Club PA 2.0 has arrived! If you'd like to access some extra PA content and help support the forums, check it out at patreon.com/ClubPA
The image size limit has been raised to 1mb! Anything larger than that should be linked to. This is a HARD limit, please do not abuse it.
Our new Indie Games subforum is now open for business in G&T. Go and check it out, you might land a code for a free game. If you're developing an indie game and want to post about it, follow these directions. If you don't, he'll break your legs! Hahaha! Seriously though.
Our rules have been updated and given their own forum. Go and look at them! They are nice, and there may be new ones that you didn't know about! Hooray for rules! Hooray for The System! Hooray for Conforming!

New Bill Calls for Mandatory Video Game ID Checks

2456710

Posts

  • GyralGyral Registered User regular
    edited May 2008
    How easily people forget Custer's Revenge.

    Gyral on
    TFEOM_banner.jpg
  • CaedereCaedere S'no regrets BIRDIESRegistered User regular
    edited May 2008
    The thing that depresses me the most is how far, far too many people are willing to sacrifice or compromise basic liberties in exchange for "safety" or "protection" or "thinking of the children".

    It's clear that most people don't have a basic grasp of how free speech really works, and I wish there was some easy way to change that. :(

    Caedere on
    FWnykYl.jpg
  • CaedereCaedere S'no regrets BIRDIESRegistered User regular
    edited May 2008
    Raslin wrote: »
    Caedere wrote: »
    Ashendark wrote: »
    I'm all for it. There are simular laws restricting sale of rated R movies to minors right? The same should apply for games especially since the medium is so popular among them.

    No, there are not. It's voluntary.

    The government has no place regulating content that is protected under the First Amendment. At all.

    I have to pay tax on my newspaper.

    A bloo bloo bloo.

    That's a total non sequitur. Paying sales tax on a product - which, by the way, is state, not federal law - is in no way related to the First Amendment, or to restricting the sale of the newspaper to individuals.

    Try harder next time. ;)

    Caedere on
    FWnykYl.jpg
  • HenroidHenroid Internet Pariah Going nowhere, but fast.Registered User regular
    edited May 2008
    Caedere wrote: »
    The thing that depresses me the most is how far, far too many people are willing to sacrifice or compromise basic liberties in exchange for "safety" or "protection" or "thinking of the children".

    It's clear that most people don't have a basic grasp of how free speech really works, and I wish there was some easy way to change that. :(

    You seem to be taking this to an extreme level. Seriously, we're talking about carding for games that under 17 year olds are trying to buy. How is this terrible? Who is being hurt? Again, it's easy enough to arrange for someone with the ID to buy.

    Henroid on
    Don't accept centrism. Don't let them bully you.
    American politics isn't 4D chess, it's just if you give a shit about other people or not.
  • Alex WilderAlex Wilder Registered User regular
    edited May 2008
    Couldn't care less, I mean come on why not require age checks. The main problem now is the that most old people reguard games as childrens toys. This would get uninformed parents to think about what their kids are buying. Games have age rating for a reason this does not stop parents from buying their children MA rated games if they feel the child is old enough.

    For those of you under 17/18 get older all it takes is time.

    Alex Wilder on
    Time is a flat circle
  • PuddingSenatorPuddingSenator Registered User regular
    edited May 2008
    Caedere wrote: »
    The thing that depresses me the most is how far, far too many people are willing to sacrifice or compromise basic liberties in exchange for "safety" or "protection" or "thinking of the children".

    It's clear that most people don't have a basic grasp of how free speech really works, and I wish there was some easy way to change that. :(

    "Those who would give up Essential Liberty to purchase a little Temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety." -- Benjamin Franklin

    PuddingSenator on
  • BamaBama Registered User regular
    edited May 2008
    Henroid wrote: »
    You seem to be taking this to an extreme level. Seriously, we're talking about carding for games that under 17 year olds are trying to buy. How is this terrible? Who is being hurt? Again, it's easy enough to arrange for someone with the ID to buy.
    I love that the arguments in "support" of this type of legislation often times boil down to "it won't really do anything anyway."

    Bama on
  • ArcSynArcSyn Registered User regular
    edited May 2008
    Caedere wrote: »
    Ashendark wrote: »
    I'm all for it. There are simular laws restricting sale of rated R movies to minors right? The same should apply for games especially since the medium is so popular among them.

    No, there are not. It's voluntary.

