If You Don't Know About Brown v. EMA, You Should

AHHH America the country that hate games the most

I'm 99.9% sure that the court will rule against Brown.

@YukoAsho said:

@joeshadows said:

You're not supposed to sell tickets to R-rated movies to minors, either. How would this be any different from that?

The R-rating ticket thing is also voluntary. There's no law against it.

I think that's the key to why this will be struck down. The supreme court is just going to go with what they know and reference the most similar situation and see how it stands. They will probably use the film industry as a method of comparison.

It's going to be based on how successful, and how important they view legal restrictions with regards to mature content and people of inappropriate ages viewing them in that situation, I'm going to assume that's how they'll make their ruling.

It's also a matter of consideration that any time there is a frivolous case like this that someone is using (or was using in this case) to lampoon their image, it get's struck down. Especially when it comes to 1st Amendment issues.

You're not supposed to sell tickets to R-rated movies to minors, either. How would this be any different from that?

@Rhythm:

It's because the porn industry doesn't really rely on the traditional sales method. Retail sales of pornography rarely stray from the realm of sex shops, online and the occasional local rental store.

I have no idea about the movie industry in your country, but the rating system sure has fucked quite a few movies in my country. Watch "This Film Is Not Yet Rated" to see the extent those ratings dick around with creative ideas. Once you see it, you'll see why not giving pricks like that the power of law behind them is so important.

If a law was passed that fined retailers for selling 15/18 games to minors as they do with cigarettes & alcohol in the U.K I would be fine with that, I just don't want anything that stops developers making adult games and retailers selling them.
 
One thing that does annoy me about this whole situation is when I hear a parent calling for game x to be banned because they believe its for kids as allot of ignorant adults believe games are only for kids, A responsible parent should be held accountible for what their young child plays in their home.
 
All new systems have simple to use parental controls so that if a parent decided to take 10-20 mins reading the manual of the new console they bought their child they would easily be able to set it up so their child could only play games they approved.
 
In a few decades all these people will be gone, the people running goverments will have grown up with video games so the majority of people will see they are an appealing form of entertainment for an adult, The same thing happened with radio,tv,movies and music.
 
Long live gaming.

Someone correct me if im wrong but i will play devils advocate here:

I understand it as this: one side (gov) wants to prohibit the sale of violent games to minors because they feel it is indecent. i agree that 13 year olds should not be playing ultra violent videogames

the other side (gamers, developers) are against this because they believe that this will drop the sales of these "violent games"

that is what i dont understand. NOBODY wants children with these games. Yet gamers/developers are making it sound like the industry of these games relies on the sales to minors.

am i wrong?

@m2cks said:

@shinigami420 said:

AHHH America the country that hate games the most

ahem*Australia*ahem

Or Germany even.

@vdortizo said:

@sammo21: @DivineCC: I'm not saying change it, I'm saying modify it, there are bound to be parts that just don't apply anymore...

Have you seen how fucked our government is? I wouldn't trust anyone to modify it.

@joeshadows said:

You're not supposed to sell tickets to R-rated movies to minors, either. How would this be any different from that?

Its not illegal to sell R-rated tickets or movies to minors, its a voluntary stance theatres and stores take. This new law would make it a criminal offense to sell violent games to minors.

@MattyFTM: The thing is that it will affect us brits, and everybody in the world who enjoys video games, as it will change the content that developers will add to their video games in order for them to reach a wider audience. This will affect games globally as the US market is a very large market for video games and any developer, anywhere wants their games to sell to the most people. If a developer has to make a game for child friendly, so that it is not illegal to sell to certain segments of the audience then that will change the games we get here.

@vdortizo:

what parts are those?

I don't really like this, but if games that don't match those three criteria aren't made, I could get used to it.

Maybe The states will be the new Australia? Prolly not, but it would be nice...

Going to be a big day. The ramifications of this decision will be far reaching. Fingers crossed they don't side with the "won't somebody please think of the children" crowd.

Good writeup btw Patrick

@MattyFTM: The thing is that it will affect us brits, and everybody in the world who enjoys video games, as it will change the content that developers will add to their video games in order for them to reach a wider audience. This will affect games globally as the US market is a very large market for video games and any developer, anywhere wants their games to sell to the most people. If a developer has to make a game for child friendly, so that it is not illegal to sell to certain segments of the audience then that will change the games we get here.

I'm 99.9% sure that the court will rule against Brown.

@ATTILAtheFUN: @HotJohnson: @Nate_is_my_fake_name: @SteamPunkJin: @MattyFTM:

I've already recommended it earlier in the thread, but I've decided to pick it up with you guys too. Watch the movie "This Film has Not Yet Been Rated" for a look of what the people judging videogames would be like. Then you have to imagine them with law behind them.

