Am I the only one who thinks California is right?

[ZombieGenesis]

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.

 

[Taneer]

Simple issue is, while it may become illegal to sell to kids, parents will just buy the game and hand it to their kids. There's no way to regulate it except maybe forcing you to tell the game your age when you make a profile, and even that can be easily faked.

 

[Terminate421]

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.

 

[the_pleasure_is_mine]

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.

 

[Jkudo]

Well right now you can't go into gamestop if you are under 17-18(not sure which) and by M rated games, they will deny you, but its not illegal.
EDIT: post beneath me did a good job of explaining it.

 

[CustomMagnum]

There's on issue with you comparing the R rated movies to the M rated games with kids not being allowed to watch them:

There is NO law against a child seeing an R rated movie. Not letting kids into the theater to see them without a parent with them is a VOLUNTARY thing that movie theaters do. That's why the California law is controversial, because it'd be putting restrictions on video games because its a video game, and would limit that little thing we american's have called freedom of speech when there's already a voluntary system in place for rating the video games that is already voluntarily enforced.

 

[Thaius]

If that was all the law was about, I would agree. I definitely support the idea of keeping really offensive games out of the hands of children. But what you don't seem to understand is how this law will affect video games outside of that.

But rather than trying to explain it, just watch this. [http://www.escapistmagazine.com/videos/view/extra-credits/1961-Free-Speech] Extra Credits wins.

 

[ZombieGenesis]

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.

 

[Spencer Petersen]

Imagine that California is taking the issue of children watching violent films to the Supreme Court, they would be laughed out the door, because for all the Stallone/Schwarzenegger macho splatter-fests there were truly remarkable movies which may feature violence and nudity, but utilized them to make a more effective point (see Schindler's List). The point is that the federal government has no right to regulate media which is for the purpose of art due to the issue that people who the media is not intended for are observing it and find it distasteful. Simply put, the only things that should keep these games out of the hands of children are the workers at game retail outlets and the parents. Now, I could understand why people would support the California side if the case was about making sure game sellers were checking IDs, but making it illegal to sell games to an audience is just putting their foot in the door of media destruction. This happened before, and it will happen again if we don't oppose them at every step. Just look up Seduction of the Innocent, Fredric Wertham, the United States Senate Subcommittee on Juvenile Delinquency and the Comic's Code Authority if you don't believe me.

 

[Angry Caterpillar]

Funny thing, I've yet to find a store that would sell a game to a child it's not suitable for. As a matter of fact, I've had to wait at a store for a half an hour for my parents to get there and walk in to tell them it's alright for me to buy it. Several times. It's always been against store policy. And, as Taneer said, parents are and always will the the weakest link in this equation; my own, and I'm sure your own, experiences will back up that point. The sad fact is, parents want the government to do their job for them, and they're willing to trounce on an industry they don't understand for that to happen. If a child is adversely affected by a video game, it is completely the parents' fault. It is their job to make sure they know what is going on with their child and make sure they don't have access to things they shouldn't. I'm well aware this is no easy feat, and from the perspective of the minor here, I know exactly how far one could go to get beyond the parent. However, the more fuss people make of these games and how they're inappropriate for minors, the more those same minors will chase them down.

You make the point that kids aren't allowed in to see R rated films, and to an extent, this is true. This does not stop them from seeing them, however. Either with going with an older "guardian" *cough cough*, or with their parents themselves, or simply waiting for the DVD release, they still get the content. There is absolutely no reason for the target painted on the gaming industry's back to be there while overlooking other forms of media. While I'm certain that some who would play the kinds of games I do would find them horrid, inappropriate, or disgusting, I'd love to see their reactions to some of the music that's popular now. I car pool with other kids on my block to get to school, and every morning on the way to school I hear music in varying genres and styles that generally only have a few themes in common: "women are objects", "materialism is happiness", "violence is cool", and "being a **** is being popular". And this isn't some outcast group of teenagers, they're just about the average in my town.

This is less about controlling the access these kids have as calling a witch hunt on an art form that is not yet accepted in society. I have not yet seen any other form of entertainment, be it television, movies, or music, that is being shouted down just as harshly as gaming; regardless of the themes in any. Left 4 Dead is signed as Mature and to be sold only to those eighteen and over, while you can go look at any popular list of music and find a song with much worse themes, and much less worth, than that game. The only argument that could possibly exist to single out gaming is that of interactivity, and that itself hardly applies, as we've yet to see any well-adjusted individual with a full jar of marbles be horribly affected by games. In the end, there's little we can do but argue our side and wait for the day they accept gaming as a form of entertainment distinct but not separate from others.

