California Legislature Passes Yee's Violent Games Bill - Tilted Forum Project Discussion Community

FngKestrel · 09-11-2005, 11:36 AM

http://biz.gamedaily.com/features.as...feature&email=

Every gamer should care about this. Let your congress people know how you feel.

From GameDaily Biz:

Quote:

Awaiting the Governator's approval
California Legislature Passes Yee's Violent Games Bill

Earlier this summer Illinois Governor Blagojevich signed a violent games bill into law. Could California become the second state to introduce such a law? Assemblyman Leland Yee's bill has now been passed and only needs the signature of Governor Schwarzenegger. The video game industry is likely to fight back, however, just as it is doing with the Illinois act. [Updated]

[UPDATE] The ESA has responded with the following statement from Gail Markels, Senior Vice President and General Counsel:

"The Entertainment Software Association (ESA) is disappointed by the California General Assembly's action. We believe that AB 1179 is unnecessary and will restrict the First Amendment rights of California's citizens. Instead of signing a clearly unconstitutional bill into law, we're asking the Governor to focus his resources on a more effective resolution, working with industry in our efforts to help parents make the right game choices for their unique families.

"In the end, this is an effort to substitute the government's judgment for parental supervision and turn retailers into surrogate parents. This is misguided. Each family is unique. There is no question that some games have content that is offensive to some audiences. The same can be said of TV, films, music, and books. But government does not regulate their sales, nor should government regulate the sale of video games. Ultimately, parents -- not government or industry -- must be the gatekeepers when it comes to deciding what media should be brought into the home."

This July, Illinois became the first U.S. state to ban the sale and rental of violent and sexually explicit video games to children. The "Safe Games Illinois Act" won't go into effect until January 1, 2006, but it could soon have company in California if Assemblyman Leland Yee's Assembly Bill (AB) 1179, formerly AB 450, is signed into law by Governor Schwarzenegger.

Bill now in Schwarzenegger's hands
After being passed by the California Senate on a bipartisan vote 22-9, last night, on a bipartisan 65-7 vote, the California State Assembly approved Yee's legislation, which would subject retailers who violate the act up to $1,000 for each violation. In addition, Yee's bill would require violent games to be labeled with a designation for adult sale only, using a white "18" sticker, outlined in black, which would be about 2 inches by 2 inches—far bigger and more visible than the ESRB ratings on game packaging.

Governor Schwarzenegger now has 30 days to either sign or veto Yee's bill. Assuming the governor signs it into law, it would go into effect on January 1, the same time as the Illinois law. The video game industry, represented by the ESA, filed a lawsuit seeking relief from the Illinois law, and it's likely that they would do the same to fight Yee's bill.

Before we get to that point, however, there is some concern that Governor Schwarzenegger may decide to veto the bill. The governor has been an active participant in the entertainment industry, and his voice and likeness have been used in video games based on his movies, after all.

"Governor Schwarzenegger is no longer an action star but an elected representative of all Californians; I am hopeful that he will consider our children's best interests by signing this commonsense legislation into law and giving parents a necessary tool to raise healthy kids," commented Speaker pro Tem Yee.

Likening games to cigarettes (again)
According to a press release issued by Yee, which cites the Federal Trade Commission, "nearly 70 percent of thirteen to sixteen year olds are able to purchase M-rated (Mature) video games, which are designed for adults."

"These violent video games are learning tools for our children and clearly result in more aggressive behavior," said Randall Hagar, California Psychiatric Association's Director of Government Affairs, who seemed to be reiterating the American Psychological Association's recent findings.

"Studies prove that playing these violent video games are bad for kids mental and physical health," added Jim Steyer, Founder of Common Sense Media, a non-profit organization of 750,000 regular users dedicated to improving children's media lives. "The health threat involved with kids playing such games is equivalent to smoking cigarettes."

The ESA could not be reached for comment as of press time.

Those interested in reading the complete text of AB 1179 may find it here.