    The government has no place regulating content that is protected under the First Amendment. At all.

    Exactly, and that's why this is a terrible, terrible bill. Saying "oh, it's just like cigarettes and porn" is to classify video games as cigarettes or porn, and not a valid form of art and expression. At any rate, yes, this is just election year wankery and will be struck down by the courts, just like every single other version of this law.

    We aren't classifying cigarettes and porn as the same as games. We are simply stating that "LIKE" them, kids shouldn't get into some of the mature game titles and it should be restricted. Art is a giant mess of a subject and just because someone calls it "art" it isn't always. Just because it's "art" doesn't mean it's not something that should be freely exhibited to children or whoever. I'm sure the porn industry considers what it does "art", but that doesn't mean stores should keep it next to the toys and not card those who purchase it.

    Who will this bill affect?
    Kids under 18 who want to buy a game that the industry has deemed they probably should not play.
    Retailers who do not regulate themselves to keep from violating the ratings for a sale.

    Who will this bill not affect?
    Anyone over 18 (the majority of the purchasers of M rated games already?).
    Retailers who have been policing themselves and following the ESRB.
    The game industry.
    Stupid parents who will purchase the games anyway.

    Just like parents could buy porn and alcohol and cigarettes and give them to their kids, it won't stop bad parenting, but it will help the ESRB do what it is there to do.

    ArcSyn on
    jswidget.php?username=ArcSyn&numitems=5&header=0&text=none&images=small&show=recentplays&imagesonly=1&imagepos=center&inline=1&domains%5B%5D=boardgame&imagewidget=1og83npmjgeii.pngT298pV7.pngSteam:ArcSyn
  • reVersereVerse Registered User regular
    edited May 2008
    I'm all for this. I don't see why people are claiming that it somehow restricts free speech when it does no such.

    reVerse on
  • HenroidHenroid Internet Pariah Going nowhere, but fast.Registered User regular
    edited May 2008
    Bama wrote: »
    Henroid wrote: »
    You seem to be taking this to an extreme level. Seriously, we're talking about carding for games that under 17 year olds are trying to buy. How is this terrible? Who is being hurt? Again, it's easy enough to arrange for someone with the ID to buy.
    I love that the arguments in "support" of this type of legislation often times boil down to "it won't really do anything anyway."

    I'm not saying it's not going to do anything. I'm providing the people against this a line of thought that gives them away to get around this bill that apparently threatens them and the country at large.

    Henroid on
    Don't accept centrism. Don't let them bully you.
    American politics isn't 4D chess, it's just if you give a shit about other people or not.
  • RaslinRaslin Registered User regular
    edited May 2008
    Caedere wrote: »
    The thing that depresses me the most is how far, far too many people are willing to sacrifice or compromise basic liberties in exchange for "safety" or "protection" or "thinking of the children".

    It's clear that most people don't have a basic grasp of how free speech really works, and I wish there was some easy way to change that. :(

    The difference is, there is no regulated content for adults. There's a huge difference between regulating content, and regulating content for a 15 year old.

    Raslin on
    I cant url good so add me on steam anyways steamcommunity.com/id/Raslin

    3ds friend code: 2981-6032-4118
  • The_ScarabThe_Scarab Registered User regular
    edited May 2008
    I share the same opinion as Gabe. Im well over 17, I dont care about this.

    Really, I know I should. I know these issues are important social concerns, but it is not directly affecting my life so I revert back to my sordid state of apathy.

    They should grow, it just takes time.

    The_Scarab on
    scarab you have mental problems
  • kaliyamakaliyama Registered User regular
    edited May 2008
    From Gamasutra:
    Republican Lee Terry and Democrat Jim Matheson have introduced a bill into the U.S. House of Representatives which would require all video game retailers to make identification checks on those buying video games intended for adults.

    According to a Variety report, the proposed Video Games Ratings Enforcement Act would require ID checks for any game rated M for mature or AO (adults only) and would also require stores to prominently display explanations of the existing ESRB (Entertainment Software Rating Board) ratings system. Failure to comply in either case would result in a $5,000 fine.

    Terry is optimistic that the act will not fall foul of first amendment concerns because it does not attempt to rate or define the content itself, but instead legally enforce the existing age ratings. The bill has already gained support from the Parents Television Council.

    “The images and themes in some video games are shocking and troublesome. In some games, high scores are often earned by players who commit ‘virtual’ murder, assault and rape,” said Terry.

