Become a fan of Slashdot on Facebook

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
The Courts Government News Entertainment Games

ESA to Sue California Over Violent Game Law 347

Posted by Zonk from the finally dept.
Advtg writes "In response to last week's bill banning the sale of violent video games (/. coverage), the Entertainment Software Association has announced that they are preparing to sue the State of California. From the article, "The Entertainment Software Association is planning to sue the State of California over the passage of AB1179, a bill that has outlawed the sale of violent video games to minors. President Douglas Lowenstein said that he 'intends to file a lawsuit to strike this law down,' and added that he is 'confident that we will prevail.' The article goes on to show how muddy the law is in comparison to other laws meant to protect minors."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

ESA to Sue California Over Violent Game Law More

ESA to Sue California Over Violent Game Law

Comments Filter:

  • Clarity is not the common case (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Agelmar ( 205181 ) * on Tuesday October 11, 2005 @03:26PM (#13767970)
    Regardless of whether one agrees with the banning of sales to minors or not, I think it is somewhat one-sided to only look at the relatively clear alcohol laws. Looking at the Children's Internet Protection Act, for example, reveals that such vague terminology is not unique to this act. CIPA includes language such as the following:

    (2) HARMFUL TO MINORS.--The term ``harmful to minors'' means any picture, image, graphic imagefile, or other visual depiction that--
    (A) taken as a whole and with respect to minors, appeals to a prurient interest in nudity, sex,or excretion;
    (B) depicts, describes, or represents, in a patently offensive way with respect to what is suitable for minors, an actual or simulated sexual act or sexual contact, actual or simulated normal or perverted sexual acts, or a lewd exhibition of the genitals; and
    (C) taken as a whole, lacks serious literary, artistic, political, or scientific value as to minors.

    What is "political value as to minors"? Minors lack the right to vote, so political value to me is quite unclear. What is scientific value? Is breast cancer research of scientific value as to a minor, who is unlikely to contract such disease at a minor age? While slightly clearer than the California act, I think CIPA is a good example of the fact that laws protecting minors are often ambiguous, and that this is not groundbreaking legislation in terms of lack of clarity. Are we to say that all legislation must be binary? You're 21 or you're not? If so, we need to re-write a significant portion of our laws in the US.

    • Re:Clarity is not the common case (Score:5, Interesting)

      by hesiod ( 111176 ) on Tuesday October 11, 2005 @03:29PM (#13768005)
      > What is "political value as to minors"?

      Could be "Civil Disobedience," as in looking at pictures in protest because they are banned.

      Might not stand up in court though...

    • Porn maybe a better parallel (Score:5, Interesting)

      by Nerdposeur ( 910128 ) on Tuesday October 11, 2005 @03:39PM (#13768113) Journal
      Selling porn to children is something most of us agree is Bad. But porn could be as hard to define as video-game violence. The famous quote is "I know it when I see it."

      Violence is hard to define, if you're trying to separate the "squashing goombas flat in Mario" type from the "setting people on fire and laughing at their cries for help" type. It's going to take some subjective words like "sadistic" and "intentionally causing suffering."

      But if it's hard to define legally, I don't think it's that hard for most people to see that Mario and GTA are totally different things in the hands of a little kid. The question is: can we make it legally clear?

      • Re:Porn maybe a better parallel (Score:5, Insightful)

        by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday October 11, 2005 @03:49PM (#13768218)
        I don't think it's that hard for most people to see that Mario and GTA are totally different things in the hands of a little kid.

        Agreed.

        Violence in GTA clearly has consequences, at least for the victims, and it's evident from public reaction that people empathise with the victims in GTA.

        In Mario the violence is presented almost whimsically. All fun, no blood, no consequences. It's obvious from the lack of public reaction that people don't empathise with the victims in Mario and are happy to slaughter at will - but that's okay because the victims are different from us. Bad evil different things.

        It's clear that one of these games carries a moral.

        • Re:Porn maybe a better parallel (Score:4, Funny)

          by radarsat1 ( 786772 ) on Tuesday October 11, 2005 @05:44PM (#13769342) Homepage

          In Mario the violence is presented almost whimsically. All fun, no blood, no consequences.

          Tell that to Mario.

          http://www.theonion.com/content/node/28338

        • I'd say that most people are a little irrational about good and evil.

