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.
New Bill Calls for Mandatory Video Game ID Checks
Posts
Yes, absolutely, the industry should voluntarily restrict the sale.
What can they do not to be targeted? Stop making violent games.
Really, that's the only way these people will be happy. Clearly it's not enforcement that is a problem, since as the study quoted a few times in this thread shows, the video game industry is better even that the movie industry in that area.
The other thing we can do is just wait it out. Many media formats have gone through a phase such as this one, and eventually wide acceptance of the media wins out and the laws stop being proposed.
The games industry comes up because it is newer than the others, and less widely accepted.
What can we do? Oppose government regulation and demand voluntary restrictions from retailers. If there is a group that asks retailers to restrict sales without relation to the government, I will support it wholeheartedly.
Sorry if my posts about ALA and the CDA were misleading - another poster had brought up slippery slope arguments, and I was offering those as examples of how courts can intelligently draw the line without falling victim to the overused slippery-slope trope. I don't think they're very on point for the issue of regulating game sales, and wasn't relying on them for authority. I actually think St. Louis, Ginsberg, and the discussion of Ginsberg in St. Louis explain how game sales can be regulated.
St. Louis leaves the door open to a restriction on speech as long as the government makes a sufficient showing. Whether or not video games can meet the obscenity tests articulated in case law is unclear. The record that legislatures have relied on so far has been pretty crappy; whether this is because there's no evidence to find or because they're lazy and pandering (or both) is unknown.
People on the thread have been saying that any content-based restriction of video game sales is unconstitutional because of the dicta in St. Louis, and that's simply untrue. St. Louis clearly lays out the burden the legislature has to meet in order to regulate game sales. They can do it. Will they? I don't know. But you need to read what happened in St. Louis - the gov't had like zero findings of how games they were regulating were sufficiently harmful to justify restrictions.
Have you SEEN these kids with their baggy pants? I would gladly accept restriction on that. I do not need to see your boxers or crack, thankyouverymuch.
fines or jailtime for people who buy m rated video games for minors
I didn't realize we were dealing with a dangerous substance here
what if a ten year old kid wants to buy a season of the sopranos for his dad
that's not rated R per se, but it is violent and contains foul language
what about romance novels
what about Sports Illustrated Swimsuit issues
what of that
Uh... I wasn't the one who said that.
Although, if you want a woman pokeywomans, I can hook you up. :winky:
You are not jailed. There is an edit button..
I think we moved beyond this, but mom could help him purchase Sopranos for dad, and I was actually very surprised to see the SI Swimsuit issue this year sitting out on the shelves. That was a bit too racy for the checkout line at the supermarket.
Bolded and enlarged the key point in that blurb. Yes, that is the point this violates free speech, or 1st amendment rights, or whatever else is being cited. And on this point, you're absolutely right.
Good thing this proposal IS NOT doing that. It just restricts the right to purchase the content, not consume it. There is shit all being violated by saying it would be illegal for a 12 year old child to purchase an M rated game. He can still play it, and nobody can stop him.
There is no censorship happening, or governmental restrictions on speech, or any other V for Vendetta bullshit people are spouting off in defense of this. Children shouldn't be able to purchase M rated games by themselves. This helps prevent that. They can still PLAY M rated games, but they have to get their parents to buy it first.
So why exactly should these music, paintings, movies and books not be subject to the same restrictions?
Isn't this game fun?
I just hope if it does happen it opens up avenues for more adult games.
Just like with movies I hate the idea that the creative makers behind products have to edit down their films/games to fit within a rating system. I doubt it would happen but I hope, because of this law, stores would be willing to carry AO titles. I mean technically the difference between M and AO is 1 birthday (17 and 18) but it has the same effect as R and NC-17...only worse since NC-17 films CAN get theatrical releases and put onto store shelves if they want. They just cut out a large portion of potential viewers.
Why does everyone ignore this part? Is it because it negates their entire point they are trying to make? Perhaps.
it sets a bad precedent. it's not the end of the world by itself, but it's opening a door that probably should not be opened.
Go see the documentary "This Film Has Not Yet Been Rated" and learn the truth.
Oh sure, you CAN make an NC-17 or unrated movie, and just as many movie houses will carry them.
I'd imagine getting the gub'ment involved would only worsen the problem of censorship by economic force.
Stores will never carry AO games.
Seriously, there are countless cases where parents blame the gaming industry for their children's fuck ups, and I'm pretty fed up with it.
I'm not saying this will solve the problem - I'm pretty sure most underage kids do get the games through their parents, but it's a step in the right direction.
The findings were not the controlling factor in the case though. Link
Now they discuss whether if this was a rational basis case it would be Constitutional and determine it would not be.
