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

1246710

Posts

  • JavenJaven Registered User regular
    edited May 2008
    And just to be clear, I am all in favor of mandated ID checks for R or adult rated films, too.

    Javen on
  • RaslinRaslin Registered User regular
    edited May 2008
    My arguments are pretty good, guys. I'm glad I posted here, because now I don't have to worry about this law not passing.

    Thank god I'm always right, and I like to pat myself on the back.

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

    3ds friend code: 2981-6032-4118
  • CaedereCaedere S'no regrets BIRDIESRegistered User regular
    edited May 2008
    Raslin wrote: »
    My arguments are pretty good, guys. I'm glad I posted here, because now I don't have to worry about this law not passing.

    Thank god I'm always right, and I like to pat myself on the back.
    Damn straight I like to pat myself on the back! Have you seen it? It's a sexy back. :winky:

    Caedere on
    FWnykYl.jpg
  • gameworkergameworker Registered User
    edited May 2008
    Bama wrote: »
    gameworker wrote: »
    Really, can we cut the "this doesn't affect me so I'm ok with it" stuff already? If they tried to pass a law that wouldn't let anyone under 18 into a library I'd still be pretty pissed about it, as I hope any adult with half a brain would.

    I think your making some pretty sweeping assumptions based on a small post. If this bill passed my experience at the register might be a tad more inconveniant due to being carded, but that's an acceptable tradeoff in my view if it means finding a happy middle ground with those who oppose M rated content.

    To simply assume that my view on the matter consists entirely of "this doesn't affect me so I'm ok with it" is a little insulting. I beleive that the idea of mandatory carding is a perfectly acceptable compromise with those who strongly oppose M rated content.

    gameworker on
  • kaliyamakaliyama Registered User regular
    edited May 2008
    Caedere wrote: »
    My quoted case there is pretty clear-cut, guys. I'm actually glad I found it, because I don't have to worry about this law holding up.

    Thank god for legal precedent.

    Bzzzt! You should read the rest of the case, not just the strident dicta.It's only eleven pages. What it's really about is that the government has to show the link beween video games and harm before they can regulate it - but once they do that, they can do LOTS to prevent minors from seeing stuff.
    A few things:

    1) Violence alone doesn't count as obscenity - so things that regulate games with sexual content are OK under their standard.
    But we have previously observed that "material that contains [**11] violence but not depictions or descriptions of sexual conduct cannot be obscene." Video Software, 968 F.2d at 688. Simply put, depictions of violence cannot fall within the legal definition of obscenity for either minors or adults. See id.


    2) You need to have evidence showing that video games harm children. In this case, the evidence was crappy. If you have stronger evidence - more psychological studies - then it would be an OK restraint:

    It is true that a psychologist appearing on behalf of the County stated that a recent study that he conducted indicates that playing violent video games "does in fact lead to aggressive behavior in the immediate situation [*959] . . . that more aggressive thoughts are reported and there is frequently more aggressive behavior." But this vague generality falls far short of a showing that video games are psychologically deleterious. The County's remaining evidence included the conclusory comments [**13] of county council members; a small number of ambiguous, inconclusive, or irrelevant (conducted on adults, not minors) studies; and the testimony of a high school principal who admittedly had no information regarding any link between violent video games and psychological harm.

    kaliyama on
    fwKS7.png?1
  • The_ScarabThe_Scarab Registered User regular
    edited May 2008
    Raslin wrote: »
    My arguments are pretty good, guys. I'm glad I posted here, because now I don't have to worry about this law not passing.

    Thank god I'm always right, and I like to pat myself on the back.

    Arrogance isnt arrogance when it is truth.

    While the legal precedent for what he posted may be debatable, the logical reasoning behind has more clarifty and meaning than any of the ramblings in the 5 threads on this issue we have every week.

    The_Scarab on
    scarab you have mental problems
  • Xenogears of BoreXenogears of Bore Registered User regular
    edited May 2008
    It's not like this hasn't happend to Gangster Movies, Comic Books, Other Movies, Television, Rock and Roll, Catcher in the Rye, Dungeons and Dragons, Rap Music, or anything else that has been popular with the kids.

    Some parents think it is the tool of the devil.

    Some lazy politician supports it for free votes.

    Law may or may not be passed, and immediately struck down.