          A *lot* of people (anyone that describes themselves as a moral absolutist is a good candidate, but most people probably vaguely have some opinion along these lines) feel that we order society based on morality.

          I'd say that morality arises to address social problems. Something causes major social problems? It becomes "bad". Sure, sometimes government or other social structures can solve social problems, but making people irrationally do

        • Squashed bugs (Score:3, Interesting)

          by phorm ( 591458 )
          Last time I checked squashing some bugs or other sucks things wasn't comparable to killing people either. At the same time, it's how the violence is portrayed... it's perfectly alright to masticate on a piece of deer steak after going out and shooting it blammo, dead... but if you were running around thumping wild animals with a sledgehammer it might be considered less so.

          Violence in mario also has a degree of seperation from reality. While the GTA variety may imply negetive consequences if you beat the

      • Re:Porn maybe a better parallel (Score:5, Insightful)

        by rainman_bc ( 735332 ) on Tuesday October 11, 2005 @03:53PM (#13768250)
        I'd rather kids see porn than senseless killing and violence.

        I'd rather we have a bunch of horny kids out there humping than have a bunch of violent ones out there killing each other.

        And don't give me the crap about porn leading to rape. There's a lot of soft core porn out there where the man puts the woman on a pedastel and respects her while he makes love to her.

      • Re:Porn maybe a better parallel (Score:5, Insightful)

        by CaptDeuce ( 84529 ) on Tuesday October 11, 2005 @10:53PM (#13770923) Journal
        Selling porn to children is something most of us agree is Bad.

        But can said Most be able to explain Why? It harms children? How? I've yet to see a satisfactory explanation

        The best counter argument I've seen was in a TV program called "The History of Pornagraphy" (something like that). The introductory episode was enough to really put it all into perspective for me.

        Pornography, it seems, was invented in Victorian England. No, not erotica, pornography. Erotica titillates and has been around since... well, as long as people's arms have been long enough to reach their genitalia. Pornography is a specific notion that erotica is defacto harmful to women, children, and less than serious minded men.

        For some reason there's a general notion that persists in English culture today that it's Bad for people, and especially children, to get too excited. Stimulating wallpaper should never be used in a child's room, nor should they be fed spicy food. I first heard this from someone who was born in the US but her parents emigrated from England. I thought she was joking.

        It's all really too bizarre. And since I don't have my references handy, I'll just have to stop here.

    • Regardless of whether one agrees with the banning of sales to minors or not, I think it is somewhat one-sided to only look at the relatively clear alcohol laws.
      I agree and as we learned in my courts class laws are often times written very vague and are allowed to be defined more clearly by case law.

  • I don't see the big deal (Score:5, Interesting)

    by Punkrokkr ( 592052 ) on Tuesday October 11, 2005 @03:30PM (#13768015) Homepage
    The law doesn't say that it will ban the sales of games with just violence in them, but heinous and sexual violence. If parents don't have the sense enough to not let their kids play games with that in them, then I wonder if the government should step in. We are talking about minors here.

    On the other hand, maybe there should be two different levels of minors. Minor minors would be under 12, regular minors would be 12-17. Regular minors could buy these games, minor minors could not.
    • The "torture" part of the law as written would cover the E rated game that I'm playing right now that looks like a disney flick and has about as much violence as one.

    • Re:I don't see the big deal (Score:5, Insightful)

      by SomeoneGotMyNick ( 200685 ) on Tuesday October 11, 2005 @03:47PM (#13768202) Journal
      but heinous and sexual violence. If parents don't have the sense enough to not let their kids play games with that in them, then I wonder if the government should step in.

      My son doesn't have any kids his age to play with in the neighborhood. I tend to relax my concerns when he does play with a neighbor kid who lives with his Grandmother when visiting his Father (divorced parents), who also lives at Grandmother's place. The father is never home, but buys his 7 year old kid any game for the PC or PS2, regardless of the ESRB rating.

      It took me some time to explain to my son what it is he saw in the Grand Theft Auto game (knife weilding punks cutting off hands). The Grandmother understands my concern and doesn't allow T or up rated games to be played when my son is over there. The father couldn't care less. Eventually, the lack of parenting on his part will disturb the child mentally and I may find myself telling my son he can't play with the kid anymore.

