Expert Warns of Possible Catastrophic Effects of California Videogame Law

[cobra_ky]

First of all, something being unconstitutional doesn't necessary make it bad. In fact, i would say right that the constitution should be now seen as a guideline to the principles that provided the basis for the US as a nation, NOT some divine literature that tells us what is wrong and right. Specially considering that the constitution is missing over two centuries worth of CONTEXT.

"Congress shall make no law...abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press" still sounds like a good idea to me, regardless of context. Do you really think the Constitution should be replaced as the central document of American law? If so, then you're entitled to believe that, but that's much, much larger issue beyond video game sales.

Socialism and communism can be seen as unconstitutional, yet that doesn't necessarily make them bad.

You're right. While unconstitutional I think this law is bad for a number of other reasons.

That being said, people would honestly not give a rat's a** if they made legal age required for M movies. Sure some would complain, but at the end of the day it would not make a difference because most movie theaters already check anyways.

Except for the legal precedent allowing the government to restrict access to movies. You're focused on the intent when the legal repercussions of allowing such a law to stand would be profound.

Totally not fair, I know, but how about companies just stop selling their games in California? Drive across state lines and pick your copy up. It's not like they can take it away after you buy it. I know, not exactly the best solution. I just think it would be funny.

Because nothing would stop Nevada, Oregon, and Arizona from passing similar laws.

And for the record, I don't think minors should be buying M rated games without a parent anyway.

i don't think so either. I just don't think it's the government's job to prevent it.

A few things. This law has nothing to do with free speech. Why do americans always bring that line out for everything? An as for parents taking responsibilty for what your children do, so do you know exactly what your children are doing 24/7? An how many children do you know actully do what there parents say? They still smoke, drink and watch x rated films etc. Atleast with certain laws in place your kids can not just ignore you and buy cigs and alcohal behind your back. It enforces the parents choice and is not in place of it. If your parents dont give a crap what you play and watch, then they will buy it for you so why are you all moaning? The law is to stop kids getting hold of m rated material not adults.

It has everything to do with free speech! This law abridges the freedom of expression through the medium of video games.

As for your arguments about parental responsibility:

1. If your children are going out and spending $60 a pop on games and you don't know about it, you have a serious parenting problem. They could just as easily be spending that money on crack rocks for all you know.

2. Kids still drink, smoke, and watch porn. All these are already illegal to sell to children. Kids get their hands on them anyway! You could argue that illegalizing these reduces children's access to them, except...

3. Retailers already refuse to sell kids mature games without parental consent. They have an 80% success rate which is higher than both the music and movie industries. it's not like the manager at Gamestop is saying "eh, I'll just let every fifth kid through without carding them." and passing this law is going to scare them into trying harder.

 

[Negatempest]

Okay, a lengthy explanation.
Currently the Law that is trying to be passed is to be based on California only (for the moment). That means that California will determine what is "acceptable" for children to play in the state. At the moment, what is not acceptable for California is violence towards humans or human based life forms. There are roughly 13 states supporting the law to pass. That means that chances are there will be 13 individual views on what can be shown to children in video games.

What if Nevada doesn't like Drug Use of any kind in a video game but human violence is okay? Than Ohio decides that anything that demeans the state or country is not viable for a child's view? What if Texas decides that any violence towards women is unacceptable?

This means that for a game developer to have their games out, they may have to have multiple versions of a single game. One that doesn't have drug use, but violence is okay. One where women can't be hurt, but demeaning the U.S. is not that bad. Would you as a video game player in the United States be happy with "Probotector" over "Contra"? Would you be okay if they made Chung-Li a Hermaphrodite as to not get on the wrong side of the law?

What of Online play? Would there be different servers for different states? We may not get online multiplayer because it would have humans harming humans, maybe a campaign mode online may be acceptable. Why would online be effected? Easy, because if the state can now regulate the video game, it can regulate what kind of content it would have. Multiplayer would be too violent for some states and forget others having a gender option. This is just the tip of what may happen and chances are what will happen....

 

[BlackStar42]

Wait, wouldn't this only apply in California? Can't the games companies sell to the other 49 states?

 

[Negatempest]

Wait, wouldn't this only apply in California? Can't the games companies sell to the other 49 states?

Not exactly. As said, there are 13 other states in the US supporting the Law California has come to court with. If it passes, that means that those 13 states can now make their own laws on what is acceptable for children to play. This means that there is a potential of 14 of 50 states in the U.S. that will have Video game based laws. Don't even get me started on the states that are on the fence about the subject.

EDIT: Also from http://www.geek.com/articles/games/eleven-states-support-california-law-that-would-restrict-sale-of-violent-video-games-20100721/

"According to an amicus brief obtained by Gamasutra, the attorneys general said their states ? Connecticut, Florida, Hawaii, Illinois, Louisiana, Maryland, Michigan, Minnesota, Mississippi, Texas, and Virginia ? are 'vitally interested in protecting the welfare of children and in helping parents raise them.'"