    “Many young children are walking into stores and are able to buy or rent these games without their parents even knowing about it. Many retailers have tried to develop voluntary policies to make sure mature games do not end up in the hands of young kids, but we need to do more to protect our children,” he added.

    I've seen a lot of gamers say they support this, and I don't understand why. I couldn't be more against it. It's such a clear violation of the 1st Amendment. I mean, it's not like the 1st Amendment has unclear wording, or a gray area or something. It's perfectly, brilliantly clear:
    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.

    You can't restrict speech! Ever! In any way! If you do support this, please tell me how morally you can possibly think it's a good thing to have government deciding what speech may be consumed by individuals, and how you think it's constitutional in light of the 1st Amendment.

    ROFL, are you trolling? There's all sorts of jurisprudence about when and how you can regulate speech under the First Amendment. Society has an interest in not warping it's children - whether or not you think playing GTA4 is going to have a negative effect on a ten-year old isn't the issue, it's whether you can restrict speech to protect children. Similarly, a parent can exercise control over his or her children.

    We regulate political speech a heck of a lot more - look at campaign finance laws. Given that an ID check doesn't actually keep adults from buying software, it's a pretty weak restraint.

    kaliyama on
    fwKS7.png?1
  • BursarBursar Hee Noooo! Registered User regular
    edited May 2008
    Henroid wrote: »
    Bursar wrote: »
    I am for the practice of businesses willingly instating ID-checking methods for what they feel to be restricted material. I am not in favor of the government mandating that such a practice be enforced.

    Okay, two questions: Why? and Who is it hurting?

    I think it's the seller's choice to decide who they want to make their merchandise available to. If all the stores in the country got together and agreed to start carding folks, that is fine. But, since video games are as yet unproven to be harmful to underage users (as opposed to things there are studies on, like alcohol or cigarettes), making it actually illegal for stores to do something they're willingly not doing anyway seems like overkill.

    Bursar on
    GNU Terry Pratchett
    3DS FC: 0810-0331-1324 | PSN: Wstfgl | GamerTag: An Evil Plan | Battle.net: FallenIdle#1970
  • AntishowAntishow Registered User
    edited May 2008
    As long as it's still the ESRB and not the government setting the ratings, this is a great idea. Finally something to shut up the "Think of the children!" crowd once and for all. Not that they actually will, but still...

    Antishow on
  • PuddingSenatorPuddingSenator Registered User regular
    edited May 2008
    reVerse wrote: »
    I'm all for this. I don't see why people are claiming that it somehow restricts free speech when it does no such.

    Please explain how the government telling people whose speech they may and may not consume does not limit free speech.

    PuddingSenator on
  • kaliyamakaliyama Registered User regular
    edited May 2008
    Lord Yod wrote: »
    Raslin wrote: »
    Yeah, its pretty much common law at this point that children don't intrinsically get the rights in the constitution/bill of rights.

    Supreme court disagrees with you:
    Wiki wrote:
    Justice Abe Fortas wrote, "schools may not be enclaves of totalitarianism. School officials do not possess absolute authority over their students. Students...are possessed of fundamental rights which the State must respect, just as they themselves must respect their obligations to the State."

    Anyways I don't see how this applies to the rights of a minor - their speech isn't being restricted. It's the game that is being restricted, the sale of it at least. How is that not a form of artistic expression like film? There is a test that applies here:
    Wiki wrote:
    The Roth test was expanded when the Court decided Miller v. California in 1973. Under the Miller test, a work is obscene if it would be found appealing to the prurient interest by an average person applying contemporary community standards, depicts sexual conduct in a patently offensive way and has no serious literary, artistic, political or scientific value. Note that "community" standards—not national standards—are applied whether the material appeals to the prurient interest; thus, material may be deemed obscene in one locality but not in another. National standards, however, are applied whether the material is of value.

    How many copies of GTA sold so far? Do we really think a game that's made, what, $500 million in the first week after release is viewed as obscene by a reasonable person?

    This isn't a question of obscenity - if something is obscene you can prevent it from being published at ALL, versus merely regulating speech. And this isn't even regulating school speech - but if you're going to run around quoting forty year old precedent, I would make sure it's an accurate statement of the law. Hazelwood, 484 U.S. 260, and Bong Hits 4 Jesus (127 S. Ct. 2618, especially Alito's concurrence) make it pretty clear that political speech in public schools get lots of protection, but if school speech otherwise interferes with a high school's ability to educate and manage its kids, it gets a lot less deference.