      Meanwhile, I try to learn more about what interests my son the most and have fun learning or trying new things with him to keep his mind off the other boy's actions. Things like real auto racing games that don't involve cutting throats.

      I agree that some government intervention would work if it's not abused. The risk of abuse is still high, unfortunately. I can see someone turning in a parent out of spite on unfounded accusations.

      • Re:I don't see the big deal (Score:4, Interesting)

        by Hatta ( 162192 ) on Tuesday October 11, 2005 @05:52PM (#13769417) Journal
        The father is never home, but buys his 7 year old kid any game for the PC or PS2, regardless of the ESRB rating....

        Eventually, the lack of parenting on his part will disturb the child mentally

        Oh please! Children learn to differentiate between fantasy and reality. You learned to right? The content of their imaginations doesn't affect that process. It's part of developmental biology.

        Besides, it sounds to me like HE's the one doing the parenting, and you're just letting the ESRB parent for you. Playing GTA is nothing more than a modern cowboys and indians. And kids know this.
        • Oh please! Children learn to differentiate between fantasy and reality. You learned to right? The content of their imaginations doesn't affect that process. It's part of developmental biology. Besides, it sounds to me like HE's the one doing the parenting, and you're just letting the ESRB parent for you. Playing GTA is nothing more than a modern cowboys and indians. And kids know this.

          Being a parent, I've always wondered about this. If we hide everything that is bad from our children, how will they learn
        • Besides, it sounds to me like HE's the one doing the parenting, and you're just letting the ESRB parent for you. Playing GTA is nothing more than a modern cowboys and indians. And kids know this.

          I should get a second cup of coffee because maybe I missed something. You conclude that the other kid's father is doing the parenting by buying his kid whatever game he wants, regardless of voilence content, and letting the grandmother babysit while he's away all the time?

          Please explain the logic underlying that con
    • . If parents don't have the sense enough to not let their kids play games with that in them, then I wonder if the government should step in.

      Just because you and me are good parents doesn't mean our neighbours are. If my neighbour lets his kids play violent video games and use drugs, his kids might still cause society as a whole harm. Sometimes it is important for the government to come up with policy to protect us. Sometimes it goes too far.

      IMO, violence on TV, movies, and video games isn't appropriate f
    • This law is perfectly reasonable. The problem is that it discriminates against the games industry - and there is cross-industry competition you must consider. If this law is to be applied to games, then it should be applied to _all_ forms of media - movies, graphic books, even albums. To do otherwise discriminates unfairly against the games industry for sensationalist reasons.

      There is no reason that child-media-control (or censorship, if you will) should care what the form of the media is. It is both un
    • One of the problems with this approach is in the details.

      Age verification is workable for adults, because the vast majority of them have a driver's license, or some form of photo ID that lets people feel as though there's some official stamp of approval on the ID, that the birth date there is what it's supposed to be, and the store clerk's backside is covered.

      For minors, though - considering that in most states, a teenager has to be at least 15 to get a full driver's license - the matter is stickier. What I

  • Not muddy at all... (Score:4, Funny)

    by fragmentate ( 908035 ) * <jdspilled.gmail@com> on Tuesday October 11, 2005 @03:31PM (#13768020) Journal
    ...am I the only person who finds notions of pain and suffering odd in what is effectively non-reality? Can you intend to cause pain to something that, well, doesn't feel or perceive pain?
    They can only be talking about that very fringe of society that lives vicariously through their in-game characters. I don't remember any of the kids around here (I have a 10yr. old) mistaking any of the gaming as "real." Yet, here they are discussing it as though we were talking about the torture and elimination of... pixels?

    Clearly parents aren't responsible enough to make sure their kids aren't deranged, and that they do not feed their psychoses with violent video games.

    The only solution is obvious, let a government entity dictate it for us! They've clearly demonstrated tremendous judgement, and organizational skills!

  • While I agree that steps should be taken... (Score:3, Interesting)

    by jferris ( 908786 ) on Tuesday October 11, 2005 @03:31PM (#13768022) Homepage
    ...I am glad that there is an effort to strike this down. The law is so widely open to interpretation that it provides no enforcable measures by which to "draw the line".

    The fact that the law mentions "standards" and "values" in determining which video games qualify really lead me to believe that this is just a "feel good" sort of law that is there to appease the people who want legislation, without actually having any sort of enforcable merit.