 

[Knight Templar]

You don't see a problem with videogames reciving harsherlaws because of medium rather than content?

 

[MelasZepheos_v1legacy]

Quick distinction to make.

Currently age ratings are done by the ESRB, an independent video-game board. Staffed by people who understand video-games, have experience in the field, have been working in the industry as long as it's been around etc. Much like the Film classification board.

This law suggests turning the power of controlling age ratings over to the government. A group of people who have not exactly had the most steller track record in understanding games, to the point where they are right now (with this very bill) calling for games to no longer be covered under the First Amendment.

A lot of people do seem to be misinterpreting the issue, which has been covered several dozen times in all the other threads about this. Someone always asked 'but isn't this how it is anyway?' and the response is always 'read the bill and understand it, because it's really, really not.'

I think I'd rather have the first option, if it's all the same to everyone?

 

[YouShouldDeleteThisAccount]

Because they would have to say that legally Games have no artistic, political, scientific or historic merit. And deny games the rights that every over medium in the US has, and can become subject to censorship that other mediums don't.


From the perspective of gamers, the issue has little to do with selling games to Minors. The issue for us is that it will make gaming IN LAW an inferior and picked on medium, and continue to perpetrate the idea that games are shallow and meaningless.


They're trying to enforce this law because they don't consider Games a real medium that will ever amount to anything. That's the problem most people have with it.

 

[Zechnophobe]

That has nothing to do with it Taneer. That's like saying 'making pedophilia illegal isn't worthwhile since people will just do it anyway.'

The point of the law isn't the mistaken belief that it will somehow keep all M games away from minors. The point is whether the store shares any of the responsibility. If they say it is illegal, then the store must be held somewhat accountable.

Since not all purchases by minors are made with the knowledge of the parent, it would be wrong to assume that the parent can always moderate the content of said minor.

 

[Misho-]

The thing is if they win this battle, they will try to go further and further... Retailers shouldn't sell this things to Minors the same way Cigarettes and Beer shouldn't be available for them to purchase... But I'm against the bill. This is not the way to go.

 

[JeanLuc761]

Quick distinction to make.

Currently age ratings are done by the ESRB, an independent video-game board. Staffed by people who understand video-games, have experience in the field, have been working in the industry as long as it's been around etc. Much like the Film classification board.

This law suggests turning the power of controlling age ratings over to the government. A group of people who have not exactly had the most steller track record in understanding games, to the point where they are right now (with this very bill) calling for games to no longer be covered under the First Amendment.

A lot of people do seem to be misinterpreting the issue, which has been covered several dozen times in all the other threads about this. Someone always asked 'but isn't this how it is anyway?' and the response is always 'read the bill and understand it, because it's really, really not.'

I think I'd rather have the first option, if it's all the same to everyone?

Because they would have to say that legally Games have no artistic, political, scientific or historic merit. And deny games the rights that every over medium in the US has, and can become subject to censorship that other mediums don't.


From the perspective of gamers, the issue has little to do with selling games to Minors. The issue for us is that it will make gaming IN LAW an inferior and picked on medium, and continue to perpetrate the idea that games are shallow and meaningless.


They're trying to enforce this law because they don't consider Games a real medium that will ever amount to anything. That's the problem most people have with it.

These two posts right here are EXACTLY why the upcoming decision on November 2nd is such a big deal. Well said gentlemen/ladies.

I'm all for preventing M-rated games from getting unauthorized distribution to minors, but that's not the problem with this bill.

 

[Asdalan08]

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.

 

[Agayek]

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 is that it invites censorship. Many of the larger retailers will simply stop carrying M-rated games because of potential lawsuits, completely stifling a rather significant portion of a games sales. That's really the entire crux of the reason it's causing so much dissent. It's basically waiving first amendment rights for an entire artistic medium.

In addition, your statement about R-rated movies does not hold water. There is no law or legal precedent, to my knowledge, in place banning children from attending movies rated above their age. The film and theater industry got together (probably after some righteous parental outrage) and decided they would collectively no longer allow minors into certain movies. It was done specifically to prevent the government coming in and trying to do what the California bill does to games.

The California law is essentially the video game equivalent of the government trying to mandate what movies you are allowed to see.

 

[Redlin5_v1legacy]

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 Law=Bad news. It will hurt our industry and perhaps encourage similar laws to spread here to Canada :O

What we have going on already is fine.

SNIP

Listen to this guy OP!