Lasereth · 09-11-2005, 11:45 AM

I'm gonna laugh if Schwarzenegger passes it since he's been the star of many action videogames.

-Lasereth

Coppertop · 09-11-2005, 11:52 AM

Game over man, game over!

Nice emphasis, however I would have included this part as well:

Quote:

There is no question that some games have content that is offensive to some audiences. The same can be said of TV, films, music, and books. But government does not regulate their sales, nor should government regulate the sale of video games.

FngKestrel · 09-11-2005, 11:58 AM

Heh, I should just bold the entire comment from the ESA.

Edit: I did.

spongy · 09-11-2005, 12:36 PM

Yet another poorly conceived, misinformed unconstitutional, kneejerk reaction to a problem mostly invented by the media and politicians. This reeks of preening and posturing. I hope Arnie is smart enough to veto it.

FngKestrel · 09-11-2005, 12:55 PM

But this sort of thing needs to be nipped in the bud. Why aren't more people writing their congress people and letting them know their displeasure?

The attacks on the game industry are going to continue until idiotic parents can find a new scapegoat. And most idiotic parents are more vocal than the people they're "protecting," so if people genuinely care, they need to fight back.

For California, you can look up your representatives by going here.

spongy · 09-11-2005, 02:51 PM

I know a few gaming companies have offices in california. I would think they would be up in arms (not to mention on the phone to sacramento) about this.

cyrnel · 09-11-2005, 03:13 PM

Absolutely, business must always fight restrictions. It affects their profits when minors are required to ask an adult to approve purchases. Hell, it affects purchases anytime someone else is involved in the decision. In the case of games, minors are their market. For most of the games in question, marketing strategies revolve around 12-25yo's, so the last thing they want is a aging primary decision-maker getting in the works. Now they have to sell you, and convince your parents it's good for you. Those messages are often at odds and if your parents care it's probably not an automatic sell. That can be good or bad.

Don't mean to be pedantic, but realize who the ESA is fighting for.

BTW, how many here have raised children? (ducking)

The Schwartzenegger aspect is interesting. He must feel very stretched at this point.

Nikilidstrom · 09-11-2005, 03:56 PM

The question isn't who should or shouldn't be protected, but who should be doing the protecting. Should the retail outlets be forced to ensure that your kids don't see violent material, or should the parents be forced to actually participate in their children's lives and make informed decisions on what they want them viewing? As a human services worker who works with adjudicated youth, I can promise you, in my experience, it is not the violent content of any media that caused the kids I see to violate the law. It is the distinct lack of interaction between the parent(s) and their children. The parents not only fail to monitor what it is their kids see, hear, and experience, but also fail to help them interperet and learn from these same experiences. The kids are forced to establish their own morals from misconstrued information and childish needs/tendencies.

The ESRB ratings are clearly printed on every case, easily distinguishing violent and offensive media from those geared toward a younger audience, if the parents truly cared enough to check. This legislation will only help parents feel better about ignoring their children's lives and interests, and in the end, benefits no one except those politicians trying not to look so impotent and apathetic to their constituants before re-election.

Coppertop · 09-11-2005, 04:47 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Nikilidstrom

This legislation will only help parents feel better about ignoring their children's lives and interests, and in the end, benefits no one except those politicians trying not to look so impotent and apathetic to their constituants before re-election.

Thems important words y'all.

cyrnel - I suppose you would advocate a similar law for all other media? Just what we need, ID checks at the friggin' library. Soooo much easier than, say, actual parenting.

I don't know about you guys, but where I live, laws and fines separate not the wanted from the wanter.

cyrnel · 09-11-2005, 05:40 PM

Quote:

The question isn't who should or shouldn't be protected, but who should be doing the protecting.

That is a question, not necessarily a deal-breaker though.