    And no, I am not a lawyer. But I did stay at a Holiday Inn Express last night.

    • The law is so widely open to interpretation that it provides no enforcable measures by which to "draw the line".

      It isn't just standards and values that are vague. Whether the violence is good or bad depends on your point of view.

      Consider this child's description of a toy:

      "Haven't you seen the Haibo doll? It's like a pet, a robot pet. You have to feed it and pet it or else it dies, and it's the coolest thing ever! Santa has to bring me one!"

      Sounds like a nice, wholesome toy, huh? Now consider this descript
    • The law is so widely open to interpretation that it provides no enforcable measures by which to "draw the line".

      But from an objective point of view, isn't that better than not drawing *any* line at all?

      Just a thought.

  • Videogames reflect life (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Work Account ( 900793 ) on Tuesday October 11, 2005 @03:31PM (#13768025) Journal
    There's nothing in Grand Theft Auto that doesn't happen every day in Southern California.

    If it offends you, do something about the real crimes that occur, don't take it out on videogame makers.
    • Oh yeah. I steal tanks every time I visit LA...

      Really, though, this law should not have been passed.
    • There's nothing in Grand Theft Auto that doesn't happen every day in Southern California.

      Good God, I realised there was a massive crime problem down there, but surely people don't have sex too?!

      Truly, America is doomed!

    • Re:Videogames reflect life (Score:4, Insightful)

      by rainman_bc ( 735332 ) on Tuesday October 11, 2005 @04:00PM (#13768328)
      If it offends you, do something about the real crimes that occur, don't take it out on videogame makers.

      Don't you think there's something wrong with glorifying these acts? I mean, we are responsible enough to understand that stealing and violence are wrong, but are kids? There's a real correlation between kids' watching violence and kids' violent behaviour.

      Perhaps this open approach to violence isn't working, and the state of California recognizes this. Kudos to them for making an attempt to curb teen violence.

      • Re:Videogames reflect life (Score:4, Insightful)

        by sqlrob ( 173498 ) on Tuesday October 11, 2005 @04:17PM (#13768500)
        The influence of violent media on children's behavior is pretty low on the list, somewhere around 11th IIRC.

        Number one being parents. Doesn't it make more sense to legislate that parents actually parent?
        • Yeah, but the government can't control parent's behaviour. There's a strong correlation between children who watch violence and children who are violent.

          On the list of influences, one must recognize which ones the government has control over. Like I said, it's something. Teen violence today is quite deplorable.
      • Is there a real correlation between watching lots of porn, and having lots of sex ?

        Is there a real correlation between attending lots of church, and being full of compassion towards people different than themselves ?

        Is there a real correlation between parents not reading the label, and the kids being exposed to items they aren't mature enough for ?

        Give teens a reason to be proud of themselves. Stop harrassing kids for being kids. Damn near anything that involves breathing and moving at the same time is il
        • I haven't read any info on the correlations you mention, but I posted this link [aacap.org] above. There's a plethora of articles that draw that correlation. Granted correlation != causation; the former is much easier to prove than the latter.

          However the case is compelling, and why wait for a proof of causation before you take some kind of action? If curbing children's access to video game violence can save even on kid's life, I'm all for it. Restricting access to violent video games surely won't harm any child wil
      • Ditto. The problem is the games glorifying such act. Nobody is denying the existence of those crimes, and the need to act on those crimes. But by the lines of thought of original post that videogames reflect life, then there's nothing wrong with video game maker creating games on stuff like drug-traffik, gang-rape and market/sell to minors.

    • Re:Videogames reflect life (Score:4, Insightful)

      by Maxo-Texas ( 864189 ) on Tuesday October 11, 2005 @05:01PM (#13768992)
      In the -real- world when a couple thugs break out AK-47's and body armor they hurt a lot of people and then they bleed to death on the street shot in the ankle. Or they get the hell beat out of them. Or they get raped in jail.

      Video games do not show the consequences in proportion to the crimes that take place in the games. In the real world- when you run you often get caught or killed in an accident. I had a friend who tried to run on a motercycle 3 times- they had patrol cars and helicopters and they caught him every time. 3rd time he lost the motorcycle and got to walk. Spent some time in jail too

  • In my mind... (Score:4, Interesting)

    by GiorgioG ( 225675 ) on Tuesday October 11, 2005 @03:32PM (#13768033) Homepage
    It's the parent's responsibility to say what their kids should and shouldn't buy. If I feel that I can give my kid $50 and know that he's not going to buy something stupid (drugs, etc.) then I trust that he knows right from wrong enough that some violent game won't make him decide to go postal in the real world.