    I'm actually amazed that laws against pornography have held up, but there is a bit of research saying that can actually damage a growing mind. I think that's codswallop, but whatever.

    Xenogears of Bore on
    3DS CODE: 3093-7068-3576
  • PikaPuffPikaPuff Registered User regular
    edited May 2008
    Javen wrote: »
    And just to be clear, I am all in favor of mandated ID checks for R or adult rated films, too.
    I'm all for having the same rules/lack of rules as other media.

    PikaPuff on
    jCyyTSo.png
  • RaslinRaslin Registered User regular
    edited May 2008
    The_Scarab wrote: »
    Raslin wrote: »
    My arguments are pretty good, guys. I'm glad I posted here, because now I don't have to worry about this law not passing.

    Thank god I'm always right, and I like to pat myself on the back.

    Arrogance isnt arrogance when it is truth.

    Bullshit.

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

    3ds friend code: 2981-6032-4118
  • pslong9pslong9 Registered User regular
    edited May 2008
    Henroid wrote: »
    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.

    Actually, this is incorrect - this just came out today from the FTC:

    http://www.ftc.gov/opa/2008/05/secretshop.shtm

    Numbers below are percentage of how often ID is checked based off of the FTC's study:

    Average for retailers, videogames: 80% of the time, ID is checked
    Average for retailers, R-rated movie theater: 65%
    Average for retailers, purchasing R-rated DVDs: 53%
    Average for retailers, purchasing unrated DVDs (tending to be worse than R): 49%

    For videogames, Gamestop, the biggest 'gaming-only' store, checked ID 94%. Walmart and Best Buy checked around 80% of the time.

    The retailers are policing themselves very well already.

    I really like the idea behind the law - parents should know what their children are playing, and a lot of M-rated games should be restricted to children under 18 - but it is likely going to fail due to possible 1st amendment issues, plus it would make the ESRB ratings enforceable by law, and since the ESRB is not (yet) a governmental entity, that's unconstitutional.

    pslong9 on
    steam_sig.png

    3DS FC: 0817-3759-2788
  • ArcSynArcSyn Registered User regular
    edited May 2008
    Ok, so let's just dismiss altogether the law at hand:
    Should the industry, voluntarily, restrict the sale of movies rated R, music with explicit lyrics, games rated M?

    If so, what can the game industry do better so they do not get targeted by these types of bills in the future?

    Why is it that the game industry keeps coming up with fighting these things when I don't hear about the music industry or movie industry dealing with this?

    What can we do, as gamers, to encourage the industry to move forward in this?

    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
  • kaliyamakaliyama Registered User regular
    edited May 2008
    The_Scarab wrote: »
    Raslin wrote: »
    My arguments are pretty good, guys. I'm glad I posted here, because now I don't have to worry about this law not passing.

    Thank god I'm always right, and I like to pat myself on the back.

    Arrogance isnt arrogance when it is truth.

    While the legal precedent for what he posted may be debatable, the logical reasoning behind has more clarifty and meaning than any of the ramblings in the 5 threads on this issue we have every week.

    Read the rest of the opinion - it comes out pretty strongly in favor of restraints on video games, just not in the crummy way St. Louis tried to do it.

    kaliyama on
    fwKS7.png?1
  • BamaBama Registered User regular
    edited May 2008
    gameworker wrote: »
    Bama wrote: »
    Really, can we cut the "this doesn't affect me so I'm ok with it" stuff already? If they tried to pass a law that wouldn't let anyone under 18 into a library I'd still be pretty pissed about it, as I hope any adult with half a brain would.

    I think your making some pretty sweeping assumptions based on a small post. If this bill passed my experience at the register might be a tad more inconveniant due to being carded, but that's an acceptable tradeoff in my view if it means finding a happy middle ground with those who oppose M rated content.

    To simply assume that my view on the matter consists entirely of "this doesn't affect me so I'm ok with it" is a little insulting. I beleive that the idea of mandatory carding is a perfectly acceptable compromise with those who strongly oppose M rated content.
    I'm sorry if I misrepresented you, but you were just the most recent one to say something to that effect.

    Regardless of whether or not it is your only justification for supporting this, it shouldn't be used to justify support at all because it's just silly reasoning.

    Bama on
  • blaklawblaklaw Registered User regular
    edited May 2008
    MrMonroe wrote: »
    No, you can't restrict speech, in any way. This law won't, either.