    If you're really interested in understanding free speech protections and the first amendment, I recommend you check out www.volokh.com as a starting place and read his first amendment casebook.

    kaliyama on
    fwKS7.png?1
  • reVersereVerse Registered User regular
    edited May 2008
    reVerse wrote: »
    I'm all for this. I don't see why people are claiming that it somehow restricts free speech when it does no such.

    Please explain how the government telling people whose speech they may and may not consume does not limit free speech.

    The game's maker is still allowed to make their game whichever way they want.

    reVerse on
  • HenroidHenroid Internet Pariah Going nowhere, but fast.Registered User regular
    edited May 2008
    reVerse wrote: »
    reVerse wrote: »
    I'm all for this. I don't see why people are claiming that it somehow restricts free speech when it does no such.

    Please explain how the government telling people whose speech they may and may not consume does not limit free speech.

    The game's maker is still allowed to make their game whichever way they want.

    More like freedom to listen, m i rite?

    Henroid on
    Don't accept centrism. Don't let them bully you.
    American politics isn't 4D chess, it's just if you give a shit about other people or not.
  • PuddingSenatorPuddingSenator Registered User regular
    edited May 2008
    kaliyama wrote: »
    From Gamasutra:
    Republican Lee Terry and Democrat Jim Matheson have introduced a bill into the U.S. House of Representatives which would require all video game retailers to make identification checks on those buying video games intended for adults.

    According to a Variety report, the proposed Video Games Ratings Enforcement Act would require ID checks for any game rated M for mature or AO (adults only) and would also require stores to prominently display explanations of the existing ESRB (Entertainment Software Rating Board) ratings system. Failure to comply in either case would result in a $5,000 fine.

    Terry is optimistic that the act will not fall foul of first amendment concerns because it does not attempt to rate or define the content itself, but instead legally enforce the existing age ratings. The bill has already gained support from the Parents Television Council.

    “The images and themes in some video games are shocking and troublesome. In some games, high scores are often earned by players who commit ‘virtual’ murder, assault and rape,” said Terry.

    “Many young children are walking into stores and are able to buy or rent these games without their parents even knowing about it. Many retailers have tried to develop voluntary policies to make sure mature games do not end up in the hands of young kids, but we need to do more to protect our children,” he added.

    I've seen a lot of gamers say they support this, and I don't understand why. I couldn't be more against it. It's such a clear violation of the 1st Amendment. I mean, it's not like the 1st Amendment has unclear wording, or a gray area or something. It's perfectly, brilliantly clear:
    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.

    You can't restrict speech! Ever! In any way! If you do support this, please tell me how morally you can possibly think it's a good thing to have government deciding what speech may be consumed by individuals, and how you think it's constitutional in light of the 1st Amendment.

    ROFL, are you trolling? There's all sorts of jurisprudence about when and how you can regulate speech under the First Amendment. Society has an interest in not warping it's children - whether or not you think playing GTA4 is going to have a negative effect on a ten-year old isn't the issue, it's whether you can restrict speech to protect children. Similarly, a parent can exercise control over his or her children.

    We regulate political speech a heck of a lot more - look at campaign finance laws. Given that an ID check doesn't actually keep adults from buying software, it's a pretty weak restraint.

    A parent exercising control is TOTALLY UNRELATED TO THIS. Why would the 1st Amendment prevent parents from exercising any kind of control they want? It only applies to the government. In fact, that's the whole point. Parents should be paying attention to this, parents should be restricting speech for their kids, parents should watch what their kids are doing. Parents should do this, instead of demanding that the government use force to do so.

    Also, I strongly oppose campaign finance laws too, but that's a bit OT.

    PuddingSenator on
  • AshendarkAshendark Registered User
    edited May 2008
    I don't see how they can get away restricting porn and not mature rated films or games. Something is very wrong with society if it's ok to regulate the sale of media containing natural wholesome acts that are socially acceptable but not the sale of media containing violent acts which are not socially acceptable.

    Ashendark on
    Ashendark.gif
  • BamaBama Registered User regular
    edited May 2008
    The question is "why is this needed for video games, but not for movies, music, or books?"

    Also, are there any chain retailers that don't have a policy to refuse sale of M rated games to minors?

