Am I the only one who thinks California is right?

[Random Name 4]

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.

But it isn't banning, it is restricting sale. They are completely different things.

 

[Sir Thomas Sean Connery]

It's bad, because the primary argument they are using is that games should not be covered under free speech. If it passes, it opens the floodgates for other states to censor whatever they want and eventually prevents people from playing what they want.

 

[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.

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

I said apparently I don't know exactly what those crazy assed Americans be doing. Hell, i'm barely sober enough to know what we're discussing

 

[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.

I said apparently I don't know exactly what those crazy assed Americans be doing. Hell, i'm barely sober enough to know what we're discussing

Then get more drunk, it's the only way.

 

[cobra_ky]

Normally, in the U.S. a government can't pass a law restricting the freedom of speech. California's argument is that violent video games are harmful to children, and therefore they have a legitimate interest in restricting their sales. The ONLY other form of expression this applies to in the U.S. is pornography. If this law is allowed to stand, it would put video games on the same level as porn. THat's why it's such a big deal in the U.S.

 

[Volafortis]

It isn't the face value of the law I have issues with. It's the implications of the law; that video games are beneath free speech. ESRB already warns parents about the games put onto shelves, and parents already are the one making the decisions to buy children video games, or give them money (at least until they're 16. Once they turn 16, they can get a job to buy their own, but M is only 17+, so they're only a year away from buying M games at that point anyway).

The law itself is redundant; it does nothing that systems in place don't already do, other than set a bad precedent for video games in the highest court of the U.S.

This law won't be censoring the games, but rather would be undercutting video game's first amendment protection, at which point, countless older laws would be resurrected in new forms that could potentially cause censorship in gaming, using this precedent to get around free speech.

 

[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.

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

I said apparently I don't know exactly what those crazy assed Americans be doing. Hell, i'm barely sober enough to know what we're discussing

Then get more drunk, it's the only way.

*goes to fridge*

If I get drunk enough to vomit you get all blame for encouraging me

 

[Random Name 4]

Meh, my problem isn't with the law, rather the hyperbolic reaction by the gaming community.

 

[Random Name 4]

*goes to fridge*

If I get drunk enough to vomit you get all blame for encouraging me

Don't give in to my peer presure

 

[BrownGaijin]

For those of you that would like to be in the know about the argument I pulled some lines from a website called the media coalition. I hope you like reading...

http://www.mediacoalition.org/VSDA-v.-Schwarzenegger-

On October 7, 2005, Governor Schwarzenegger signed into law a bill restricting the sale or rental of certain video games to anyone under the age of 18. The computer and video games are classified as "violent video games" and restricted if the depictions of violence are "offensive to the community" or if the violence depicted is committed in an "especially heinous, cruel, or depraved" manner. Under the law, game manufacturers and distributors would be required to label games with 2" x 2" stickers displaying the numeral "18" on their front covers.

The two things I carry from this paragraph is:
1. Arnold Schwarzenegger also did movies such as Predator, Commando and The Terminator to name a few. Movies that would fall under the same category.
2. Game are ALREADY voluntarily labeled with a similar label by the Entertainment Software Rating Board (ESRB).

***

So first the bill was sent to the District Court:

The Video Software Dealers Association (VSDA) [now known as the Entertainment Merchants Association (EMA)] and Entertainment Software Association (ESA) filed a complaint challenging the law on October 17, 2005. On December 21, 2005, U.S. District Court Judge Whyte granted a preliminary injunction, barring enforcement of the California video game law while the lawsuit is pending. The judge found that the law likely violates the First Amendment. On May 12, 2006, the cross motions for summary judgments were heard. On August 6, 2007, Judge Whyte granted a permanent injunction. The court ruled that the law violated the First Amendment and that, while the government has a compelling interest in protecting minors, defendants did not offer proof that video games are any different from other media, nor does any generally accepted study exist to support the idea that the interactive nature of video games leads to violent behavior.

So basically, Judge Whyte declared the bill to be Unconstitutional as it likely violated the First Amendment. He came to this decision because the defendants (that Arnold) didn't show any proof that video games were no different than any other media (including his own movies).