  • Bad law, no cookie. (Score:5, Insightful)

    by doublem ( 118724 ) on Tuesday October 11, 2005 @03:33PM (#13768042) Homepage Journal
    We MUST water down all entertainment to protect the children!!

    Won't anything think of the Children???

    Personally, I'd favor a law that enforced the existing video game ratings, instead of the vague "You could make a bland football game illegal with this" law California passed.

    On the other hand, if they made it illegal to sell a video game to a 15 year old that's been rated as "Mature" then I'd consider that far more reasonable. The ratings tend to be a good way of estimating a game's age appropriateness, but they need some enforcement.

    • Re:Bad law, no cookie. (Score:4, Insightful)

      by garcia ( 6573 ) on Tuesday October 11, 2005 @03:44PM (#13768165)
      Personally, I'd favor a law that enforced the existing video game ratings, instead of the vague "You could make a bland football game illegal with this" law California passed.

      Personally, if I were a CA resident I'd favor a law that fixed any one of the 1000s of other far more important issues that they have there. Instead, they are wasting valuable time and taxpayer dollars on something that should be taken care of by the parents of the video game players.

      If they parents of any particular video game purchaser don't care then why should the government?

      SMALLER GOVERNMENT not bigger. Repeat... SMALLER, not bigger! Good.
    • The ratings tend to be a good way of estimating a game's age appropriateness, but they need some enforcement.

      That seems to be a very common attitude. Why does no one ask for actual evidence of harm to minors before codifying the ESRB ratings in the law?

      You do realize that MPAA movie ratings don't carry the force of law, right?

      That they were introduced by the motion picture industry in response to the same legislative threats that led to the formation of the ESRB in the first place?

      The only difference I can
      • There are no such stats.

        It's all about appearance. Columbine and similar incidents have the be BLAMED om something, since most Americans can't take responsibility. The kids didn't become evil murderers on their own, the thinking goes, but something must have corrupted their sweet, innocent minds.

        Video games are a technology the older generation can have trouble with, so it's easy to demonize.

        Remember, Evil Presley was once considered a corrupting influence, and the hip waggle he used when dancing was cens
    • Given his resume, I find it kinda odd that the Governor would sign such a law.

  • This just in... (Score:5, Funny)

    by Mike Keester ( 911612 ) on Tuesday October 11, 2005 @03:33PM (#13768050)

    The two parties just announced that they will work out their differences over a cup of hot coffee

  • Sue? Just get ya homie's and do a drive-by. Oh... wait...

  • I have to say this is a much-needed law. (Score:5, Funny)

    by Peter Trepan ( 572016 ) on Tuesday October 11, 2005 @03:38PM (#13768107)
    After seeing the wild-eyed look kids get after they squash an innocent mushroom or turtle, after seeing the sadistic glee they obtain from causing Sebulba's pod racer to crash, I fear for our next generation.

    My question is, what are they going to do about black trenchcoats?

  • You knew this was coming... (Score:4, Insightful)

    by garylian ( 870843 ) on Tuesday October 11, 2005 @03:39PM (#13768114)
    They have to sue to overturn this. For one very major reason...

    Most of the games that feature this stuff, that stuff isn't of major interest to most people playing it.

    I mean, the "hot coffee" mod was pretty lame, all things considered. If you were tittilated by the poorly pixilated hanky panky that happened in that mod, you haven't seen a naked chick or had sex, and probably spank your monkey while sitting in a chat room.

    It's time to take the government out of parenting. Let the parents screw up if they want. I'm tired of paying babysitter money for brats that aren't mine.

  • Lowenstein has a Track Record Here (Score:5, Informative)

    by ewhac ( 5844 ) on Tuesday October 11, 2005 @03:46PM (#13768190) Homepage Journal
    I have little doubt the law will be struck down. Lowenstein and the ESA have an excellent track record of going into states that have enacted similar wrong-headed laws and had them struck down. Not only is it a clear violation of the First Amendment, it unfairly and unnecessarily targets video games, while leaving other forms of popular media (movies, books, music) unaddressed. From a legal standpoint, this is indefensible, so the state doesn't stand much of a chance.