    Bama on
  • FireflashFireflash Montreal, QCRegistered User regular
    edited May 2008
    reVerse wrote: »
    I'm all for this. I don't see why people are claiming that it somehow restricts free speech when it does no such.

    Please explain how the government telling people whose speech they may and may not consume does not limit free speech.

    But it's not preventing people from "consuming speech". A kid can't buy a M rated game but he can still get it through his parents without any negative repercussions.

    Are you 16 btw? Ashamed of bringing your mommy along to buy a game? Awwwwwww.

    Fireflash on
    PSN: PatParadize
    Battle.net: Fireflash#1425
  • PuddingSenatorPuddingSenator Registered User regular
    edited May 2008
    reVerse wrote: »
    reVerse wrote: »
    I'm all for this. I don't see why people are claiming that it somehow restricts free speech when it does no such.

    Please explain how the government telling people whose speech they may and may not consume does not limit free speech.

    The game's maker is still allowed to make their game whichever way they want.

    It's this argument that ends up with dissenters thrown in cages at protests. No, you don't have the right to have your speech be heard, by anybody. But you do have the right to not have the government restrict who can hear it. If people don't want to hear your speech, they can walk away/not buy your movie or game or book or album.

    PuddingSenator on
  • BamaBama Registered User regular
    edited May 2008
    Ashendark wrote: »
    I don't see how they can get away restricting porn and not mature rated films or games. Something is very wrong with society if it's ok to regulate the sale of media containing natural wholesome acts that are socially acceptable but not the sale of media containing violent acts which are not socially acceptable.
    So what you're saying is that you haven't seen any porn in a while. :P

    That being said, I agree that the apparent "titties bad! violence good!" attitude we have in the US is depressing.

    Bama on
  • PuddingSenatorPuddingSenator Registered User regular
    edited May 2008
    Fireflash wrote: »
    reVerse wrote: »
    I'm all for this. I don't see why people are claiming that it somehow restricts free speech when it does no such.

    Please explain how the government telling people whose speech they may and may not consume does not limit free speech.

    But it's not preventing people from "consuming speech". A kid can't buy a M rated game but he can still get it through his parents without any negative repercussions.

    Are you 16 btw? Ashamed of bringing your mommy along to buy a game? Awwwwwww.

    I'm 20, but if you want to make a mature argument instead of embarrassing yourself next time you're welcome to join the actual discussion that's going on.

    PuddingSenator on
  • FiziksFiziks Registered User regular
    edited May 2008
    Raslin wrote: »
    Lord Yod wrote: »
    Raslin wrote: »
    Yeah, its pretty much common law at this point that children don't intrinsically get the rights in the constitution/bill of rights.

    Supreme court disagrees with you:
    Wiki wrote:
    Justice Abe Fortas wrote, "schools may not be enclaves of totalitarianism. School officials do not possess absolute authority over their students. Students...are possessed of fundamental rights which the State must respect, just as they themselves must respect their obligations to the State."

    Just on this issue: its a different ballpark. Yes, students(read:children in this case) have fundamental rights, but not constitutional rights.

    Anyways, I seriously think the people who argue about this issue just want something to argue about. The government wants to enforce a non-governmental agency's ratings on video games. Are you really that concerned that people won't get to buy certain video games until 17/18? Honestly, while I agree some games are art, I have to same the majority aren't. But thats me.

    Wrong, children in schools have some limited rights because they are part of an institution, this allows the institution to have some weight against them. I forget the exact court case so forgive me. Outside school, however, an American Citizen, even children, has all constitutional rights.

    "Those who would give up Essential Liberty to purchase a little Temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety."
    -Ben Franklin

    You see, while the law itself may not be completely awful when it comes to limiting the first amendment,however, it does set a precedent for suppressing forms of art. It may seem like nothing now, but it gives a foothold for more laws to be passed, becoming more and more restrictive.

    For example:

    In Umbert Eco's article on Ur-Facism Link.
    Consider the following sequence:
    1 2 3 4

    abc bcd cde def

    Suppose there is a series of political groups in which group one is characterized by the features abc, group two by the features bcd, and so on. Group two is similar to group one since they have two features in common; for the same reasons three is similar to two and four is similar to three. Notice that three is also similar to one (they have in common the feature c). The most curious case is presented by four, obviously similar to three and two, but with no feature in common with one. However, owing to the uninterrupted series of decreasing similarities between one and four, there remains, by a sort of illusory transitivity, a family resemblance between four and one.