***

So the it went to the Ninth Circuit (West Coast US):

The state appealed the granting of a permanent injunction to the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals on September 5, 2007. Briefs in the appeal were filed by the state on January 2, 2008 and by the plaintiffs on February 7. Media Coalition submitted an amicus brief for filing on February 13. The amicus brief argues first: that the state's claim is contrary to all U.S. Supreme Court and Courts Of Appeal precedent and could lead to a wide array of mainstream books, magazines, movies, videos, recordings, and other material with violent content becoming subject to regulation; second, that the terms used to define a "violent video game" are unconstitutionally vague; and third, the labeling requirement is unconstitutional compelled speech and a content-based requirement. The state's reply brief was filed February 22, 2008.

The Ninth Circuit ruled the law unconstitutional on February 20, 2009. On August 5, 2008, the State of California reimbursed plaintiffs $282,794 in attorneys? fees.

In a nutshell the West Coast curcut said that:
1. The state claim was contrary to all the US Supreme Court decisions.
2. Could open up a flood gate where other forms of media (books, magazines, movies) would be regulated by the government (IMHO: It would be like Orwell's 1984).
3. The term "violent video game" was unconstitutionally vague.

After the dust settled California was ordered to reimburse the plaintiffs with over a quarter of a million dollars in attorneys' fees. (Wait, if I'm a Californian, does that mean that the money came out of my tax dollars? Mother F-)

***

And now the US Supreme Court

On May 20th, 2009, Governor Schwarzenegger and Attorney General Jerry Brown filed a petition for certiorari with the Supreme Court asking the Court to hear an appeal of the Ninth Circuit's ruling. Reaction from Media Coalition and others can be found here. On April 26, 2010, the Supreme Court granted the state of California's petition for certiorari in Schwarzenegger v. EMA. The Court's decision to take the case marks the first time it has considered any of the recent spate of laws restricting or banning certain video games.

The Supreme Court presented two questions to the parties:

1. Does the First Amendment bar a state from restricting the sale of violent video games to minors?
2. If the First Amendment applies to violent video games that are sold to minors and the standard of review is strict scrutiny, under Turner Broadcasting System, Inc. v. F.C.C., 512 u.s. 662, 666 (1994), is the state required to demonstrate a direct causal link between violent video games and physical or psychological harm to miniors before the state can prohibit the sale of video games?
The state of California filed its brief on the merits with the Supreme Court on July 12. On September 10, the Electronic Merchants Association and Electronic Software Association filed their brief on the merits with the Court.

On July 19, California Senator and author of the violent video game law at issue, Leland Yee, joined the California chapter of the American Academy of Pediatrics and the California Psychological Association in submitting an amicus brief in support of his law to the Supreme Court. Common Sense Media and the Eagle Forum also filed amicus briefs in support of defendants. Louisiana Attorney General James D. Caldwell also filed a brief in support of the law signed by the attorneys general of ten other states.

On September 10, the Electronic Merchants Association and Electronic Software Association filed their brief on the merits with the Supreme Court. The state of California filed its brief with the Court on July 12.

Media Coalition members and others filed an amicus brief with the Supreme Court on September 17. Media Coalition members American Booksellers Foundation for Free Expression, Association of American Publishers, Freedom to Read Foundation, National Association of Recording Industry Merchandisers, and the Recording Industry Association of America signed onto the brief. They are joined by the Amusement & Music Operators Association, the Association of National Advertisers, PEN Center USA, and the Recording Academy.

So Schwarzenegger and Jerry Brown filed a petition to the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court asked both parties the questions above. Both parties answered the questions, and well here we are now waiting for November.

So to answer your question, yes you are probably the only one here that feels that way. If Schwarzenegger has his way, then not only does it mean our games could be policed by the government, it could also lead to other forms of media, something that we have been trying to avoid since 1776.

 

[Freeze_L]

i cite the principal of subsidiarity, stating: An authority of a higher order should not interfere with the workings of an authority of the lower order. The government has a place, and regulating things like this is not that place, the responsibility is too the familial unit and the industry itself. The government does not have the authority to regulate video games, and should stay out of it.
Thats it, no matter how they play it, they do not have the right to interfere in the legitimate workings of a lower order. This means that they can not censor games,books, or movies (the exception being porn, but that is a whole different discussion, that i would not like to get into right now) the pepole are responsible for regulating this stuff, not the government.