These are the states supporting the California Law that we know of so far. So each one has the potential of having their own restrictions on what is considered "appropriate" for children. Yes 11 INDIVIDUAL views of what is acceptable as a video game.

 

[RUINER ACTUAL]

(Not trying to get explictly political)Anyone know: The Supreme Court is mostly Democrat right now, right? If it was Republican, I would be a little worried, but not as much if it's Democrats.

You realize it's California pushing a lot of this, right? It's a heavily dem/liberal state. This isn't a conservative "Get the devil off our screen!" movement. Hell, they tend to be in FAVOR of more guns (if we're going to generalize).

It's primarily a feature of the LIBERAL side of the coin to try to play "nanny state" games and squelch anything that they can blame for violence in today's youth... as long as it doesn't put the blame on the voter himself.

(I'm not a conservative, either. I'm just saying that this isn't one of their babies.)

Thank you for clearing that up for me. Now I'm more worried. Science, I hate California...

Yes, video game violence is to blame. Not the gang violence in LA people hear about all the time, all the murders, and etc. TV is exponentially more violent than games.

Which makes me think, the biggest argument california is standing on right now is that games are different because they are interactive. If the law passes through, it means that any interactive medium is not expressive and therefore is not protected by first amendment. Guess what is interactive and could be censored... THE INTERNET.

Or literally anything. What about all those text in to vote things on TV shows?

 

[RUINER ACTUAL]

(Not trying to get explictly political)Anyone know: The Supreme Court is mostly Democrat right now, right? If it was Republican, I would be a little worried, but not as much if it's Democrats.

Theoretically the Supreme Court is apolitical. Sure they were all appointed by either a Democrat or a Republican president but they are supposed to be above the party politics because they were appointed rather than elected.

That being said, Democratic presidents generally pick justices with Democratic leanings while Republicans presidents do the same. Of the nine current justices, 4 were chosen by Democratic presidents while 5 were chosen by Republicans.

Plus they even say when a Justice is appointed, if he/she is a Demo/Repub.

 

[boholikeu]

A few things. This law has nothing to do with free speech. Why do americans always bring that line out for everything? An as for parents taking responsibilty for what your children do, so do you know exactly what your children are doing 24/7? An how many children do you know actully do what there parents say? They still smoke, drink and watch x rated films etc. Atleast with certain laws in place your kids can not just ignore you and buy cigs and alcohal behind your back. It enforces the parents choice and is not in place of it. If your parents dont give a crap what you play and watch, then they will buy it for you so why are you all moaning? The law is to stop kids getting hold of m rated material not adults.

Also for shop workers, if someone looks underage then you ask them for ID, for a country were most people have a driving license this shouldnt be an issue. I was carded when i went to Boston, wasnt a big deal. I should my passport and got served. Same with buy games, its an Mrated game, show you are 18 and you get the game. This law is only an issue if you are 1 13 year old buying mrated games when your parents do not want you to. Thats it.

Actually, due to the way the US law works it IS an issue of free speech. Similar laws about movies/music/etc. have already been struck down for that reason.

Also, RE alchohol, pornography etc: there are many places in the US that DO NOT sell the above items simply because the risk of getting fined is worse than the potential profits they would make. It's not simply a matter about training people to card customers now (which also costs money, btw).

I still don't understand what all the fuss is about. The rest of the worlds games industrys still appear to be going strong despite the fact that kids can't buy 18 rated games.

Can a kid in the states seriously walk into a shop and buy Call of Duty or Grand Theft Auto?

The markets are interconnected; if you take out the largest one, all the others will feel it.

So the games market is being propped up by under aged kids buying games then? hmm

America is such a strange place, seeing all the Tea Party stuff on the news scares the Hell out of me.

No, the American games market it propped up by being able to sell their titles at places like Wallmart.

Wallmart already has a policy to not sell AO games at all, so you can be pretty sure they will extend that rule to MA games if the legislation passes.

 

[Agayek]

Well its nice to know then my little kids could buy it behind my back then with there pocket money... Seriously your clearly not a parent, and i think only parents should be able to comment on this.

Teach your kids some values and responsibility and it won't be an issue. My parents did it, most of my friends' parents did it. It's not that complicated.

 

[shadow skill]

The law shouldn't be trying to define the ratings themselves. It should simply use the ESRB rating and require that people be carded if they look underage if anything.

 

[Theninja'skatana]

I still don't understand what all the fuss is about. The rest of the worlds games industrys still appear to be going strong despite the fact that kids can't buy 18 rated games.

Can a kid in the states seriously walk into a shop and buy Call of Duty or Grand Theft Auto?

Nope. Trust me I tried.