    Schwab
    California Resident

  • For what it's worth, the criteria for this law are very similar to the FCC's profanity rules (through 1995 or so at any rate). The real problem in both cases is that everything is subjective and there is no formal review process in place to question uneducated rulings. Assuming games could be considered "art" or that a game may include content which is intended to provoke discussion, the possibility of hasty judgements resulting in 'improper' censorship are very real (assuming a store may not carry a game b

  • Considering Arnie is in charge.... (Score:4, Funny)

    by 8127972 ( 73495 ) on Tuesday October 11, 2005 @03:47PM (#13768203)
    ..... Maybe a BFG9000 would be more effective?

  • California's law makes me... (Score:4, Funny)

    by MightyYar ( 622222 ) on Tuesday October 11, 2005 @03:47PM (#13768205)
    ...want to KILL somebody.

  • Who are we really protecting? (Score:4, Insightful)

    by Torinir ( 870836 ) <torinir@@@gmail...com> on Tuesday October 11, 2005 @03:53PM (#13768253) Homepage Journal
    Is it really the minors that are being "protected?" Or is it protecting outdated/outmoded thinking by a large portion of the population in the state? Or is it protection the public's "right" to not have to think about what their children are doing?

    Come on, people... you can't legislate morality. It didn't work in the Prohibition Era, and it won't work here either. Young people, regardless of what the "moral high ground" would lead us to believe, don't require such close supervision regarding their entertainment choices. For the most part, kids are a little more astute than many people would give them credit for. Yes, for the extremely young children (under 10) there should be close parental supervision while online. Older children start understanding the difference between reality and what is portrayed as entertainment.

    This isn't to say that some kids will never grasp the concept that GTA or UTx or other games are not meant to be practiced in the real world, but those children require professional assistance, and not from a lawyer either.

    Government shouldn't be a substitute for common sense and good parenting, but it's trying too damned hard to be that way.
    • The politicians from the people who bankroll their election runs.
    • I'm not meaning to offer disrespect, but there have been cases where morality has been legislated, effectively. I point to the various Civil Rights Acts. (In fact, it was Senator Barry Goldwater who said that as he voiced his opposition to the Civil Rights Act of 1964.)

      That being said, I agree with you that the children aren't being given enough credit. As big a seller as GTA was/is, I think that the vast majority of children are probably uninterested in trying out any of the things depicted by GTA (includi
  • Mr. Lowenstein proceeded to give quite a rallying speech:

    "We are one people. With one will. One Resolve. One cause. Our enemies shall talk themselves
    to death. And we will bury them with their own confusion! We shall prevail!"

    About which time some mysterious running woman threw a hammer into the large projection monitor behind him.
  • ...including a severed arm tumble out of the back of a car on prime time TV but showing a pink dot on a female chest (as opposed to the SAME PINK DOT on a male chest) or using a short list of "bad" words- many not bad in other contexts gets everyone riled up.

    I don't think kids should know about sex or that kind of violence until they are 15 or 16. But in the real world- there are too many sources so why pick on video games over movies, television, radio, books, magazines, etc?

  • The law is a complete waste ... (Score:5, Insightful)

    by fuzzdawg ( 671742 ) on Tuesday October 11, 2005 @04:25PM (#13768607)
    ... of taxpayers dollars and time.

    While I worked at Gamestop, we couldn't sell M rated games to minors, but that sure as hell doesn't stop us from selling it to the parents who are standing right there with the kids that are playing the games.

    Besides, if the kids want the games they will get them whether there is a law slowing them down or not. Kids drink alcohol before they are 21, they smoke before they are 18 and get porn before they are 18 too.

    If it's a "knee jerk reaction" to the so called "Hot-Coffee" mod, the government is really out of touch more so that I thought before. Worrying about some lame-ass "porn" like that in GTA is retarded when the whole point of the series is shooting cops and selling drugs.

    Lawmakers really need to get in touch.

  • way too vague (you won't like this) (Score:3, Interesting)

    by FlippyTheSkillsaw ( 533983 ) on Tuesday October 11, 2005 @05:34PM (#13769257) Journal
    They are right, this bill is trying to clearly define things that are subjective.