    While I agree with your destination, your point of departure is wrong and we need to stop saying it and believing it.

    There are all sorts of restrictions on free speech. From obscenity, to slander and libel, to making threats, to limitations made by government actors on where and when you can say things, to perjury and lying under oath.

    blaklaw on
    XBL/PSN: blaklaw
  • urahonkyurahonky Registered User regular
    edited May 2008
    I'm okay with this, because Bama isn't.

    urahonky on
  • JavenJaven Registered User regular
    edited May 2008
    ArcSyn wrote: »
    Ok, so let's just dismiss altogether the law at hand:
    Should the industry, voluntarily, restrict the sale of movies rated R, music with explicit lyrics, games rated M?

    If so, what can the game industry do better so they do not get targeted by these types of bills in the future?

    Why is it that the game industry keeps coming up with fighting these things when I don't hear about the music industry or movie industry dealing with this?

    What can we do, as gamers, to encourage the industry to move forward in this?

    Develop, implement and enforce a rating system that isn't kind of shitty?

    The ESRB is the video game equivalent of the League of Nations.

    Javen on
  • The_ScarabThe_Scarab Registered User regular
    edited May 2008
    kaliyama wrote: »
    The_Scarab wrote: »
    Raslin wrote: »
    My arguments are pretty good, guys. I'm glad I posted here, because now I don't have to worry about this law not passing.

    Thank god I'm always right, and I like to pat myself on the back.

    Arrogance isnt arrogance when it is truth.

    While the legal precedent for what he posted may be debatable, the logical reasoning behind has more clarifty and meaning than any of the ramblings in the 5 threads on this issue we have every week.

    Read the rest of the opinion - it comes out pretty strongly in favor of restraints on video games, just not in the crummy way St. Louis tried to do it.
    Yeah I;m not falling on any side of the fence. Its just that these threads are ALWAYS popping up. Free speech is an endless debate filled with misinformed individuals and intellectuals in equal measure and always devolve into a bitching mess.

    The post I quoted concisely and clearly organises what a lot of people are trying to say. Just put threads like this to death. Every time a new bill is proposed that limits anything we have one and they always end the same. People get infractions, there is name calling and arguining over very minor technicalities. It has already begun and will only continue. Someone light the K signal we need some tidying up in here.

    Im not saying we shouldnt discuss this issue, but as said DnD is a far far better place than the openness of G+T.

    The_Scarab on
    scarab you have mental problems
  • gameworkergameworker Registered User
    edited May 2008
    Bama wrote: »
    Regardless of whether or not it is your only justification for supporting this, it shouldn't be used to justify support at all because it's just silly reasoning.

    Fair enough. What you see as "silly" I see as a realistic compromise. Agree to disagree.

    gameworker on
  • Lord YodLord Yod Registered User regular
    edited May 2008
    Caedere wrote: »
    Here's all I think I really need to say.
    St. Louis County passed an ordinance banned selling or renting violent video games to minors, or permitting them to play such games, without parental consent, and video game dealers sued to overturn the law. The Court of Appeals found the ordinance unconstitutional, holding that depictions of violence alone cannot fall within the legal definition of obscenity for either minors or adults, and that a government cannot silence protected speech for children by wrapping itself in the cloak of parental authority. The Court ordered the lower court to enter an injunction barring enforcement of the law, citing the Supreme Court's recognition in Erznoznik v. Jacksonville, 422 U.S. 205, 213-14, 45 L. Ed. 2d 125, 95 S. Ct. 2268 (1975) that "speech that is neither obscene as to youths nor subject to some other legitimate proscription cannot be suppressed solely to protect the young from ideas or images that a legislative body thinks unsuitable for them. In most circumstances, the values protected by the First Amendment are no less applicable when the government seeks to control the flow of information to minors."

    -nteractive Digital Software Association, et al. v. St. Louis County, Missouri, et al., 329 F.3d 954(8th Cir. 2003)

    <3 <3 <3

    Also: to the men in the thread saying 'I'm over 18 so I don't care', would you care if they passed a law making it illegal for women to buy video games?