    In other words, reduction of civil rights isn't going to be as obvious as people burning books in the courtyard anymore. It's going to be a slow transition. People are going to think, "Oh well abc is alright, so bcd isn't too much of a problem". Then, "well cde is a lot like bcd" and finally, "def is just like cde!". In the end def is nothing like abc.

    It is the parents responsibility, not the governments to take care of their children. If your child is playing video games, then have a fucking clue, and do some research on the games they want to play. The argument that parents are bumbling idiots just doesn't hold. It takes maybe 5 minutes to google, and look at screen shots and gameplay videos.

    Fiziks on
    Cvcwu.jpg
  • HenroidHenroid Internet Pariah Going nowhere, but fast.Registered User regular
    edited May 2008
    Bama wrote: »
    The question is "why is this needed for video games, but not for movies, music, or books?"

    Also, are there any chain retailers that don't have a policy to refuse sale of M rated games to minors?

    The issue is enforcement. Movies do get enforced. Kids don't read so books aren't an issue (this is a joke; and now the joke is dead because I had to point it out). But really, books rarely get called in to question, and when they do it is for different reasons (Harry Potter, for example). Music is still in the same shoes as video games, and yet the 80's brought an end to the crying about it.

    Henroid on
    Don't accept centrism. Don't let them bully you.
    American politics isn't 4D chess, it's just if you give a shit about other people or not.
  • BamaBama Registered User regular
    edited May 2008
    Fireflash wrote: »
    reVerse wrote: »
    I'm all for this. I don't see why people are claiming that it somehow restricts free speech when it does no such.

    Please explain how the government telling people whose speech they may and may not consume does not limit free speech.

    But it's not preventing people from "consuming speech". A kid can't buy a M rated game but he can still get it through his parents without any negative repercussions.

    Are you 16 btw? Ashamed of bringing your mommy along to buy a game? Awwwwwww.
    Are you an idiot, btw? Think it's cool to make up shit about someone that disagrees with you and then be derisive about it? Awwwwwww.

    Bama on
  • CaedereCaedere S'no regrets BIRDIESRegistered User regular
    edited May 2008
    Who is it hurting?

    Everyone in America, because it sets a precedent for the government having the ability to regulate protected speech.

    Because our legal system is primarily focused on the concept of having precedents, opening the door like this allows for more leeway to regulate speech in more aggressive ways.

    It is a very, very small leap to go from restricting children from purchasing games deemed "too mature" to restricting them from purchasing or reading books that are deemed "too mature".

    There are already school boards that ban or try to ban books based on content that they feel are offensive, and if they then have a legal precedent to back them up, then there's little chance being able to fight it.

    See - it's not just about "ZOMG VIDEOGAMES" - it's a fundamental issue about speech itself.

    Not to mention that this takes away the rights of parents as well to decide what content they can expose their children too. If someone decides that their 14-year-old is old enough to purchase a mature-rated game, then that is their right to decide. Now, it's also the right of the store to refuse that sale, since that is between two private, non-government parties. It is not okay for the government to step in and regulate that, however.

    Caedere on
    FWnykYl.jpg
  • RaslinRaslin Registered User regular
    edited May 2008
    reVerse wrote: »
    reVerse wrote: »
    I'm all for this. I don't see why people are claiming that it somehow restricts free speech when it does no such.

    Please explain how the government telling people whose speech they may and may not consume does not limit free speech.

    The game's maker is still allowed to make their game whichever way they want.

    It's this argument that ends up with dissenters thrown in cages at protests. No, you don't have the right to have your speech be heard, by anybody. But you do have the right to not have the government restrict who can hear it. If people don't want to hear your speech, they can walk away/not buy your movie or game or book or album.

    No, its an argument where you bring up a slippery-slope. Again, children have reduced rights. When adults start having restrictions on what they can hear, watch, etc, then you have a valid point.

    Raslin on
    I cant url good so add me on steam anyways steamcommunity.com/id/Raslin

    3ds friend code: 2981-6032-4118
  • AntishowAntishow Registered User
    edited May 2008
    If the games aren't being altered, and are still being sold, in the same exact stores... how is that censorship?

    Antishow on
  • HenroidHenroid Internet Pariah Going nowhere, but fast.Registered User regular
    edited May 2008
    Caedere wrote: »
    Who is it hurting?

    Everyone in America, because I love slippery slopes.