Right now, there are no laws governing media that is not pornography. It is completely voluntary.

That being said, I have an issue to bring up to you in regards to "nothing will change if they make a law". I'm here to tell you, that's bullshit.

It takes a SHIT-TON of money to make a big, AAA video game. This means there is significant risk in the creation of this video game. To recoup these development funds and to make money off of their labor, they have to put it in as many sales venues as possible. This means big-box retailers like Best Buy and Walmart.

Let's say a law that gave a 1000USD fine to every single purchase of a violent video game to a minor(which is the law that is suggested). A recent secret shopper assessment gave Walmart a 10 - 1000 purchase rating. Meaning out of 1000 attempts only 10 people were able to purchase a video game as a minor(better ratings than books, magazines, movies and music). This would mean Walmart would be fined, 10,000USD. Now, imagine how many purchases are made in Walmart stores nationally a week. There's a pretty significant chance that a child would buy a game.

You see, these people working the registers? They're human, and can make mistakes. As intelligent business people, those who run Walmart understand this. So, instead of incurring fines that would bite into the profit margin of a specific store, they take the same stance they do with NC17 movies. Suddenly, Walmart no longer carries "M"-rated video games because they just don't want to have to worry about those fines. By the way, a vast majority of video game profit to big box retailers is games rated "T" and below, so not carrying these games wouldn't be a huge slice of their profit.

And this significantly impacts the visibility of a product, which impacts the profitability of a product, which impacts the decisions of content creators, publishers and developers on what to create and distribute. So any act of law-inflicted censorship acts DIRECTLY AT ALL OF US. NOT JUST THE CHILDREN.

"If Guns are outlawed, then I'll be an outlaw"

Oh, wait...

"If Games are outlawed, then I'll be an outlaw"

I'm in britain and today i saw Kane & Lynch 2 and Madworld next to the sweets section of a supermarket.

Freedom is wonderful, it's important these games are visable, it's up to parents to say "that's not for you".

As far as deciding what the law should be regarding punishment for selling to minors that's something i don't feel comfortable answering, there is no credible research to prove any game creates a murdering psychopath so fineing anyone thousands of dollars at this stage seems dumb.

Yes punish someone for selling weapons or drugs to kids, but video games?

Well after the supreme court ruled that you have no right to defend your home or yourself against police officers and completely disassembled  the 4th amendment in ruling that police officers can break into your home.  For  no more reason then hearing something that may be destroying evidence (don't flush your toilet people) without a warrant or any reason for being there in the first place.   I wouldn't put going against the first amendment past them. We live in a time where the constitution means nothing. How did it get this bad ? Easy death by a million cuts no one blinked an eye at the small infringements on their rights because it was for the children or your safety. 

Watch the movie "This Film has Not Yet Been Rated"

On a side note, already mentioned here in the comments a couple of times, thank you so much Patrick for penning this article, and doing a great job of explaining the situation for anyone not following this directly. Another fine example of why this is my go-to site for all things gaming-related.

Hopefully publishers will realize that their major consumers are still 18-21 year old males and not dumb down their games, if this thing goes through.

It isn't the government's place to parent the nation's children. Simple as that. Although I could easily see it going in the opposite direction just because the supreme court would want to make a spectacle about video games.

@ATTILAtheFUN: @HotJohnson: @Nate_is_my_fake_name: @SteamPunkJin: @MattyFTM:

I've already recommended it earlier in the thread, but I've decided to pick it up with you guys too. Watch the movie "This Film has Not Yet Been Rated" for a look of what the people judging videogames would be like. Then you have to imagine them with law behind them.

Right now, there are no laws governing media that is not pornography. It is completely voluntary.

I'll be honest, I didn't read the whole thing, but don't sell stuff rated R or Mature to children.

Very nervous about this, but I have faith that the supreme court will see reason.

If this is going to happen, if a minor who was influenced by a violent video game goes out on a rampage, the parents of the child -- the ones who bought the game with knowledge that their child would play it -- should be punished rather than the child. It's happened in other countries, so it's not unprecedented either.

inb4 verdict postponed for 2015

After watching Thank You for Smoking last night, I seriously hope that some video game lobbyist argues about how hypocritical it is that California, the state of Hollywood, which produces the most violent and exploitative films in the world, is blaming video games for violence. It is the parents that need to decide these things, and putting video games in the same section as pornography will do little but embarrass consumers and hurt the bottom line of developers. If only Nick Naylor was real, folks.
 
Regardless, in ten years all video games will be completely digital, and I currently order all my games from Amazon, so this has absolutely no affect on me.

games in the UK have the 18 certificate already, and the policy of most shops is that you have to provide ID if they believe you don't look over 21, so i cant see this hurting us much. the only problem it could have is with the developers deciding to pull a nintendo, and make games like my little pony rather than games like skyrim.