    Lord Yod on
    steam_sig.png
  • Xenogears of BoreXenogears of Bore Registered User regular
    edited May 2008
    Javen wrote: »
    ArcSyn wrote: »
    Ok, so let's just dismiss altogether the law at hand:
    Should the industry, voluntarily, restrict the sale of movies rated R, music with explicit lyrics, games rated M?

    If so, what can the game industry do better so they do not get targeted by these types of bills in the future?

    Why is it that the game industry keeps coming up with fighting these things when I don't hear about the music industry or movie industry dealing with this?

    What can we do, as gamers, to encourage the industry to move forward in this?

    Develop, implement and enforce a rating system that isn't kind of shitty?

    The ESRB is the video game equivalent of the League of Nations.

    ESRB works fine.

    Xenogears of Bore on
    3DS CODE: 3093-7068-3576
  • FugaFuga Registered User regular
    edited May 2008
    This is good.

    Fuga on
  • JavenJaven Registered User regular
    edited May 2008
    Lord Yod wrote: »
    Caedere wrote: »
    Here's all I think I really need to say.
    St. Louis County passed an ordinance banned selling or renting violent video games to minors, or permitting them to play such games, without parental consent, and video game dealers sued to overturn the law. The Court of Appeals found the ordinance unconstitutional, holding that depictions of violence alone cannot fall within the legal definition of obscenity for either minors or adults, and that a government cannot silence protected speech for children by wrapping itself in the cloak of parental authority. The Court ordered the lower court to enter an injunction barring enforcement of the law, citing the Supreme Court's recognition in Erznoznik v. Jacksonville, 422 U.S. 205, 213-14, 45 L. Ed. 2d 125, 95 S. Ct. 2268 (1975) that "speech that is neither obscene as to youths nor subject to some other legitimate proscription cannot be suppressed solely to protect the young from ideas or images that a legislative body thinks unsuitable for them. In most circumstances, the values protected by the First Amendment are no less applicable when the government seeks to control the flow of information to minors."

    -nteractive Digital Software Association, et al. v. St. Louis County, Missouri, et al., 329 F.3d 954(8th Cir. 2003)

    <3 <3 <3

    Also: to the men in the thread saying 'I'm over 18 so I don't care', would you care if they passed a law making it illegal for women to buy video games?

    ...yes?

    Granted I'm not of the apathy camp myself, but that's such a non sequitur I'm honestly a little confused.

    Javen on
  • urahonkyurahonky Registered User regular
    edited May 2008
    Lord Yod wrote: »
    Caedere wrote: »
    Here's all I think I really need to say.
    St. Louis County passed an ordinance banned selling or renting violent video games to minors, or permitting them to play such games, without parental consent, and video game dealers sued to overturn the law. The Court of Appeals found the ordinance unconstitutional, holding that depictions of violence alone cannot fall within the legal definition of obscenity for either minors or adults, and that a government cannot silence protected speech for children by wrapping itself in the cloak of parental authority. The Court ordered the lower court to enter an injunction barring enforcement of the law, citing the Supreme Court's recognition in Erznoznik v. Jacksonville, 422 U.S. 205, 213-14, 45 L. Ed. 2d 125, 95 S. Ct. 2268 (1975) that "speech that is neither obscene as to youths nor subject to some other legitimate proscription cannot be suppressed solely to protect the young from ideas or images that a legislative body thinks unsuitable for them. In most circumstances, the values protected by the First Amendment are no less applicable when the government seeks to control the flow of information to minors."

    -nteractive Digital Software Association, et al. v. St. Louis County, Missouri, et al., 329 F.3d 954(8th Cir. 2003)

    <3 <3 <3

    Also: to the men in the thread saying 'I'm over 18 so I don't care', would you care if they passed a law making it illegal for women to buy video games?

    Pfft, everyone knows women don't play or buy video games.

    urahonky on
  • blaklawblaklaw Registered User regular
    edited May 2008
    Lord Yod wrote: »
    Also: to the men in the thread saying 'I'm over 18 so I don't care', would you care if they passed a law making it illegal for women to buy video games?

    I would prefer it. Then developers can spend more time on manly games like GTA and pokemons.

    blaklaw on
    XBL/PSN: blaklaw
  • KhavallKhavall British ColumbiaRegistered User regular
    edited May 2008
    I'm surprised that so many people are for putting video games in the same camp as Porn, Cigarettes, and Alcohol.


    Because they're totally the same.

