sure - with the rise in domestic abuse - you won't mind them putting cameras into your house to make sure you can't attack or be attacked.

I mean, if you've got nothing to hide - you can't really complain about that, can you?

If California is right, why did the California Supreme Court vote 6 to 1 to not force those convicted of having oral sex with underage kids to register as sex offenders within the state.
(2006)

That would seem to me to be a lot worse than playing Half-Life, n'est pas?

 

[Woodsey]

I don't think you understand the law.

You get the general idea but in the US it's already illegal to sell a game to a minor, just like it is here.

Several Americans on this site have told me that's not true; the industry regulates itself, and although most stores don't anyway it's not actually illegal to sell the games to people under the rating age.

I really don't see the problem - it's something about theoretical banning or something. I think the difference is that currently games are treated the same as films and whatnot, whereas if the proposal passed then they'd be seen as not having freedom of speech.

I dunno.

The UK is honestly one of (if not the) best places to be a gamer right now.

 

[El Poncho]

That's what it's like here in Britain, although I just go and get my dad to buy it or order it online. Even though I still get it, it forces the parent to look at the game before it's bought I guess.

 

[Mr. Omega]

It is saying that games must be regulated, because they are violent and sexual. Fine, except movies, TV and books can put all the bloody and sexual material the people making them want, and show/sell them to whoever they want. It would put M-rated video games in the same legal standing as alchohol, cigarettes and pornography, while R-rated movies can be displayed all the time in stores.

As for R-rated movies in theaters thing, read the above posts.

Edit: What's more, most stores make it policy never to sell M-rated games to minors. They need ID. And unless they are REALLY close to 17, fake IDs never work. An employee could get fired for selling a game to a minor, not because it was against the law, but because it was against store policy. Parents are saying it is incredibly easy for minors to get an M-rated game. The only people who could possibly give the game to minors are either the parents, who bought the game, or a lazy store employee, who most likely wouldn't be holding his job for very long. It's not that kids can get their hands on the game. It's that adults give the kid the game, but blame the game for even existing.

 

[YouShouldDeleteThisAccount]

I should state. I'm not for selling violent games to kids. And I totally understand the concern of parents. But this law isn't the way to do it. And it encourages a bad view of gaming. And if they feel there is not enough tools to help make well-informed decisions, then maybe other things should be considered to appeal to the parents concerns, even though there should be enough things in place already.


I think parents and conservative groups should try to campaign against distasteful content in games. But that would require them to have an open mind about the worth of gaming, which I don't think is going to happen.

 

[alittlepepper]

I'll say this. At any reputable game store I've been to, when I take a Rated M product to the desk, they ask to see my ID. I assume that that means that such regulations are already in place, at least at those retailers. Though I am well old enough to be beyond the regulations involved, I have reason to believe that they would refuse sale if I was either not old enough or did not have the consent of parents. Making it actually illegal seems unnecessary, as most big name retailers are already doing it just for the sake of appearance. I don't necessarily disagree with that (certainly not the policy in general), but making it a law just seems like another random, bullshit thing to be fined by the government. Though I hear it might actually be pretty useful in California's case.

 

[cobra_ky]

Guys, I'm as much a Gamer as they come, and I realise this is mainly an American argument (yadda yadda First Ammendment, yes I am a law student) but sometimes common sense just has to win through. I don't support ALL of the California bill of course, after all I know enough to be certain how far they will try and take this, but I really can't see California not winning this one. Judges will go on fact and nothing else- and the fact is kids should NOT be a able to buy adult content. That's kind of why we have the distinction.

The government shouldn't decide what kids should or shouldn't do. That's a parent's responsibility.

 

[Random Name 4]

I actually made an account to post...

Anyway, I see the poster is from Britain, and what he is saying is that it doesn't seem like much of a big deal. In Britain we have two ratings boards, PEGI and BBFC. PEGI is Europe wide and is voluntary, and not legally binding. BBFC however, is (although this is changing. All games released must be rated. This means that most violent games like GTA and Fallout are given 18 ratings and cannot legally be sold or supplied to people under 18. However, of course every child just gets their parents to buy the games. The result is similar to nearly every US store, in that to buy a game you have to show ID.