    You don't know that, and we don't know that.

    Henroid on
    Don't accept centrism. Don't let them bully you.
    American politics isn't 4D chess, it's just if you give a shit about other people or not.
  • PikaPuffPikaPuff Registered User regular
    edited May 2008
    If carding at movie theaters is voluntary, then so should video games.

    PikaPuff on
    jCyyTSo.png
  • RaslinRaslin Registered User regular
    edited May 2008
    Fiziks wrote: »
    It is the parents responsibility, not the governments to take care of their children. If your child is playing video games, then have a fucking clue, and do some research on the games they want to play. The argument that parents are bumbling idiots just doesn't hold. It takes maybe 5 minutes to google, and look at screen shots and gameplay videos.

    See, I would agree with that, if it was the parents responsibility to ensure the children are old enough to own guns, drive, smoke, and drink.

    Parents are bumbling idiots, regardless of how easy it is to figure this stuff out.

    Raslin on
    I cant url good so add me on steam anyways steamcommunity.com/id/Raslin

    3ds friend code: 2981-6032-4118
  • kaliyamakaliyama Registered User regular
    edited May 2008
    kaliyama wrote: »
    From Gamasutra:
    Republican Lee Terry and Democrat Jim Matheson have introduced a bill into the U.S. House of Representatives which would require all video game retailers to make identification checks on those buying video games intended for adults.

    According to a Variety report, the proposed Video Games Ratings Enforcement Act would require ID checks for any game rated M for mature or AO (adults only) and would also require stores to prominently display explanations of the existing ESRB (Entertainment Software Rating Board) ratings system. Failure to comply in either case would result in a $5,000 fine.

    Terry is optimistic that the act will not fall foul of first amendment concerns because it does not attempt to rate or define the content itself, but instead legally enforce the existing age ratings. The bill has already gained support from the Parents Television Council.

    “The images and themes in some video games are shocking and troublesome. In some games, high scores are often earned by players who commit ‘virtual’ murder, assault and rape,” said Terry.

    “Many young children are walking into stores and are able to buy or rent these games without their parents even knowing about it. Many retailers have tried to develop voluntary policies to make sure mature games do not end up in the hands of young kids, but we need to do more to protect our children,” he added.

    I've seen a lot of gamers say they support this, and I don't understand why. I couldn't be more against it. It's such a clear violation of the 1st Amendment. I mean, it's not like the 1st Amendment has unclear wording, or a gray area or something. It's perfectly, brilliantly clear:
    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.

    You can't restrict speech! Ever! In any way! If you do support this, please tell me how morally you can possibly think it's a good thing to have government deciding what speech may be consumed by individuals, and how you think it's constitutional in light of the 1st Amendment.

    ROFL, are you trolling? There's all sorts of jurisprudence about when and how you can regulate speech under the First Amendment. Society has an interest in not warping it's children - whether or not you think playing GTA4 is going to have a negative effect on a ten-year old isn't the issue, it's whether you can restrict speech to protect children. Similarly, a parent can exercise control over his or her children.

    We regulate political speech a heck of a lot more - look at campaign finance laws. Given that an ID check doesn't actually keep adults from buying software, it's a pretty weak restraint.

    A parent exercising control is TOTALLY UNRELATED TO THIS. Why would the 1st Amendment prevent parents from exercising any kind of control they want? It only applies to the government. In fact, that's the whole point. Parents should be paying attention to this, parents should be restricting speech for their kids, parents should watch what their kids are doing. Parents should do this, instead of demanding that the government use force to do so.

    Also, I strongly oppose campaign finance laws too, but that's a bit OT.

    Because if you can't enforce restraints on sale at the game store, then you completely undermine parent's right to control what media they consume. Unless you want them to GPS-tag the child or never let them out of their sight, it's hard to see what they're doing all the time - which suggests they'll be playing GTA4 anyway, but that's no the issue here.

    ACLU v. Reno, the case that struck down the Communications Decency Act as an overbroad restriction on speech, relied on Ginsberg, a case examining this very issue - restricting the sale of content to minors. Ginsberg v. New York, 390 U. S. 629.

    Ginsberg at 639: The statutory scheme can help parents control what controversial content their children see:
    The wellbeing of its children is, of course, a subject within the State's constitutional power to regulate, and, in our view ... constitutional interpretation has consistently recognized that the parents' claim to authority in their own household to direct the rearing of their children is basic in the structure of our society.

