The new forums will be named Coin Return (based on the most recent vote)! You can check on the status and timeline of the transition to the new forums here.
The Guiding Principles and New Rules document is now in effect.
Help Defend Video Games In The Supreme Court!
Usiel
Registered User new member
Registered User new member
Arnold Schwarzenegger, '80s action star and governor of California, has passed a law banning the sale of "violent" video games to anyone under the age of 18. This is more than just enforcing the ESRB ratings; this is banning all minors from buying all games that could be considered "violent".
This law has been challenged and is now on its way to being tested in the Supreme Court. The National Youth Rights Association is currently working on an amicus brief to oppose this law, and we need help from the rest of the gaming community. We are collecting testimonies on the social, artistic, and especially political value of video games to prove to the court that their distribution should be protected under the First Amendment.
The media has been demonizing gamers ever since someone decided that Doom caused Columbine. Getting the Supreme Court to strike down this law and admit the value of video games would be a huge step forward in fighting these misconceptions. This is our chance to clear the name of video games and protect the First Amendment rights of young gamers. This could be the first step in government regulation of video games that could affect all gamers, regardless of age. Our brief is coming along, but we really do need your help. The more testimonies we have, the better our chances of winning over the court.
For more information and to submit your testimony, visit:
http://blog.youthrights.org/2010/08/11/schwarzenegger_v_gamers_help_us_fight_back/
This law has been challenged and is now on its way to being tested in the Supreme Court. The National Youth Rights Association is currently working on an amicus brief to oppose this law, and we need help from the rest of the gaming community. We are collecting testimonies on the social, artistic, and especially political value of video games to prove to the court that their distribution should be protected under the First Amendment.
The media has been demonizing gamers ever since someone decided that Doom caused Columbine. Getting the Supreme Court to strike down this law and admit the value of video games would be a huge step forward in fighting these misconceptions. This is our chance to clear the name of video games and protect the First Amendment rights of young gamers. This could be the first step in government regulation of video games that could affect all gamers, regardless of age. Our brief is coming along, but we really do need your help. The more testimonies we have, the better our chances of winning over the court.
For more information and to submit your testimony, visit:
http://blog.youthrights.org/2010/08/11/schwarzenegger_v_gamers_help_us_fight_back/
Usiel on
0
Posts
It seems kind of funny that he would do this, considering the content of most of his movies.
To be serious, I can't see this law standing since what is consider "too violent" is ambiguous at best.
If it's adhering to the ESRB rating of M, then I have absolutely no qualms about prohibiting the sale of M rated games to minors. You wouldn't let them see an R rated movie, so why let them play an M rated game?
I see no reason why it wouldn't be this time. Plus, as NickTheNewbie mentioned, if the law does adhere to the ESRB rating system then I've no problem with it either.
edit- From what I can tell they tried passing a law like this in 2005, 2008, and 2009.
Do games with mature content have a rating system that is legally enforced in America? For example, in the UK stuff that is 15/18 has BBFC ratings on it, making it illegal for retailers to sell those products to people under the age of the ratings, apposed to the PEGI one which is recommended/advisory only.
Because it's not against the law for a minor to see an R rated movie, or to listen to a CD with a lyrics advisory, or to read a violent comic book. This should be self-regulated, just like every other entertainment industry.
Also, you know, first amendment...
https://steamcommunity.com/profiles/76561197970666737/
Well I'm not sure exactly what it is that stops movie theaters from showing rated R movies to kids, but I think it would be advisable for it to start happening for games.
Well the Rights of Minors is slightly different than the Rights of an Adult.
It's illegal for them to smoke, drink, watch porn, and own a firearm (I believe anyway).
Do Minors do all those things? Yes. That's why I find it so absurd that these people think a Law would stop them from playing violent games. If anything it'd probably just make violent games more desirable.
What stops them from watching an R rated movie? Ticket sellers/checkers. It's not illegal for them to watch an R rated movie.
What stops a minor from buying a violent video game? The salesperson. It works the exact same way.
I really wish game retailers would direct their employees to enforce this more. I remember the days of yore when I worked at a gamestop and informed the mother of the content of that GTA game they were buying for their 13 year old..... that mother was none too happy of what her son had asked her to buy for him.
Not to mention a child can get into one with a parent/guardian regardless. Same applies to video games.
It's been like that at Gamestop for at least that long. I left Gamestop 3 years ago, but worked for them for 11 years before that. Once the ratings system went into effect, the company demanded everyone check IDs.
https://steamcommunity.com/profiles/76561197970666737/
Old people like Arnold.
I'm pretty sure the stores get fined heavily for selling to underaged kids, so I don't see a reason for this system not to be used in the US. If you are underaged and determined to buy a game, get someone else to buy it for you or order it online, but I have seen this system work plenty of times over here in terms of stopping some underaged kids buying/playing violent games.