    Khavall on
  • JavenJaven Registered User regular
    edited May 2008
    Javen wrote: »
    ArcSyn wrote: »
    Ok, so let's just dismiss altogether the law at hand:
    Should the industry, voluntarily, restrict the sale of movies rated R, music with explicit lyrics, games rated M?

    If so, what can the game industry do better so they do not get targeted by these types of bills in the future?

    Why is it that the game industry keeps coming up with fighting these things when I don't hear about the music industry or movie industry dealing with this?

    What can we do, as gamers, to encourage the industry to move forward in this?

    Develop, implement and enforce a rating system that isn't kind of shitty?

    The ESRB is the video game equivalent of the League of Nations.

    ESRB works fine.

    The fact that the only content rating system available to video games is completely voluntary strongly disagrees.

    Javen on
  • BamaBama Registered User regular
    edited May 2008
    Javen wrote: »
    Javen wrote: »
    ArcSyn wrote: »
    Ok, so let's just dismiss altogether the law at hand:
    Should the industry, voluntarily, restrict the sale of movies rated R, music with explicit lyrics, games rated M?

    If so, what can the game industry do better so they do not get targeted by these types of bills in the future?

    Why is it that the game industry keeps coming up with fighting these things when I don't hear about the music industry or movie industry dealing with this?

    What can we do, as gamers, to encourage the industry to move forward in this?

    Develop, implement and enforce a rating system that isn't kind of shitty?

    The ESRB is the video game equivalent of the League of Nations.

    ESRB works fine.

    The fact that the only content rating system available to video games is completely voluntary strongly disagrees.
    How does this differ from content ratings for movies and music?

    Bama on
  • The_ScarabThe_Scarab Registered User regular
    edited May 2008
    Khavall wrote: »
    I'm surprised that so many people are for putting video games in the same camp as Porn, Cigarettes, and Alcohol.


    Because they're totally the same.

    They are.

    All are essential commodities.

    The_Scarab on
    scarab you have mental problems
  • AxenAxen My avatar is Excalibur. Yes, the sword.Registered User regular
    edited May 2008
    pslong9 wrote: »
    Henroid wrote: »
    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.

    Actually, this is incorrect - this just came out today from the FTC:

    http://www.ftc.gov/opa/2008/05/secretshop.shtm

    Numbers below are percentage of how often ID is checked based off of the FTC's study:

    Average for retailers, videogames: 80% of the time, ID is checked
    Average for retailers, R-rated movie theater: 65%
    Average for retailers, purchasing R-rated DVDs: 53%
    Average for retailers, purchasing unrated DVDs (tending to be worse than R): 49%

    For videogames, Gamestop, the biggest 'gaming-only' store, checked ID 94%. Walmart and Best Buy checked around 80% of the time.

    The retailers are policing themselves very well already.

    I really like the idea behind the law - parents should know what their children are playing, and a lot of M-rated games should be restricted to children under 18 - but it is likely going to fail due to possible 1st amendment issues, plus it would make the ESRB ratings enforceable by law, and since the ESRB is not (yet) a governmental entity, that's unconstitutional.


    Indeed. Hell, even I had my ID checked when I bought GTA:IV from Walmart and I do not look like a teenager. Hah, in fact I rarely even get my ID checked when I go to the bar!

    I am all for this law. Though I doubt it will ever get passed. I think it would solve many annoyances. When people start shouting that a game made a kid violent, well then they can say, "Who the fuck bought the game for the kid in the first place?" Parents will have to start, y'know, parenting.

    Axen on
  • JavenJaven Registered User regular
    edited May 2008
    Khavall wrote: »
    I'm surprised that so many people are for putting video games in the same camp as Porn, Cigarettes, and Alcohol.


    Because they're totally the same.

    I think it's a basic fact that some video games are designed and made for use by adults.

    So why exactly should these games not be subject to the same restrictions?

    Javen on
  • AntishowAntishow Registered User
    edited May 2008
    They should make a law stating that only women can buy video games.

    Gamestop would be the sexiest place on Earth.