So you think parents who care will stop? Or that parents who don't will fell less inclined to start? I suppose the latter is possible but those parents have issues and are looking for excuses. I'm sure they'll pop out of the woodwork and use this on Springer et al, but look back and they're the ones always finding excuses for their faults. Those who don't look beneath the excuses are just as guilty as the parents so I can't give that reason any weight. Yes, we'll still need to address family influences.

I agree the proposal isn't perfect. I don't think it could be perfect with the complexities of families and culture. But with age comes some allowance for solutions over perfection. I'm not necessarily for this one. But I don't buy the argument that vendors shouldn't be put in this position as a reason to defeat it. They do it for other products for various reasons. Alchohol, tobacco, firearms, gunpowder, videos, theatres, etc. What's religious about video games that are found by some standard (another topic) to have passed an "adult" threshold? We need to find better reasons if you want to convince anyone but retailers and minors.

Something else I want to be open about is motivation. That's why I brought up the ESA topic earlier. Using ESA's rallying cry as defense is little but an industry "pretty please". To me their artistic rights argument is silly. They can still produce whatever they want. Just label it like all the other things society has determined are edgy. This is about standards (that other topic) and who's able to make the buying decision on "adult" items, not about what they're free to create.

The consumer argument is more about choice. As an old dude my priorities are different. I'm still into games, but other concerns have become more important. Games are way below people I care about. That's why I'm open to the idea of restrictions that might help me guide a child's development in this sucky world. I would have slapped myself for the thought 15yrs ago. In younger days games were nearly everything. Really, much of life was about not wanting others to control my choices. I certainly never wanted another layer of authority. Being intellectually honest about control issues was the most difficult part. Freedom trumped all, and that perspective didn't start to change until I was an adult and had exited my home state. I'm not saying that's affecting everyone here but it's something for each person to consider before trying to sway opinions.

I'm all ears for reasons this is a bad idea. The biggest I can see the potential hit on the gaming industry which is already in a tight race. Employment, the economy, we aren't exactly overflowing with new industries. This might not hurt exports now but it would probably affect game design and therefore could make US designers less competitive internationally later. If you want to make a difference right now, come up with numbers. You can bet the ESA lobby is throwing this hard behind the scenes. If the law were national and enforced I don't doubt it would speed industry fallout.

MooseMan3000 · 09-13-2005, 05:46 AM

Quote:

There is no question that some games have content that is offensive to some audiences. The same can be said of TV, films, music, and books. But government does not regulate their sales, nor should government regulate the sale of video games.

Actually, yes they do. Children cannot walk into a corner store and buy porn. Nor can they get into an R-rated movie without ID. These controls (among others) have been in effect for a long time.

The act doesn't restrict anyone from making or selling these games. Let me say that again. This act does not restrict the game developers from making the game, nor does it restrict retail stores from selling it. ALL that it does is prevents minors from BUYING the game. What's wrong with that?

Furthermore, it specifically allows for parents/relatives to buy the game for the child.

Quote:

(c) This section shall not apply if the violent video game is sold
or rented to a minor by the minor's parent, grandparent, aunt,
uncle, or legal guardian.

Also, according to the bill, you can't punish the person who sold the game, unless they are a manager or owner of the retail outlet. And the most punishment someone can get if they ARE a manager or owner is a $1000 fine.

Now, I don't know how many of you are familiar with the Constitution of the United States. There's this Amendment that everyone keeps bringing up to try to invalidate the bill. That's the First Amendment. Just to make sure everyone's on the same page here, here is the entire text of that Amendment.

Quote:

Originally Posted by The Constitution of the United States of America, Amendment I

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.

Explain to me exactly WHICH part of that amendment the bill violates, with evidence that may include, but is not limited to, legal definitions, Supreme Court cases regarding freedom of speech, and common sense. Seriously, I dare you to come up with actual evidence.