It's even easier to get into a Rated R movie than buying a videogame. You just buy a ticket for whatever Shrek is out, then go to the rated R flick. For a game, if the cashier says no, it's no.
But then we have min. wage cashiers who sometimes are underage themselves, make min. wage, and don't give a flying goose what the ESRB says. So I can certainly see why M rated games are sold to minors when the gatekeepers are the very same people you are trying to not sell to.
On the other hand, I hate playing games with kids. I think gamespy and xbl and the psn should impose some kind of age gate, where everyone under 18 is in their own ghetto, and we can play without getting called the n-word by prepubescents.
I love a convenient target as much as the next person, but I'm not seeing much evidence that this is "Arnold's fault" as it were. I guess that's a discussion for D&D or something.
While video games are probably protected speech, this doesn't prevent state or federal laws that regulate the sale of video games. Minors are a different subset of the population, and the justification for regulating sales to minors is probably along the lines of regulating sales of cigarettes or firearms or alcohol. Not sure what an "internet comment blog" is supposed to accomplish, either. I'm not saying I advocate such laws (I could care less what minors play in their copious amounts of free time), but it's something to take into account within the discussion.
3DS FC: 5343-7720-0490
Eh... not unless he's advocated that those movies should have been shown to minors, I'd think.
So you get your parents/guardian to go buy the games. Then they know that the game they bought you is however violent and won't be all confused when they find out you're beating hookers to pieces.
Yet, even with these policies and good employees, there are a ton of adolescents on XBL and such that obviously are playing games they don't meet the "age requirement" for. So would this law prevent more of these guys on XBL? I'd like to think so but probably not, since the parents that bought these games (or the retailers who sold these games) just don't care enough anyways.
While I agree it will be overturned, it won't be overturned because of censorship.
There are already plenty of laws that limit what a minor can and can't do.
Americans have the right to bear arms, that doesn't mean a 14 year old can walk in to a gun store and buy a handgun.
Not that I am equating guns and video games. I'm just saying there is already precedents for restricting the rights of minors in the U.S. From what I can tell, all the times this law (or one similar) has be overturned it was because the wording of "to violent or ultra violent" was to vague.
Yes, I don't see what the big deal is with this law. From what I can see, they're only banning minors from buying violent games. It's not as bad as what we're experiencing in Venezuela where NO ONE can buy ANY kind of videogames that have guns or other kinds of weapons (even T or E-rated ones), and they gave them a retarded classification (ballistic videogames, WTF).
I really want to buy Sin & Punishment 2, and Other M, but there is no way to do that right now unless someone does something against this retarded law. The only videogames being sold at stores are kids games, sports games, Marios and Pokémon.
The problem is that this sort of law creates a chilling effect on the industry. When an industry is nebulously under attack for (what is essentially) creating pornography, the industry as a whole is forced to self-censor. No good can come of this.
https://steamcommunity.com/profiles/76561197970666737/
what's up with that, parents
Doc: That's right, twenty five years into the future. I've always dreamed on seeing the future, looking beyond my years, seeing the progress of mankind. I'll also be able to see who wins the next twenty-five world series.
From what I can tell, all it is is that they're putting into law something that already happens (in the UK, it's already in law, I believe) - ie. you don't sell 18/M games to minors.
From what people have said in this thread, the major retailers already refuse to sell M games to minors anyway, so what exactly is the problem?
It'll probably get overturned because of the vague wording anyway, but still, I don't see it as censorship in the slightest. Minors can play the games, they just can't buy them.
This. In my younger days I used to work at a Gamestop and it demonstrated to me the horrors of the ESRB rating system. Kids would want to pass up on getting some great games for awful games with an M rating because those were the REAL good ones.
The ESRB rating structure only served to make kids more aware and more desirous of games with questionable content. Additionally the children were far more well versed in the system than their parents who were usually completely ignorant of it. By making an actual standing law against the games it would only further enhance said effect.
Of course ultimately it will not matter as this law has no chance of standing up to challenge.
Such a bill also introduces the concept of banning other material based solely on moral grounds. For example, books. People are CONSTANTLY trying to ban certain books from libraries, and to give those efforts legal creedence is the same as banning video game sales to minors.
It is censorship of the worst, most insidious kind, playing off the instinct to "protect" children in order to further a moral agenda.
It sickens me, and it sickens me when people who should know better support it, whether out of ignorance or apathy.
I'm guessing Mario counts as a violent video game then?
This is a stupid, stupid law. And yes, Arnold should be yelled at for signing it when it's clearly retarded and treads on a lot of censorship toes.