    Antishow on
  • RaslinRaslin Registered User regular
    edited May 2008
    Lord Yod wrote: »
    Caedere wrote: »
    Here's all I think I really need to say.
    St. Louis County passed an ordinance banned selling or renting violent video games to minors, or permitting them to play such games, without parental consent, and video game dealers sued to overturn the law. The Court of Appeals found the ordinance unconstitutional, holding that depictions of violence alone cannot fall within the legal definition of obscenity for either minors or adults, and that a government cannot silence protected speech for children by wrapping itself in the cloak of parental authority. The Court ordered the lower court to enter an injunction barring enforcement of the law, citing the Supreme Court's recognition in Erznoznik v. Jacksonville, 422 U.S. 205, 213-14, 45 L. Ed. 2d 125, 95 S. Ct. 2268 (1975) that "speech that is neither obscene as to youths nor subject to some other legitimate proscription cannot be suppressed solely to protect the young from ideas or images that a legislative body thinks unsuitable for them. In most circumstances, the values protected by the First Amendment are no less applicable when the government seeks to control the flow of information to minors."

    -nteractive Digital Software Association, et al. v. St. Louis County, Missouri, et al., 329 F.3d 954(8th Cir. 2003)

    <3 <3 <3

    Also: to the men in the thread saying 'I'm over 18 so I don't care', would you care if they passed a law making it illegal for women to buy video games?

    Well, it depends... are they cooking instead?

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

    3ds friend code: 2981-6032-4118
  • Xenogears of BoreXenogears of Bore Registered User regular
    edited May 2008
    Javen wrote: »
    Javen wrote: »
    ArcSyn wrote: »
    Ok, so let's just dismiss altogether the law at hand:
    Should the industry, voluntarily, restrict the sale of movies rated R, music with explicit lyrics, games rated M?

    If so, what can the game industry do better so they do not get targeted by these types of bills in the future?

    Why is it that the game industry keeps coming up with fighting these things when I don't hear about the music industry or movie industry dealing with this?

    What can we do, as gamers, to encourage the industry to move forward in this?

    Develop, implement and enforce a rating system that isn't kind of shitty?

    The ESRB is the video game equivalent of the League of Nations.

    ESRB works fine.

    The fact that the only content rating system available to video games is completely voluntary strongly disagrees.

    FACT: None of the big three console makers will allow unrated content.

    FACT: No major retailer will allow unrated games on their shelves.

    Self policing=successful.

    Xenogears of Bore on
    3DS CODE: 3093-7068-3576
  • BamaBama Registered User regular
    edited May 2008
    Javen wrote: »
    Khavall wrote: »
    I'm surprised that so many people are for putting video games in the same camp as Porn, Cigarettes, and Alcohol.


    Because they're totally the same.

    I think it's a basic fact that some video games are designed and made for use by adults.

    So why exactly should these games not be subject to the same restrictions?
    My pants are designed and made for use by adults. Why shouldn't they be subject to the same restrictions?

    Bama on
  • The_ScarabThe_Scarab Registered User regular
    edited May 2008
    Antishow wrote: »
    They should make a law stating that only women can buy video games.

    Gamestop would be the sexiest place on Earth.

    This man has the right idea. I wonder if he has a newsletter.

    The_Scarab on
    scarab you have mental problems
  • pslong9pslong9 Registered User regular
    edited May 2008
    Javen wrote: »
    Javen wrote: »
    ArcSyn wrote: »
    Ok, so let's just dismiss altogether the law at hand:
    Should the industry, voluntarily, restrict the sale of movies rated R, music with explicit lyrics, games rated M?

    If so, what can the game industry do better so they do not get targeted by these types of bills in the future?

    Why is it that the game industry keeps coming up with fighting these things when I don't hear about the music industry or movie industry dealing with this?

    What can we do, as gamers, to encourage the industry to move forward in this?

    Develop, implement and enforce a rating system that isn't kind of shitty?

    The ESRB is the video game equivalent of the League of Nations.

    ESRB works fine.

    The fact that the only content rating system available to video games is completely voluntary strongly disagrees.

    And if a publisher doesn't send it through the ESRB, the only distribution channel is online, for PCs, because retailers won't carry it, and Nintendo / Sony / Microsoft won't allow it either.

    Edit: Argh, someone beat me to the point.

    pslong9 on
    steam_sig.png

    3DS FC: 0817-3759-2788
  • KhavallKhavall British ColumbiaRegistered User regular
    edited May 2008
    Javen wrote: »
    Khavall wrote: »
    I'm surprised that so many people are for putting video games in the same camp as Porn, Cigarettes, and Alcohol.