The fact is, this bill is NOT unconstitutional. There have been many precedents for similar limitations in the past, and they're not about to go away. Thus far, video games have enjoyed free reign of their domain with little to no interference from the government, simply because they didn't see us as that important. Well guess what - video games are quickly becoming part of mainstream culture, and with that comes a few rules. That's part of living in a society. Get used to it.

hulk · 09-13-2005, 06:02 AM

Why implement a new rating system, and not enfore the ESRB system already in place? From what I can infer, it's either adults-only or not.

japhyryder · 09-13-2005, 08:50 AM

I agree the bills need to be done, to bad parents still won't pay attention to the "new" rating

Coppertop · 09-13-2005, 02:45 PM

Quote:

"Studies prove that playing these violent video games are bad for kids mental and physical health," added Jim Steyer, Founder of Common Sense Media, a non-profit organization of 750,000 regular users dedicated to improving children's media lives. "The health threat involved with kids playing such games is equivalent to smoking cigarettes."

Anyone agreeing with this guy is a whackjob.

And I hate to nitpick, but laws do not prevent minors from seeing porn or R rated movies. Not for me, nor my friends growing up. Maybe we're the exception... but I doubt it.

Sorry.

Coppertop · 09-13-2005, 02:47 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by hulk

Why implement a new rating system, and not enfore the ESRB system already in place? From what I can infer, it's either adults-only or not.

I'd wager a guess and say because it's not the politically popular thing to do. It wouldn't exactly make a name for a politician to go along with someone else's (the game industry's) creation.

docbungle · 09-13-2005, 03:06 PM

I don't understand what the big deal is here. They want to slap a sticker on certain games? Sort of like the 'Explicit Lyrics' sticker that can be found on one out of every 3 cds I buy? Big deal. I remember how everyone was OUTRAGED when Tipper Gore headed the whole 'Explicit Lyrics' sticker brigade, and now no one hardly even notices. It has become meaningless.

As long as these stickers are put on the games they are supposed to be put on, after a certain amount of time it won't even matter anymore. And all they're doing is making it harder for kids to get ahold of these games, just like rap cds, rated-r or -x movies and whatever else can be used as a scapegoat for crime and debouchery.

Heavy metal couldn't be the scapegoat forever, but it sure didn't go anywhere because of a little sticker. Neither will video games. Relax.

Seer666 · 09-15-2005, 04:21 AM

Why the fuck does everything have to be "about the children". Fuck the children. You don't want them playing games like that, be a parent and exersize some control over them. Just another way to to try and leglaise morals and fuck with the rest of us.
"1984 is gone forget aout Big Brother
Welcome to the 90's where the goverment's you mother
good bye freedom
Hello mom!"

Scaterbrain

ObieX · 09-15-2005, 05:52 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by japhyryder

I agree the bills need to be done, to bad parents still won't pay attention to the "new" rating

Exactly, after parents completely ignore this, what will be next? Will you be required to install thumb-print scanners on your video game consol before you can turn it on?

Quote:

Originally Posted by Seer666

Why the fuck does everything have to be "about the children". Fuck the children.

Exactly! As was once said on the Simpsons... The children are our future.. BUT TODAY BELONGS TO ME!

FngKestrel · 10-19-2005, 10:19 AM

Update: The Governator signed the bill several days ago and they're ready to enforce it, effective Jan 1st, 2006.

http://biz.gamedaily.com/features.as...feature&email=

Quote:

Wednesday, October 19, 2005
Battle Over AB 1179
Yee Scolds Game Industry, Fights to Preserve New Violent Games Law
California Assemblyman Leland Yee (left), who authored violent games bill AB 1179, is fighting with the help of Gov. Schwarzenegger, who signed the bill into law, to make sure that the new law is upheld and withstands the legal assault from the video game industry. The ESA and VSDA believe the bill will be found to be unconstitutional.

Just one day after the Entertainment Software Association (ESA) and the Video Software Dealers Association (VSDA) officially filed a complaint in federal court to strike down AB 1179, which makes it a crime for retailers to rent or sell violent video games to minors, California Assemblyman Leland Yee (who drafted the bill) has responded to the lawsuits and blasted the video game industry "for failing to protect the interests of children."

