I could see why people would be against protecting children.
Predatory Awards anyone?
Supreme Court Strikes Down California Law
@2HeadedNinja said:excerpts taken out, and in no particular order fromBut that's just it... And that's why it feels like you europeans are bashing your heads into a brick wall. You guys are so out of touch with what the first amendment means. If they were to be restricted....that means THERE IS NO FIRST AMENDMENT PROTECTING THEM. If something is questionable in there they will be taken to court, it happens in pornography all the time, a director just taken to court because of a vaginal fisting scene. So a violent scene just for the fun of it even if it was only for adults could be taken to court to explain their reasoning behind it. Also how about you actually read the entire thing and rather than assume laws look them up for the US. It wouldn't just restrict Mature games, GAMES WITH VIOLENCE TOWARDS EVEN HUMAN LIKE SUBSTITUTES would be restricted. And no stores would not carry them, and they wouldn't be left on the shelves. Major stores don't carry adult only obscene material. What is wrong with you people the amount of times a european goes "BUT IT WORKS FINE OVER HERE!!!" is sickening, that is already happening with the ESRB. No, stores don't just sell the game anyway. That never happens. Like ever.... Yee wants to take it further... So stop thinking a kid can walk into a store to Grand Theft Auto IV...cause they can't...if anything it's in the same frequency as Europe.@outerabiz said:
because such law would effectively classify games as a submedia, thereby removing the first amendment rights of such media in legislative work further down the line, when some lunatic decides that games are evil and anyone who plays games should be executed. The gaming medium would no doubt be damaged by this law, even if not immediately obvious.I feel like thats a really polemic way of viewing that law ... in fact I would argue it's a plain wrong way to view it.
Nothing in that law says anything about media being classified (remember: I only know the article I didnt read the whole thing). This law is just about being able to enforce ratings that are already there. Nothing would change for the average consumer. The games still would be in any brick and mortar store, you would still be able to order them online without any restrictions. The first amendment (from what I know) guarantees free speech. There is nothing in there that restricts the developer in any way.
I would argue you guys would get the best of both worlds. Your games would not be cencored/changed at all (as they are here in germany), yet there would be a safety net in place to protect those from media that is not appropriate for them that can't make the decision themselves. (again, remember: Parents could still buy anthing for their children)
The only thing that would change is that it would be illegal for a store to sell those games to minors.
The more I read about this the more I get the feeling some of the US citizens are blowing this thing way out of proportion.
Assembly Bill No. 1179
CHAPTER 638 "(a) “Minor” means any natural person who is under 18 years of age.
(b) “Person” means any natural person, partnership, firm, association,
corporation, limited liability company, or other legal entity. "
m."
imagine a scenario where we are both 17 kids, if you then buy a mature rated game from me and your parents find out i would have to pay a fine of 1000 dollars, unless i am:
"1746.1. ...
(c) This section shall not apply if the violent video game is sold or
rented to a minor by the minor’s parent, grandparent, aunt, uncle, or legal
guardian"
"1746.2. Each violent video game that is imported into or distributed in
California for retail sale shall be labeled with a solid white “18” outlined
in black. The “18” shall have dimensions of no less than 2 inches by 2
inches. The “18” shall be displayed on the front face of the video game
package " this law would require publishers to add a new label in addition to the esrb, which is honestly just stupid and show how out of touch they are with the industry.
"91(d) (1) “Violent video game” means a video game in which the range
of options available to a player includes killing, maiming, dismembering,
or sexually assaulting an image of a human being, if those acts are
depicted in the game in a manner that does either of the following:
(A) Comes within all of the following descriptions:
(i) A reasonable person, considering the game as a whole, would find
appeals to a deviant or morbid interest of minors.
(ii) It is patently offensive to prevailing standards in the community as
to what is suitable for minors.
(iii) It causes the game, as a whole, to lack serious literary, artistic,
political, or scientific value for minors."
as you can see the law is not only poorly written it is also highly subjective, but these things aren't whats wrong with this piece of legislature.
The problem is exactly as doctor chimp put it " If they were to be restricted....that means THERE IS NO FIRST AMENDMENT PROTECTING THEM."
which means if this was to not to be struck down in supreme court, that video games would be a classified a sub media such as porn is it, instead of comparing it with media such as books and films such as it is now, and not have the first amendment protect its right of expression. Once classified a sub media lawmakers could and probably would go out of their way to make selling violent video games a very difficult prospect thereby making companies opt to change their content to get it to shelves and thereby effectively censoring the media by forced self censorship,
forcing publishers to get into politics and lobbyism.
It may seem that we are over reacting to this thing but it is not the snakebite i fear, it is the poison that follows.
Good for you Americans, good for you.
I was happy to hear this. Gamers don't need the validation but its nice to see games get the protection they deserve. Onwards to the future!
Thanks for the coverage Patrick and Giant Bomb!
Please Log In to post.
Log in to comment