    Because they're totally the same.

    I think it's a basic fact that some video games are designed and made for use by adults.

    So why exactly should these games not be subject to the same restrictions?

    Because suppressing the sale of an item by placing age restrictions which as has been shown with AO ratings also applies restrictions on who will carry it and what console it will be on should not be done to something that has no reason to be assumed to be harmful on its own to those who are not in the intended age group?

    Khavall on
  • AkimboEGAkimboEG Registered User regular
    edited May 2008
    This is a good thing.

    AkimboEG on
    steam_sig.png
    Give me a kiss to build a dream on; And my imagination will thrive upon that kiss; Sweetheart, I ask no more than this; A kiss to build a dream on
  • HenroidHenroid Nuance! Unless it's inconvenient for me.Registered User regular
    edited May 2008
    Khavall wrote: »
    I'm surprised that so many people are for putting video games in the same camp as Porn, Cigarettes, and Alcohol.


    Because they're totally the same.

    Method of enforcement doesn't put it in the same grouping.

    Henroid on
    Doug Jones and the Democrats are betraying non-whites. Maybe this should change.
    If you add me on Steam let me know here in case user names don't match up!
  • PantsBPantsB Registered User regular
    edited May 2008
    kaliyama wrote: »
    The_Scarab wrote: »
    Caedere wrote: »
    Here's all I think I really need to say.
    St. Louis County passed an ordinance banned selling or renting violent video games to minors, or permitting them to play such games, without parental consent, and video game dealers sued to overturn the law. The Court of Appeals found the ordinance unconstitutional, holding that depictions of violence alone cannot fall within the legal definition of obscenity for either minors or adults, and that a government cannot silence protected speech for children by wrapping itself in the cloak of parental authority. The Court ordered the lower court to enter an injunction barring enforcement of the law, citing the Supreme Court's recognition in Erznoznik v. Jacksonville, 422 U.S. 205, 213-14, 45 L. Ed. 2d 125, 95 S. Ct. 2268 (1975) that "speech that is neither obscene as to youths nor subject to some other legitimate proscription cannot be suppressed solely to protect the young from ideas or images that a legislative body thinks unsuitable for them. In most circumstances, the values protected by the First Amendment are no less applicable when the government seeks to control the flow of information to minors."

    -nteractive Digital Software Association, et al. v. St. Louis County, Missouri, et al., 329 F.3d 954(8th Cir. 2003)

    Just lock the thread now. This is the answer to everything that we could possibly rehash over the next 10 pages.

    No, no, no - look at the case law I cited a few pages ago. The real issue is whether the material counts as obscene - here, the law was just "violent" video games versus "M" video games, and whether the legislature went through the required findings about harmfulness to minors. If you watn to read the case this broadly, then having MPAA movie ratings would be unconstitutional too, and they're clearly constitutional.

    Its pretty tough for the MPAA moving ratings to be unconstitutional since their existence and the enforcement of them is private (corporate) and voluntary. The precedent is as solid as a non-SCOTUS ruling can be.

    The case law you're referring to does not say what you seem to think it says. The summary from oyez demonstrates that the hurdles for such content based restriction would not allow a ban on M games to minors
    The Court held that the Act violated the First Amendment because its regulations amounted to a content-based blanket restriction of free speech. The Act failed to clearly define "indecent" communications, limit its restrictions to particular times or individuals (by showing that it would not impact on adults), provide supportive statements from an authority on the unique nature of internet communications, or conclusively demonstrate that the transmission of "offensive" material is devoid of any social value. The Court added that since the First Amendment distinguishes between "indecent" and "obscene" sexual expressions, protecting only the former, the Act could be saved from facial overbreadth challenges if it dropped the words "or indecent" from its text. The Court refused to address any Fifth Amendment issues.
    Full decision here

    If you're talking about the ALA case, that isn't relevant either. That referred specifically to requiring content in libraries to be censored in order to receive public funding. Requiring private entities to restrict the distribution of 1st Amendment protected information on a content-based metric is completely different. Caedere's citation is essentially perfect. It could be overridden by the current right-wing SCOTUS but the current precedent is that such a restriction would not be Constitutional.

    PantsB on
    11793-1.png
    day9gosu.png
    QEDMF xbl: PantsB G+
Sign In or Register to comment.