Yee slams industry, Governator backs him
"The $31 billion video game industry is not concerned with the health and welfare of our children; they are simply concerned with their own financial interests," commented Speaker pro Tem Yee (D-San Francisco/Daly City). "The new California law has been drafted with the help of constitutional experts to pass such a challenge and I expect the courts to agree."

Until Republican Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger signed the bill into law earlier this month, there had been some doubt as to whether or not he would be supportive of the legislation because of his ties to the entertainment industry. Now that his signature is on the bill, Gov. Schwarzenegger is showing full support for Yee's cause and together they are determined to make the law hold up.

"Ten days ago I signed into law legislation that requires violent video games be clearly labeled and prohibits their sale to children under 18 years old. Many of these games are made for adults and choosing games that are appropriate for kids should be a decision made by their parents. California's new law will ensure parental involvement in determining which video games are appropriate for their children. I believe strongly that we must give parents the tools to help them protect their children. I will do everything in my power to preserve this new law and I urge the Attorney General to mount a vigorous defense of California's ability to prevent the sale of these games to children," Gov. Schwarzenegger said in a statement.

Psychological effects
Yee, who is also a child psychologist, is convinced that violent video games have adverse effects on children. Although there's no proven direct link between violence in video games and youth violence in real life, the American Psychological Association did recently publish the results of research indicating that violent games lead to increased aggression and psychological arousal in children and adolescents.

"The medical data clearly indicates that these ultra-violent video games have harmful effects on kids, and thus we have a state interest to protect them," said Yee. "In addition, this law does not ban the development, the distribution, or the sale of any video games, but rather simply limits the sales of the most violent games to minors. This is simply a tool to help parents raise healthy kids."

Yee then went on to cite a child death penalty case from earlier this year, Roper v. Simmons, in which the Supreme Court ruled that children are different in the eyes of the law due to brain development.

"History has proven in cases of child labor and physical assault on children that we can and should pass laws to protect them. I am a strong believer in the First Amendment and in free speech, but when a game allows a player to virtually commit sexual assault and murder, as a society we must do what we can to protect our children, as we do for alcohol, tobacco, and pornography, among other items," Yee continued. "I look forward to working with the Governor and the Attorney General in making sure this law withstands the legal attacks of the video game industry."

Should be the parents' job
ESA President Douglas Lowenstein, however, believes that the combination of good parenting and education about the current ESRB ratings should be enough to keep mature games out of the hands of children. "It is not up to any industry or the government to set standards for what kids can see or do; that is the role of parents. Additionally, everyone involved with this misguided law has known from the start that it is an unconstitutional infringement on the First Amendment freedoms of those who create and sell video games," he said.

AB 1179, if upheld, goes into effect on January 1, 2006, at which time any retailer caught selling a violent game to a minor would be fined up to $1000 for each offense.

CyCo PL · 10-19-2005, 10:30 AM

What, so they're basically banning M-rated games from being sold to people under 18? And what, may I ask, is exactly wrong with this?

If the kid wants the game bad enough, the parents will get it for him anyway.

I work at a movie theater, and we don't let people under 17 into R-rated movies, unless they're with a parent or legal guardian (which isn't easy to prove, but you can normally tell if the kid is with his/her parent or just a friend that's over 18). People don't seem to have a problem with this rule, so why is prohibiting the sales of M-rated games to underaged people bad?

japhyryder · 10-19-2005, 10:53 AM

It doesn't hurt anything except lazy parents. Have to get involved with there kids how horrible is that

Da Munk · 10-19-2005, 11:25 AM

There's nothing wrong with the idea behind this, that young children should not be exposed to certain material without parental consent. What I don't understand is why they feel the need to legislate it. The ESRB is already in place to rate games and most retailers already follow those guildelines and won't sell M or AO rated games to minors. I see no reason to get the government involved when there is already a voluntary system in place that does the exact same thing. If the MPAA is good enough for movies, why isn't the ESRB good enough for games?