    What happens when laws like this pass? We start making borderline games that will pass for sale to minors, but are just as bad AND large software companies will push a little cash one way or another to get their game an "okay."

    They should really ban the sale of electronic games to minors. If they want them, relatives can purchase for them. Unfortunately, the idea of a game is almost as vague. "Mouse Trap" is obviously a game, and it's probably not electronic, but what about "Operation?" What about today's fancy graphing calculators?

    Let's look at what the electronic violence bill hopes to do:
    -involve parents
    -prevent children from buying and playing "violent" video games that do shape their developing perspectives

    As for the arguments, here are some pre-argument questions:
    What part of growing up requires children the ability to play games?
        -look back a few generations to the people who grew up before video games existed
        -think third-world children

    Is it some sort of torture to disallow children access to games?
        -stop thinking about third-world children
        -think about children doing something that provides intellectual stimulation, like chasing each other or playing tag
        -if a child is tortured by their lack of playing, couldn't we call it an addiction?
        -the only time this will be torturous is if one child is allowed to play while another one watches

    Do video games have any truly positive impact on the development or well-being of a child?
        -so-called hand/eye co-ordination
        -entertainment
        -stress coping (fantasy worlds; places where they are in control of things)
        -keeps kids out of trouble (mischief and even drugs)
        -potential for learning something
        -potential for work creating or playing games (I'm stretching)

    Some negatives?
        -time consumption (starting a hobby young grants the hobbyist a grand advantage)
        -physical strain (hand, eye, and postural)
        -artificial reality during development can lead to psychological problems/disorders (ADD, addiction, and [meh]violence)
        -overload of entertainment may lead to disinterest in reality and a lack of motivation and inability to self-entertain
        -reliance on external device for stress coping

    I was even being pretty modest about the negatives.

  • The real problem (Score:3, Insightful)

    by Solr_Flare ( 844465 ) on Tuesday October 11, 2005 @05:34PM (#13769259)
    Is the Video Game publishers and stores not actively enforcing their Voluntary ratings system. The government gave the industry a chance years ago to leave it in their hands.

    But, as always, greed and making a buck in the short term won out and the industry ignored the potential consequences of what they were doing. The precident is already there...the movie industry is enforced already by a similar set of laws.

    All that needed to be done here was simply rate the games fairly, then don't sell the games with a certain rating to someone not the appropriate age. That's it.

    Yes, proper parenting is the most important thing here. Parents should be aware of what their kids are doing and take an active role in their child's life. But, all normal parents want(not the generation gap fanatics) is a rating system that gives them an idea of what they are buying, and a system that prevents children from buying stuff under their nose to make their job as parents easier so they don't have to worry about kids hiding stuff(we all know they do).

    That's all, and no the government doesn't need to be enforcing this, and I wish they weren't trying. But, it still is the publisher and retail seller's fault for blowing the chance they were given.
    • I'm sorry, but how are the publishers not enforcing their ratings system? Except in the recent GTA "Hot Coffee" fiasco (which is still slightly silly since the game was already rated M for Mature), the game publishers have abided by the ESRB's rating system and placed the rating on the box and then give the box to the retailer. The retailers are the ones who sell it to the public, and so are the ones capable of enforcing the ratings.

      If you talk with game developers, you find that a lot of changes are made

  • Proof? (Score:3, Interesting)

    by phorm ( 591458 ) on Tuesday October 11, 2005 @10:31PM (#13770851) Journal
    What happens when said clueless parent sues the game store anyways, because he/she bought the game for junior? How does one prove a video game store sold the game to a minor, and not a clueless parent. Is it guilt until proven innocent, or does the store have to prove they didn't sell the game to a minor? How about it the parent was present and consented to the sale (as tends to happen now).

    Perhaps game stores will start requiring a signature from adults buying mature-rated games? Not only is the definition of the games a little violent, but a lot of the particulars in how they will track such things are as well. Perhaps kids will get bootleggers to buy games for them. I couldn't see a kid confessing to getting "Jamie 18" from bootlegging the game for him, but rather just saying "I got it from EB." Of course it could just be that they will institute spot-checks with kid-agents?

    I can see a whole lot of ways this law isn't going to work...

Slashdot Top Deals

"The whole problem with the world is that fools and fanatics are always so certain of themselves, but wiser people so full of doubts." -- Bertrand Russell

Close