Am I the only one who thinks California is right?

[John the Gamer]

Thank the gods that I just turned 18 a few weeks ago...

 

[manaman]

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.

Your last point defeats the purpose of your entire argument.

You really should read up on this issue in one of the probably hundreds of threads about this on this site alone by now before making your own.

I would elaborate, but I am sure by now you had had quite a bit of information already thrown at you.

 

[manaman]

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.

In the US civil liberties are not granted by exceptions, civil liberties are rights guaranteed by the highest document of law, the Constitution. As it stands Video games are covered under the first amendment, freedom of speech, in order to pass the law they need to prove that video games do not deserve protections granted by the first amendment. Once that happens video games are fair game to any kind of goverment regulation at any level (federal, state, county, city). Say New York State wants to ban violent games in the future, or Podunk town wants to ban the sale of all video games, they can if this passes.

 

[Dublin Solo]

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.

Yes, but those age ratings come from independant industries, pretty much like the ESRB. The difference with this bill, is they try to make the government decide and enforce the age rating. The government can and will be much more coercitive with the application of a law. They will decide for all the consumers what is eventually good or bad for you.

 

[Sigmund Av Volsung]

Well, once you take away one human right, you turn communist.
No offence to the USA, but they could just restrict minors from buying games that are rated M, like they do in England, for eg; they ask for your age, and then they ask for your id or proof of age, and if you don't meet the age, youre not going to get to buy the game, simple as.

 

[Gigano]

I don't really feel strongly about this either way, but would tend towards that it's not a state matter to decide such things, but a thing between consumers and retailers, with laws merely securing that the proper information to make an informed decision is relegated.

It is of course practically irrelevant, since there will always be ways to get hold of such games. Unenforceable regulation is bad regulation undermining the respect for the rule of law. In fact, banning store sales might well drive kids unto the wastes of the internet, where illegal piracy certainly will tempt them to (then further) criminal acts, and where they can easily come across stuff that'll "sully their pure innocent minds" (if such existed) well beyond what could ever be found in any Gamestop.

Since regulation will have no practical bearing on anything, I don't see any point in not banning such sales. Or much harm in banning them.

 

[Eternal_Lament]

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.

The problem with the California law isn't so much about the fact that it prevents minors from buying M-rated (17+) games, the problem is that the arguments used for it are bad, as well as just hypocritical in nature. You probably already know the first ammendmant part of it (according to Leland Yee, the guy bringing the bill forth, video games shouldn't be protected under the first ammendmant because it is interactive) so I won't devulge into that. The other problem I have with the bill besides it being unconstitutional is that the regulation already exists technically. I don't know what the case in the UK is on this, but in North America the stores already have voluntarly made policies in which they won't sell M-rated games to people who aren't old enough, so the fact that the bill is even being made is redundant because aside from the criminal charge it already is as the bill wants it. Also, again I'm not sure how it is in the UK, but stores in North Americca don't care about selling R-rated/unrated movies to kids (the exception is pornography, but really kids can just get it online anyways), and even at theatres they never check to see if you're old enough to see the movie, just that you bought the ticket. So the fact that video games are already taking more steps than other forms of media are to prevent minors from accessing it, and yet people (by which I mean people who are afraid of video games/responsibility) still complain that not enough is being done. So yeah, either they should have both (movies and games) harder for minors to get or make both available to minors, not to only make one harder because the people complaining don't understand it.

 

[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-

I'm thinking you weren't burdened with an overabundance of schooling. It's 100% legal for anyone to own any game in America (right now). The ID stuff at stores is COMPANY POLICY.

overabbundance in schooling?
No.. I just wasn't born in a retarded backwards country that does all it can to shoot itsef in the foot on a regular basis.
We have law here, and it's actually upheld.

 

[ApophisMP]

I personally don't think Cali is ever right about anything, but what should be illegal is parents who leave teaching, parenting,and babysitting to the TV and video games

 

[ShadowsofHope]

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.

No your way off there. It would make mature rated games just as hard to find as R rated movies. The only real difference this would make is that now the government is handing out penenlties for selling to minors. So nothing changes in the end except for the guy laying down the fines.

No, it would make Mature rated games almost impossible to find, as anything fitting any definition of "violent" in video games wouldn't be touched by a 50 foot pole by the industry for fear of censorship and backlash, which would effectively eliminate anything from Ratchet and Clank, to Halo, to Gear of Wars, to GTA, and even Mario. R rated movies are actually very easy to find, and many of them on visible shelves at your local blockbuster.

And it is already the government handing out those fines. With this law, no one would have access to any of these games. Presently and legally, it is already illegal for minors to have mature rated video games. It is the parents that are complacent to purchasing them for these young children, and complacency is the problem. There needs to be more responsibility on the parents end, not the government.

 

[Sigmund Av Volsung]

Yes, youre the only one.
Why wont america just do what England does?