FngKestrel · 10-19-2005, 02:06 PM

Do movie theaters get fined for allowing children under 17 into R rated movies? I'm not asking for exemption for video games, but for consistency in treatment of media.

hulk · 10-20-2005, 01:23 AM

Considering parents are present at 92% of the time their kids are buying games (Source), I'd say it's empty legislation looking to accomplish, well, precisely jack shit. Utter BS.

djflish · 10-20-2005, 04:37 AM

Thank god I live in the UK.
Games over here are just given the same certificates as films are, simple as that.

CyCo PL · 10-21-2005, 09:07 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by FngKestrel

Do movie theaters get fined for allowing children under 17 into R rated movies? I'm not asking for exemption for video games, but for consistency in treatment of media.

If they get caught, yes.

Dragonknight · 10-22-2005, 11:30 PM

Is it just me or are there new laws comming out that are basically raising out children? If a mother/father doesn't want there kid to play a game for any given reason then they should take an active role in not allowing them to play the games. Do we actually need a law telling us this.... I swear people are getting so lazy in life.

t3m3st · 10-23-2005, 08:59 PM

It's my understanding that this law has nothing to do with the ESRB, and everything to do with violence. So that if I was 17, and I was interested in buying a game about abusing women and animals by rolling them up into giant balls and throwing them into the vaccuum of space, thus killing them, I would need to have my parents to be there, even though the game is rated E. I'm talking about Katamari Damacy.

They don't actually specify whose rating, or whose definition of violence or unacceptable acts they are following. Alot of the people campaigning against videogames are saying the ESRB isn't doing their job.

When I was 16, there was an N64 game that encouraged me to beat up animals, women, and children, and was rated E for everyone by the ESRB. I'm talking about Super Smash Brothers. The level of violence in a game depends on who is analyzing the content, and in what way they choose to analyze it.

One argument that is often made is that "in Grand Theft Auto, you need to rape women to win".

Merriam Webster defines rape as: to seize or take away by force.
So when I carjack a woman in the game, is this not rape?

09-11-2005, 11:45 AM	#2 (permalink)
Lasereth Knight of the Old Republic Location: Winston-Salem, NC	I'm gonna laugh if Schwarzenegger passes it since he's been the star of many action videogames. -Lasereth __________________ "A Darwinian attacks his theory, seeking to find flaws. An ID believer defends his theory, seeking to conceal flaws." -Roger Ebert

09-11-2005, 12:36 PM	#5 (permalink)
spongy Psycho	Yet another poorly conceived, misinformed unconstitutional, kneejerk reaction to a problem mostly invented by the media and politicians. This reeks of preening and posturing. I hope Arnie is smart enough to veto it. __________________ The man in black fled across the desert, and the gunslinger followed. Stephen King

09-11-2005, 02:51 PM	#7 (permalink)
spongy Psycho	I know a few gaming companies have offices in california. I would think they would be up in arms (not to mention on the phone to sacramento) about this. __________________ The man in black fled across the desert, and the gunslinger followed. Stephen King

09-11-2005, 03:13 PM	#8 (permalink)
cyrnel Adequate Location: In my angry-dome.	Absolutely, business must always fight restrictions. It affects their profits when minors are required to ask an adult to approve purchases. Hell, it affects purchases anytime someone else is involved in the decision. In the case of games, minors are their market. For most of the games in question, marketing strategies revolve around 12-25yo's, so the last thing they want is a aging primary decision-maker getting in the works. Now they have to sell you, and convince your parents it's good for you. Those messages are often at odds and if your parents care it's probably not an automatic sell. That can be good or bad. Don't mean to be pedantic, but realize who the ESA is fighting for. BTW, how many here have raised children? (ducking) The Schwartzenegger aspect is interesting. He must feel very stretched at this point. __________________ There are a vast number of people who are uninformed and heavily propagandized, but fundamentally decent. The propaganda that inundates them is effective when unchallenged, but much of it goes only skin deep. If they can be brought to raise questions and apply their decent instincts and basic intelligence, many people quickly escape the confines of the doctrinal system and are willing to do something to help others who are really suffering and oppressed." -Manufacturing Consent: Noam Chomsky and the Media, p. 195

