Am I the only one who thinks California is right?

[FollowUp]

Parents can be equally as helpless in this regard, I've seen parents actually go and buy hardcore M rated stuff for their children!

This doesn't equal helpless parents. This equals parents not understanding what they should and should not buy for underage people. You know what country has a law like this? Australia. You know what country eventually got many more laws? Australia. You know what country regularly bans games or forces censorship? See above. This was the country that censored L4D2, not with gore so much, but what troubled me was the removal of the word POLICE from the swat zombies. They said it promoted violence to authority figures. That is cracking down HARD on content generation.

So among those who play games? Yes you are very very close to being the only one.

What am I at? Over a hundred million people easy?

... just nitpicking - there's a fair amount of overlap, but I would say anywhere from 50 to 100 million. It depends. The point is still valid though.

 

[zfactor]

I had a huge rant typed up, but then I realized how stupid this thread is and figured that it simply wasn't worth it because what goes in one ear, only seems to go right out the other.

Yup, that's how I feel about this whole thing too. So to sum up my rant:

Sweet Jesus, this again? Look, it is not illegal for a minor to see a R rated movie, the movie theatres just don't let them (either as a PR boost or because it's a good idea). Most retailers already have policies similar to this for M rated video games. There is no law about it. So this law is useless because it is a redundancy and takes over the jobs of parents (who should learn about the ESRB the same way they learn about the MPAA (people who rate movies in the USA)).

Yes, I can develop that more, but I won't because I must have done it twenty fucking thousand times by now. And nobody cares because it's just a forum post (which is an entirely different topic about the internet and anonymity...).

 

[Jodah]

The issue here is it risks a lot for absolutely nothing. This law will not change how minors obtain these games. In the vast majority of situations store policy already denies sale of such games to minors. Hell, I had a harder time buying video games then alcohol before I grew my beard out. Parents will continue to ignore the warnings and buy games for their children.

All this law does is risk a slippery slope situation that could lead to the ultimate destruction of not only the gaming industry but any media the Government decides is bad. Now this most likely will not happen in my lifetime but it could and, at least to me, risking this for no gain is what is wrong with this law.

 

[the_pleasure_is_mine]

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.

Really?

Dear god what's the problem then... I thought California was trying to ban the sale of all 18 games.

We already have the law here that it's illegal to sell to minors and it's fine, it encourages the game stores to enforce it, store policy or not.

It suddenly seems a lot less evil now... still evil, just less so.

 

[the_pleasure_is_mine]

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.

Yeah I've had a few quotes telling me how wrong I am already.

If they're just trying to do what the UK already does then I don't see the problem... I was expecting a complete ban of sales on all 18 games. If that's not the case then it just doesn't seem as evil anymore...

 

[Polaris19]

My problem with the always it has always been with video game laws, is that the people trying to pass it either don't know what they are talking about, or already have a predetermined stance on violence in games.

It upsets me that they don't bother to learn ANYTHING about what they are trying to do. They simply just don't like the idea that the politicians who bicker about this bullshit have no clue what they're talking about.

 

[putowtin]

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?

because it's California, you can't be gay or want to play video games, that's what you get for having a steroid munching muscle head for a governor!

 

[Daedalus1942]

No, there are plenty, but don't go FOR it because that just means they can regulate alot of other things, I just turned 17 about 2 months ago, i don't want to have to wait another year to buy my games alone.

Tough tits... no-one cares what you want. The law is the law. legally you shouldn't have access to the content in that game. Deal with it.
-Tabs<3-

 

[Woodsey]

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.

Yeah I've had a few quotes telling me how wrong I am already.

If they're just trying to do what the UK already does then I don't see the problem... I was expecting a complete ban of sales on all 18 games. If that's not the case then it just doesn't seem as evil anymore...

It's because books, films and music don't receieve the same treatment, and so treating games that way ignores the First Amendment (free speech and that) which means it's easier for them to get banned or something.

Over here films are rated the same, and music comes with a parental guidance thing sometimes anyway. There's not a huge crusade against games here either, and our freedom of speech stuff probably applies differently.

 

[Rusty Bucket]

There seems to be a lot of people in this thread attempting to explain and getting a bit muddled. I'll have a shot.

Basically, it will stop games being covereed by the first amendment. They won't be protected by free speech anymore, which means the Government is free to censor and ban whatever they want. any 'mature' game (and take into account here that what a mature game is will be entirely decided by the Government) will be restricted.
Stores will stock less of them and they'll have to be kept in a seperete section of the shop. Developers would stop making them because of the risks (take Bioshock as an example. It's got a lot of very mature themes and ideas, which means it would be completely open to censorship and banning). If the Government can censor your game, why take the risk of making something mature? Games will be reduced to little more than a child's plaything. It's pretty damn important.