    "It is cardinal with us that the custody, care and nurture of the child reside first in the parents, whose primary function and freedom include preparation for obligations the state can neither supply nor hinder."
    Prince v. Massachusetts, supra, at 321 U. S. 166. The legislature could properly conclude that parents and others, teachers for example, who have this primary responsibility for children's wellbeing are entitled to the support of laws designed to aid discharge of that responsibility... Moreover, the prohibition against sales to minors does not bar parents who so desire from purchasing the magazines for their children.



    Second, the state itself has an interest in protecting children, at 640: "While the supervision of children's reading may best be left to their parents, the knowledge that parental control or guidance cannot always be provided and society's transcendent interest in protecting the welfare of children justify reasonable regulation of the sale of material to them."

    kaliyama on
    fwKS7.png?1
  • CaedereCaedere S'no regrets BIRDIESRegistered User regular
    edited May 2008
    Henroid wrote: »
    Caedere wrote: »
    Who is it hurting?

    Everyone in America, because I love slippery slopes.

    You don't know that, and we don't know that.

    It's not a slippery slope, because that's how our legal system works. It functions very heavily on precedent.

    You might want to read my post again - at no point do I go off into some crazy doomsday scenario. Everything I describe is logical.

    Restricting games = restricting protected speech = leading to more precedent for further restricting protected speech. Simple and easy to understand when you're not trying to be "witty".

    Caedere on
    FWnykYl.jpg
  • JJJJ DailyStormer Registered User regular
    edited May 2008
    I don't know, I find watching any violent horror movie more comfortable to watch with my parents than having tits on screen and I'm 23. Violence just feels more right.

    Anyway, porn is real, violent tv is fake so it's more okay. yes?

    JJ on
    Christ, what an asshole
  • ArcSynArcSyn Registered User regular
    edited May 2008
    Caedere wrote: »
    Who is it hurting?

    Everyone in America, because it sets a precedent for the government having the ability to regulate protected speech.

    Because our legal system is primarily focused on the concept of having precedents, opening the door like this allows for more leeway to regulate speech in more aggressive ways.

    It is a very, very small leap to go from restricting children from purchasing games deemed "too mature" to restricting them from purchasing or reading books that are deemed "too mature".

    There are already school boards that ban or try to ban books based on content that they feel are offensive, and if they then have a legal precedent to back them up, then there's little chance being able to fight it.

    See - it's not just about "ZOMG VIDEOGAMES" - it's a fundamental issue about speech itself.

    Not to mention that this takes away the rights of parents as well to decide what content they can expose their children too. If someone decides that their 14-year-old is old enough to purchase a mature-rated game, then that is their right to decide. Now, it's also the right of the store to refuse that sale, since that is between two private, non-government parties. It is not okay for the government to step in and regulate that, however.

    See, it's not doing that though.
    If a parent decides that their 14-year-old is old enough for GTA4, the parent may purchase the game and take it home to them. It does not track who actually plays the game. The government isn't regulating a national gamertag for young children that restricts consoles from even PLAYING a game. It's just a simple purchase. It's simply telling retailers that the ESRB is there, use it.

    This isn't restricting anything. X-rated AO games are still made, just in small amounts because retailers police themselves and don't sell it, so there's not a lot of money in it. M rated games will still be made, the government isn't restricting that. It's not limited free speech at all.

    The precedence is there. We restrict the sale of porn. It's not harming that industry at all is it? I don't see anyone saying that we should allow grade school students to buy porn. I'm not saying M rated games are porn, but they are rated M.

    If the government passes this and then says "We want to restrict the CREATION of M rated games" then yes, I'll have a problem with that.

    ArcSyn on
    jswidget.php?username=ArcSyn&numitems=5&header=0&text=none&images=small&show=recentplays&imagesonly=1&imagepos=center&inline=1&domains%5B%5D=boardgame&imagewidget=1og83npmjgeii.pngT298pV7.pngSteam:ArcSyn
  • HenroidHenroid Internet Pariah Going nowhere, but fast.Registered User regular
    edited May 2008
    PikaPuff wrote: »
    If carding at movie theaters is voluntary, then so should video games.

    Movie theaters have demonstrated their ability to do this and enforce it. Video game outlets have not.

    Henroid on
    Don't accept centrism. Don't let them bully you.
    American politics isn't 4D chess, it's just if you give a shit about other people or not.
Sign In or Register to comment.