09-13-2005, 06:02 AM	#13 (permalink)
hulk C'mon, just blow it. Location: Perth, Australia	Why implement a new rating system, and not enfore the ESRB system already in place? From what I can infer, it's either adults-only or not. __________________ "'There's a tendency among the press to attribute the creation of a game to a single person,' says Warren Spector, creator of Thief and Deus Ex." -- From an IGN game review.

09-11-2005, 11:58 AM	#4 (permalink)
FngKestrel Junkie	Heh, I should just bold the entire comment from the ESA. Edit: I did.

09-11-2005, 12:55 PM	#6 (permalink)
FngKestrel Junkie	But this sort of thing needs to be nipped in the bud. Why aren't more people writing their congress people and letting them know their displeasure? The attacks on the game industry are going to continue until idiotic parents can find a new scapegoat. And most idiotic parents are more vocal than the people they're "protecting," so if people genuinely care, they need to fight back. For California, you can look up your representatives by going here.

09-11-2005, 03:56 PM	#9 (permalink)
Nikilidstrom Stick it in your five hole! Location: Michigan, USA	The question isn't who should or shouldn't be protected, but who should be doing the protecting. Should the retail outlets be forced to ensure that your kids don't see violent material, or should the parents be forced to actually participate in their children's lives and make informed decisions on what they want them viewing? As a human services worker who works with adjudicated youth, I can promise you, in my experience, it is not the violent content of any media that caused the kids I see to violate the law. It is the distinct lack of interaction between the parent(s) and their children. The parents not only fail to monitor what it is their kids see, hear, and experience, but also fail to help them interperet and learn from these same experiences. The kids are forced to establish their own morals from misconstrued information and childish needs/tendencies. The ESRB ratings are clearly printed on every case, easily distinguishing violent and offensive media from those geared toward a younger audience, if the parents truly cared enough to check. This legislation will only help parents feel better about ignoring their children's lives and interests, and in the end, benefits no one except those politicians trying not to look so impotent and apathetic to their constituants before re-election.

09-13-2005, 08:50 AM	#14 (permalink)
japhyryder no one special Location: Charlotte, NC	I agree the bills need to be done, to bad parents still won't pay attention to the "new" rating __________________ It's only entertainment, someone's sick idea of a joke.

09-13-2005, 03:06 PM	#17 (permalink)
docbungle It's all downhill from here Location: Denver	I don't understand what the big deal is here. They want to slap a sticker on certain games? Sort of like the 'Explicit Lyrics' sticker that can be found on one out of every 3 cds I buy? Big deal. I remember how everyone was OUTRAGED when Tipper Gore headed the whole 'Explicit Lyrics' sticker brigade, and now no one hardly even notices. It has become meaningless. As long as these stickers are put on the games they are supposed to be put on, after a certain amount of time it won't even matter anymore. And all they're doing is making it harder for kids to get ahold of these games, just like rap cds, rated-r or -x movies and whatever else can be used as a scapegoat for crime and debouchery. Heavy metal couldn't be the scapegoat forever, but it sure didn't go anywhere because of a little sticker. Neither will video games. Relax. __________________ Bad Luck City

09-15-2005, 04:21 AM	#18 (permalink)
Seer666 Oh dear God he breeded Location: Arizona	Why the fuck does everything have to be "about the children". Fuck the children. You don't want them playing games like that, be a parent and exersize some control over them. Just another way to to try and leglaise morals and fuck with the rest of us. "1984 is gone forget aout Big Brother Welcome to the 90's where the goverment's you mother good bye freedom Hello mom!" Scaterbrain __________________ Bad spellers of the world untie!!! I am the one you warned me of I seem to have misplaced the bullet with your name on it, but I have a whole box addressed to occupant.