Also, the law is laughable in and of itself. This is government regulation of purely voluntarily rating service, this is like the government regulating what movies could be seen or what music was to be deemed "Parental Advisory" worthy. You know how you hear about "A" rated games not being sold in the states, this is not because of the government but because of industry standards and the fact the stores just wont sell them if they get this rateing. You know how game retailers will not sell you a M rated game with out carding you? How game-stop says they will get "fined if they dont" this is all industry self-regulation that is happening on its own with out the interference of the State. Given time the things game only retailers do will be done by non-game only retailers, e.g. Wall-Mart, and some of the stores are already adopting the same policies. The only thing the government would do by interfering in this would be violating our rights and turning a working system into an ineffective un-adaptive cluster-fuck.

 

[bob-2000]

You don't get it. It's not whether or not kids should be allowed to play M games that is the big deal. It's that if this law passes, games will not be fully protected by the first amendment. This is a massive slippery slope.

 

[Mcupobob]

So video games should fall under the category of porn and booze?? Seems disrespectful to an art form.

 

[Random Name 4]

california is full of nothing but hippies and stoners. a californian will believe ANYTHING you tell them and are wrong 100% of the time. the rare times they do pick a real issue to face they ram through it like neanderthals saying "i am helping!".

REALLY?

My experiance of California involved mainly either working people, high tramps or blue colar republicans. I did not meet a single hippy in three weeks, and I was in San Fransisco and Santa Cruz.

 

[Random Name 4]

Think of it this way as well. If this law passes then it will affect what video game publishers can actually publish because it will now the ESRB will essentially be nullified and it will rely on the government to regulate games that are considered "violent".

Now think about that for a second. Think about the actual definition of violence. Now ask yourself how many games do you know that by the core definition that game is violent and thus could be regulated by the government. Wanna know the most basic first offender that has been committing the act of violence for 25 years? Mario.

Seriously there is a legitimate case that Mario as a game is a violent video game because if you put aside the music and the happy faces at the core it is a game that requires Mario to murder and commit battery upon Goombas, Koopa Troopas and of course Bowser(dropping a guy in lava is something done in the Terminator series after all).

Yes, something as simple as Mario could be restricted from sale in the most legal definition and yes the government will have to enforce that law with no exceptions.

So pretty much the only games that would be left in its most extreme version would be Uno and Mr.Bucket. It is your choice.

1. Laws like this are always poorly enforced

2. Look at countries with laws like this, is that really the case. Most likely violent does mean what you would call "M"

 

[Enigmers]

Normally, in the U.S. a government can't pass a law restricting the freedom of speech. California's argument is that violent video games are harmful to children, and therefore they have a legitimate interest in restricting their sales. The ONLY other form of expression this applies to in the U.S. is pornography. If this law is allowed to stand, it would put video games on the same level as porn. THat's why it's such a big deal in the U.S.

This is exactly it. Video games are a form of entertainment like movies, TV shows, comic books, and so on, and just because a few xenophobic old pricks think "those games are hurting the children! Furthermore, we must assume every parent and every child is too dumb to make their own decision, and we, as old pricks, must unit with our prickish power to wave our pricks at everyone!"

I think, if you want to make a law that affects video games at all, you should, at least, be a casual gamer, someone who has experienced the medium at least a little bit. This would be like a guy who has never been to the moon telling people that they shouldn't golf on the moon because some guy who golfed on the moon hurt his knee.

 

[Worgen]

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.

actualy with R rated movies its not illegal for kids to see them, there is no law anywhere that says a kid cant buy an r rated movie, but the movie industry has agreed to say that kids shouldnt see them and most theaters tend to deny minors access to the movies but there is no law saying its illegal, its the same with videogames, but people want to change that because they want to be able to kill of videogames, look up the comic code and you will see what they want, essentially they want to destroy the industry for anything they dont approve of which is pretty much everything

 

[Random Name 4]

Guys, think hard about this. How often do you encounter underage players on Xbox Live or whatever. Do you really think ERSB is effective?