The Ginsburg case referred to a bookseller selling a video of 16 year old boys masturbating to minors, material that was classified as obscene because of the inclusion of minors.
The best known obscenity test is the Miller test. It must be all three of these to be obscene legally. I know of no video games available on mainstream consoles (not including the PC) that pass (or fail depending on how you look at it) those three standards.
QEDMF xbl: PantsB G+
Hey, look, I can do it too! The quote talks about both banning the sale/renting of games to minors, in addition to regulating whether or not they could play them.
Please don't misquote or misrepresent my post to fit your viewpoint - what I posted is very clear and very, very to the point.
Thats all it pretty much boils down to.
People, we don't need the federal government stepping in to take care of everything. The current way is fine and if government just HAS to be involved let the state and/or local city councils take care of it.
Period.
(as long as they can have a parent buy it for them and then they can play it if the parent approves)
Really, I don't see the difference between M-rated games (not all games, M-rated games) and porn. Both are for an audience that needs to conform to a certain age standard due to the content of the product.
Now, I can see the anti's point: We don't actually legislate movies and books, so why games?
I don't have a straight answer. It's a debate that can't easily be solved, and everyone will have different opinions.
But drop the censorship and 1st ammendment bullshit, there's no censorship going on here. Is it censorship that a teen can't go out and buy/rent porn?
Yes, it is. If you got the right Judges in the Supreme Court you could get that overturned.
Rrrreally... so my plan to sell porno to kids in elementary schools will soon be complete.
Crazy, I know.
Not necessarily. The idea of restricting porn is that it has no artistic merit and is only salacious in intent.
So by restricting games, then we have a law saying games have no artistic merit, and are only for violence/pornographic purposes.
Video games, like other forms of multimedia art, should not be censored. Period.
It is also defined in certain definitions as Suppressing material.
Restriction of age is suppression.
Wow, for instance the second definition of the noun form.
How about those?
Now we need to look up the difference between public distribution and commercial sale.
I have a feeling you're going to agree with most of what i'm saying - it's hard to know what you're arguing/how you're interpreting this case because you're mostly quoting it, so I apologize if i'm redundant or mischaracterize your position.
Like I said, I don't know if the government can make the required findings to show a compelling interest to restrict video game sales or that any particular video game is going to meet the miller test. But if they do, it's clear you can regulate video game sales. I noted in an earlier post the same thing you do - that restricting violent video games by definition isn't restricting obscene speech because obscenity requires more than violence. That post is here.
All the first two block quotes explain is that video games are a protected form of expression. Bizarrely, the district court found video games weren't a protected medium of expression. I don't think anyone is arguing that video games aren't entitled to first amendment protections in the abstract - was there something else those quotes are offering that I missed? If video games weren't protected, the court wouldn't have to even bother with the meat of the decision - when a government can regulate video game sales.
There are two avenues for permissibly regulating speech
1) Find the speech is obscene and less protected, and that you are not restricting non-obscene speech.
2) Regulate non-obscene speech under strict scrutiny - showing a compelling interest in regulating it and that you are using the least restrictive means possible.
The point in St. Louis' discussion of Ginsberg was that rational basis review didn't apply because it wasn't obscene speech. When you can show either 1 or 2, it is perfectly fine to empower parents to control their children's access to speech.
Even if most games aren't obscene, if they offer some combination of explicit sex or violence and it has a negative impact on children, then there is probably a compelling interest to justify regulation of the icky, but non-obscene speech. So in St. Louis, The government's findings about the impact of video games were most certainly the controlling factor in deciding whether or not there was a compelling interest in regulating this speech. Once the government can produce credible psychological studies showing that these games have real impacts on the behavior of children, it is very likely that this sort of restriction on sale will be upheld. This sort of law can easily be constitutional, as long as the legislating body is less bumbling and inept than the one in St. Louis.
He didn't misquote nor did he misrepresent: the ordinance can be overturned specifically based on what he bolded, and it's very likely that was the primary reason, not sales restrictions.
Fixed, for sadness.
:P
And before you run me out of town saying that there are girl gamers, I would counter with the reply "Not Enough".
It was very clear to the point. That it is unconstitutional to make it illegal for youths to be subjected to violence or forms of speech. That's the crux of the argument. Or in laymans terms, it cannot be against the law for little Timmy to view a scene of someone getting gutted.
That has nothing to do with SELLING him the scene. That should be restricted. Which is exactly what this current proposition wants to do.
Would that make you a Pokepimp? Oh snap!
"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."
I don't know what it sounds like to you, but nothing in there sounds like they exclusively are talking about the part of the law regarding playing the game. Preventing sale of a game sure sounds like "controlling the flow of information" and "suppression" to me. At the very least you must admit that it is a debatable point. Unless there's something I'm missing.