10-19-2005, 10:30 AM	#21 (permalink)
CyCo PL Addict Location: Tulsa, OK	What, so they're basically banning M-rated games from being sold to people under 18? And what, may I ask, is exactly wrong with this? If the kid wants the game bad enough, the parents will get it for him anyway. I work at a movie theater, and we don't let people under 17 into R-rated movies, unless they're with a parent or legal guardian (which isn't easy to prove, but you can normally tell if the kid is with his/her parent or just a friend that's over 18). People don't seem to have a problem with this rule, so why is prohibiting the sales of M-rated games to underaged people bad?

10-19-2005, 10:53 AM	#22 (permalink)
japhyryder no one special Location: Charlotte, NC	It doesn't hurt anything except lazy parents. Have to get involved with there kids how horrible is that __________________ It's only entertainment, someone's sick idea of a joke.

10-19-2005, 11:25 AM	#23 (permalink)
Da Munk Crazy	There's nothing wrong with the idea behind this, that young children should not be exposed to certain material without parental consent. What I don't understand is why they feel the need to legislate it. The ESRB is already in place to rate games and most retailers already follow those guildelines and won't sell M or AO rated games to minors. I see no reason to get the government involved when there is already a voluntary system in place that does the exact same thing. If the MPAA is good enough for movies, why isn't the ESRB good enough for games?

10-19-2005, 02:06 PM	#24 (permalink)
FngKestrel Junkie	Do movie theaters get fined for allowing children under 17 into R rated movies? I'm not asking for exemption for video games, but for consistency in treatment of media. Last edited by FngKestrel; 10-19-2005 at 02:09 PM..

10-20-2005, 01:23 AM	#25 (permalink)
hulk C'mon, just blow it. Location: Perth, Australia	Considering parents are present at 92% of the time their kids are buying games (Source), I'd say it's empty legislation looking to accomplish, well, precisely jack shit. Utter BS. __________________ "'There's a tendency among the press to attribute the creation of a game to a single person,' says Warren Spector, creator of Thief and Deus Ex." -- From an IGN game review.

10-20-2005, 04:37 AM	#26 (permalink)
djflish The Mighty Boosh Location: I mostly come out at night, mostly...	Thank god I live in the UK. Games over here are just given the same certificates as films are, simple as that. __________________ Europes two great narcotics, Alcohol and Christianity. I know which one I prefer.

10-22-2005, 11:30 PM	#28 (permalink)
Dragonknight Insane Location: Hawaii	Is it just me or are there new laws comming out that are basically raising out children? If a mother/father doesn't want there kid to play a game for any given reason then they should take an active role in not allowing them to play the games. Do we actually need a law telling us this.... I swear people are getting so lazy in life.

10-23-2005, 08:59 PM	#29 (permalink)
t3m3st Vroom! Location: Toronto	It's my understanding that this law has nothing to do with the ESRB, and everything to do with violence. So that if I was 17, and I was interested in buying a game about abusing women and animals by rolling them up into giant balls and throwing them into the vaccuum of space, thus killing them, I would need to have my parents to be there, even though the game is rated E. I'm talking about Katamari Damacy. They don't actually specify whose rating, or whose definition of violence or unacceptable acts they are following. Alot of the people campaigning against videogames are saying the ESRB isn't doing their job. When I was 16, there was an N64 game that encouraged me to beat up animals, women, and children, and was rated E for everyone by the ESRB. I'm talking about Super Smash Brothers. The level of violence in a game depends on who is analyzing the content, and in what way they choose to analyze it. One argument that is often made is that "in Grand Theft Auto, you need to rape women to win". Merriam Webster defines rape as: to seize or take away by force. So when I carjack a woman in the game, is this not rape? __________________ I do it for the rare drops