 

[Andreas55k]

In Soviet Russia, and Europe for that matter. Game not only buy you but there is a pegi age rating on our games (3+, 6+, 12+, 15+, the rare 16+, and 18+) which means that you actually do have to be the correct age to buy these games. That, my friends is the glory of Britain, Russia and other un-notable European countries.

Im lucky it isn't like that in Denmark XD

Theoreticly a 5 year old can walk into a video store, pick a porno movie, and all the expedient have to say is "100kr, is it a gift?" XD

 

[Danpascooch]

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.

Really?

Dear god what's the problem then... I thought California was trying to ban the sale of all 18 games.

We already have the law here that it's illegal to sell to minors and it's fine, it encourages the game stores to enforce it, store policy or not.

It suddenly seems a lot less evil now... still evil, just less so.

It's wrong because they don't hold movies to the same standards, it means that videogames are going to be legally branded an inferior creative medium.

 

[boholikeu]

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.

Actually if the judges go on fact and nothing else, they will rule AGAINST the CA law due to the fact that numerous cases like this have already come up about movies/books/etc and they were all shut down. If they ruled in favor of the CA law it would be in direct contradiction to all those previous cases, or they would essentially be ruling that video games can not be protected as works of art.

 

[ItsAPaul]

The problem is to make it illegal, they're saying games shouldn't be offered the 1st ammendment rights of every other digital medium. Thus after that, everything will be censored since that ruling will be used to completely gut the industry.

 

[Savagezion]

Here is a simplistic review of the law:

California says "Video Games = Porno"

To them handing you child a copy of God of War is just as bad, worse, than handing them a copy of "A movie I can't name due to Forum Rules."

Forget comparing this to R rated movies. This law equates video games with pornography.

 

[Ken Sapp]

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.

First off government has a poor track record when it comes to limiting its own influence on our lives. Secondly, you choose to use the movie industry as an example without realizing that, besides porn, it is a self regulated industry just as the video game currently is, at least here in the U.S. I agree that kids can not decide for themselves.Parents, however can not be excused when there is a graphic directly on the front of the case stating the ESRB rating and a larger graphic on the back that states the reasons for the rating.

Britain is not somehow more civil and lacking in gang activity not inspired by videogames so I don't know quite why you should be surprised by anything other than American influences on it.
Speaking of common sense, you state that you don't support all of the bill and that you know how far the government will try to extend it. If you don't support all of a bill it should not receive your support in any way and you should attempt to get it changed before it becomes law so that it is something you fully support. I agree that kids should not be consuming adult content but no system is perfect and while the industry is already regulating itself fairly and in an overall effective manner the government should keep its hands off the issue. Judges do not go on fact, they make rulings based on precedent and personal interpretation of the law, otherwise there would be no rulings overturned except those which were either counter to the facts or those where new facts have come to light.

Common sense dictates that parents should be responsible for their children and read the ESRB ratings before blindly purchasing whatever their spawn are whining at them for.

 

[Scars Unseen]

People can't seem to see beyond the immediate future, it seems.

Let me put it this way. A hotel has people working for it that greet you at the door. They take your bags and carry them up to your room for you. Nice and convenient. Well, one day the hotel management announces that they are going to replace these people with convicted rapists. Repeat offenders at that. Outwardly, nothing has changed. The rapists smile and greet you as enter the hotel. They still carry your bags up to your room for you. Exactly the same. But now you have just walked into your hotel room alone with a rapist. Maybe nothing will happen. Maybe the rapist will make your life a living hell. You don't know, and what's worse, you no longer have any say in the matter. You already opened up the door.

This is what it means to lose first amendment protection. The initial law may be a minor inconvenience or even seem benign. But once you've let the government in, they can do whatever they want, and you can't kick them out. Think on this: Prohibition failed because the government enacted it all at once turned a significant percentage of the US population into criminals overnight. Now look at how they are handling tobacco. It's much slower and more subtle. Each law they pass is relatively small and, on its own, reasonable. Now which way do you think they would be likely to go with video games.

This law needs to go down hard.

 

[loremazd]

So basically it's a Convention?
(Like a rule thats not really a law)

Well since that's the case I still don't see the problem, it's merely enforcing a penatly on people for failing to keep to the expected standards, I figured that was what laws were supposed to be for.

I haven't heard about the "not hitting shelves" thing, if that is true then that's certainly worth worrying about.

Well it also sets the precedence to basically declare video games a controlled substance, which basically would mean if your parents bought you grand theft auto when you were 17 they could be fined just the same as if they bought you alcohol. Not to mention that Mature rated games are basically Rated R movies, and should be subjected to the same regulations.