The fundamental issue around these types of laws are understanding the medium of video games. Almost every time a violent and popular video game is released here in Norway, critics come out and blame video games for everything from school shootings to violence in general.

If an 18-year old buys a game, listens to heavy metal, watches a violent movie and then goes out and kills someone afterwards, I would blame neither of the above. I would blame the system around this kid for putting him in a situation where he felt it was necessary to kill someone in the first place.

I hate the fact that i seen no fewer then 5 people in the first few pages saying if this passes it wont matter....That makes me very sad. And to the dumb ass that posted first...Shame on you.

Freedom of Speech is one thing the US has that is not all over the world.

If this law is passed, it will spreed to all our forms of free speech, books, movies, music, tv, news.

This whole thing makes me sad. And it shows that We, as gamers, are so out of touch with the world out side of gaming that we ignore the bigger picture.

But given how the lawyer was questioned at the start of this whole miss, i dont see it passing.

Good questions where brought up that no answers where really given, like who will get to decide what is indecent for kids, and who will be in charge of the whole of video games if it passes, and how is video games any diff from any other form of speech out there?

I hope this dont pass because it will lead else where. Same with the damn airport crap we have to deal with...it will spread....

@GozerTC said:

I hate that the bastard State Congressthing has the same last name as me. Bugger makes my name sound bad! I feel for everyone with the last name Brown too. :(

but brown is attached to the good side of Brown v. Board of Education

The thing is, from what I've read of the transcript, several of the justices seemed to treat the anti-game side fairly condescendingly, including more than a few puns regarding Grimm's fairy tales. This particular court doesn't seem to especially care about moral guardianship like some other incarnations have, including the infamous statement of "I'll know it [obscenity] when I see it!" . Sure, that also leads to decisions from this court that I personally find quite questionable, but I think we're good on the censorship.

@Hendrixx: @Hendrixx said:

The fundamental issue around these types of laws are understanding the medium of video games. Almost every time a violent and popular video game is released here in Norway, critics come out and blame video games for everything from school shootings to violence in general.

If an 18-year old buys a game, listens to heavy metal, watches a violent movie and then goes out and kills someone afterwards, I would blame neither of the above. I would blame the system around this kid for putting him in a situation where he felt it was necessary to kill someone in the first place.

Whats really funny is in the states, violent crime has been on a decrese for over 20 years. FBI factiod.

Everyone should see the documentary on censorship named "This movie is not yet rated" - Brilliant documentary on the MPAA and how frustrating it could be as a movie maker. Maybe we will see a heavier push for something like this for video games than what exists today

Screened link for the documentary: http://www.screened.com/this-film-is-not-yet-rated/16-193121/

@Gonmog: Interesting! Isn´t it something like: violent crime is decreasing, but fear of violent crime is increasing dramatically?

I want there to be protests if this law is passed!

Well after the supreme court ruled that you have no right to defend your home or yourself against police officers and completely disassembled  the 4th amendment in ruling that police officers can break into your home.  For  no more reason then hearing something that may be destroying evidence (don't flush your toilet people) without a warrant or any reason for being there in the first place.   I wouldn't put going against the first amendment past them. We live in a time where the constitution means nothing. How did it get this bad ? Easy death by a million cuts no one blinked an eye at the small infringements on their rights because it was for the children or your safety. 

I didn't see it mentioned in the article, but I'm assuming if this passes then it will become the job of the government (or a government appointed body) to determine which games fall into the no-no zone. Basically the government would be responsible for rating games. If this happens then everything is going to be totally fucked and I'm going to moving to Canada.

@vdortizo said:

mmm

Good point.

I've seen movies that are more violent than some games and read books that are far scarier than any video game. To pick out just Postal and say "This is what violent video games are all about. We need to protect the kids from this" It would be the equivalent of saying "I watched Saw. No other movies just Saw, and I want to pass a law protecting kids from violent movies"

In other words we got nothing to worry about. Those judges will do the right thing and protect video games like any other art form.

I understand the idea of regulating game sales of violent games, but I felt the ESRB is doing that already to a point where it's near impossible for a kid to go in a store and buy a violent video game without a parent. To further regulate it seems ridiculous to me. On the subject of constitutional protection I think games are art. like movies and books not all games will be artistic and many will be low quality and cheap entertainment. But among those some will make you think and feel, and to me that's the meaning of art.

@Beforet said:

inb4 verdict postponed for 2015

This isn't the Australian court system. :P

Hopefully, the Supreme Court has the sense to see that California's law should be shot down.