Anyway, TL;DR: this already exists and is enforced in Britain

 

[BreakfastMan]

Methinks you misunderstand what is in the law. The law seeks to prohibit the sale of violent video games being sold to minors, wherein the definition of a violent video game in the law is a game in which "the range of options available to a player includes killing, maiming, disemboweling, or sexually assaulting the image of a human being." Oh yes, and "Human Being" in this case meaning a character with "substantially human characteristics." See how dangerous this law is? It could apply to a Mature rated game like God Of War, but it could also apply to a Teen rated title like Uncharted, or even to an E-E10+ rated title like Super Mario Galaxy. Not to mention that a child could still legally buy something like The Guy Game. Might want to rethink your stance a bit.

 

[Dogstile]

I actually made an account to post...

Anyway, I see the poster is from Britain, and what he is saying is that it doesn't seem like much of a big deal. In Britain we have two ratings boards, PEGI and BBFC. PEGI is Europe wide and is voluntary, and not legally binding. BBFC however, is (although this is changing. All games released must be rated. This means that most violent games like GTA and Fallout are given 18 ratings and cannot legally be sold or supplied to people under 18. However, of course every child just gets their parents to buy the games. The result is similar to nearly every US store, in that to buy a game you have to show ID.

Anyway, TL;DR: this already exists and is enforced in Britain

As a fellow Brit I can also reinforce this fact. BUT! Apparently its more of a censoring issue in America, so I can understand.

 

[Random Name 4]

I actually made an account to post...

Anyway, I see the poster is from Britain, and what he is saying is that it doesn't seem like much of a big deal. In Britain we have two ratings boards, PEGI and BBFC. PEGI is Europe wide and is voluntary, and not legally binding. BBFC however, is (although this is changing. All games released must be rated. This means that most violent games like GTA and Fallout are given 18 ratings and cannot legally be sold or supplied to people under 18. However, of course every child just gets their parents to buy the games. The result is similar to nearly every US store, in that to buy a game you have to show ID.

Anyway, TL;DR: this already exists and is enforced in Britain

As a fellow Brit I can also reinforce this fact. BUT! Apparently its more of a censoring issue in America, so I can understand.

The thing is, it isn't censorship. Not in the way we have it here or in Australia.

 

[ProfessorLayton]

No no no... it's not M rated games, it's all games with violent content. That means anyone under 18 would be committing a crime if they bought Ratchet & Clank. And their stances are all wrong. They're trying to say that these games cause children to be violent, so that's their excuse for it. It's not a matter of freedom or anything, it's that what they're trying to pass doesn't make any sense at all.

 

[Mr. Omega]

The other problem is that even if this law is passed, it solves NOTHING.

Idiot parents will still buy whatever game their child will want, regardless of rating. Because the person buying it is an adult, the retailer will have no obligations to stop the sale, so the parent gets the game, which goes to the child. And then the parent will cry out in outrage that "This game is corrupting the innocence of my little Billy! The game industry let my perfect little boy play this work of Satan! We need even stricter laws!" Parents are the main source of a child getting an M-rated game. Most retailers have policies already in place preventing minors from getting games. But it doesn't stop the parents.

So this law will not only remove protection the gaming medium has from the first ammendment, but it will also be a complete waste of time.

 

[Random Name 4]

I am against the law, but at the end of the day it is not the most important moment for videogames that everyone says it could be. In Britain, the law exists, we have a ratings board run by the government that enforces the age ratings by law. This changes nothing. I understand in America there is a chance that it could lead to shops like wal-mart banning violent games "for the children", but to be honest, I think that most companies would just release two versions if Wal-Mart decided not to sell it. This happened with farenhight/indigo prophecy

 

[Agayek]

The thing is, it isn't censorship. Not in the way we have it here or in Australia.

The way the law is worded, it can be applied to nearly any modern video game. It would just take a creative wordsmith and you can just about ban the sale of whatever game that catches your fancy. It uses incredibly vague, broad language with no inherent limitations.

It's also the government sticking its head in where it doesn't belong. That has never happened quietly in the USA, and hopefully it never will.