The US Supreme Court will assemble tomorrow to start the hearing for California senator Leland Yee law about banning the sale of Ultra Violent video games to minors. Yee's bill basically states that the ESRB rating system is not acceptable and all video games classified as Ultra Violet should be marked with an 18 sticker on it and should not be displayed and be separated in it's own spacial section. Further more Yee wants all games with said sticker to be ban from being sold to minors. The law also states that any retailer caught selling said games to minor will be heavily fined. while you might come and say that this law will not affect you as an adult then you might want to rethink your position. If this law will go into effect it will have far reaching ramification then you can imagine.
The US Supreme Court won't be making the ruling tomorrow and will have until June 2011. Until then you can take action at the VGVN web site and show your support against this unconstitutional law.
EDIT: Ted Price of Insomniac has actually given a very good interview to G4 explaining this law and why you should stand up against it.
Video Games to go Supreme.
" it's sad ppl aren't spreading this news. "You do know that there have been, what, 5 billion threads on this exact issue? All filled with similar levels of internet rage? No, the news was spread about 2 weeks ago.
There's nothing wrong with the law and there really should be tighter restrictions on selling M rated games to minors. The problem I have is that they're only targeting videogames. There's no reason why senator Yee shouldn't be including movies and music as they are just as influential.
I'm not American, so this obviously doesn't affect me. However, the posted video does help to explain why this is a bad thing, and everyone should definitely take a look at that. In my opinion, this isn't the right way to go, but somewhere there is a happy middle-ground. With retailers already doing a better job at enforcing the ratings system than those in other media areas, that's definitely not the right way to tackle the issue.
The best way to change the current situation, which in my opinion isn't a bad one at all, is education of parents and carers. A site like What They Play gives a decent place for parents to go to learn about the games that their children are playing. Working to build a site like that which can provide very detailed information for parents and then widely distributing knowledge of its existence to the people who are going to need it would probably go a long way towards...well, whatever it is that Leland Yee wants to stop.
It's tricky. They have a lot of power, but no evidence, whereas we have a pretty strong voice and good ideas, but not enough representation for the masses. Eventually, this will sort itself out, but I don't think this is the one that's going to do that. And just remember, in about 20 years a vast majority of people will have grown up playing games in some way, and then they'll be the ones making the laws.
If you are an English-speaking gamer, this will affect you. This case affects what developers everywhere will produce. It will also affect what foreign-developed games get localized into English (think what this might mean for Capcom, PlatinumGames, or the chances for an English version of Demon Souls 2 or Catherine). The case has the potential to effectively shrink the US market... and that's not really good for anyone.
Hold on, am I missing something? As far as I knew you can't sell M games to minors anyway.
What is this trying to prove?
" Hold on, am I missing something? As far as I knew you can't sell M games to minors anyway. What is this trying to prove? "Actually you can with the parents consent. This bill propose that the selling of M rated will be banned for minors, parents permission or not. Just because you are a minor doesn't mean the First Amendment doesn't apply to you.
In England we have Pegi which is Like ERSB ratings but it is backed up by law, meaning if you sell to a minor then the store can get fined. But it is not as bad as this the games are not put on a top shelf or in a separate part of the store or not advertised. Also there is no difference between a 7 12 15 18 stickers. But the law that they want to put in there seems way OOT and treating the games they deem as "violent" seems much worst and wrong.
Why can't a parent just buy the game and go and give it to their kids?" @NekuSakuraba said:
" Hold on, am I missing something? As far as I knew you can't sell M games to minors anyway. What is this trying to prove? "Actually you can with the parents consent. This bill propose that the selling of M rated will be banned for minors, parents permission or not. Just because you are a minor doesn't mean the First Amendment doesn't apply to you. "
" @Mordukai said:This question remains...Why can't a parent just buy the game and go and give it to their kids? "" @NekuSakuraba said:
" Hold on, am I missing something? As far as I knew you can't sell M games to minors anyway. What is this trying to prove? "Actually you can with the parents consent. This bill propose that the selling of M rated will be banned for minors, parents permission or not. Just because you are a minor doesn't mean the First Amendment doesn't apply to you. "
If retailers can now be fined by the government for selling M rated games to minors, retailers will be less likely to stock those games. Therefore publishers and financial backers will be less likely to publish those games, and developers will be forced to "tone down" their games to meet whatever the government decides is appropriate for kids. Indeed, given that its unclear what games and what level of "violence" meets the statute, developers will be discouraged from even coming close to the line to avoid running into lawsuits and publisher disputes.
It's fine if the industry, community, and parents do it on its own in a voluntary way. It's not fine if the government censorship committee comes together to decide what's appropriate. That's the whole point of the First Amendment.
Ok so I agree with his moral argument but not constitutional argument. He's arguing using hypotheticals that may or may not hold up (that stores would stop carrying games with an 18 sticker) and arguing that having a second sticker would psychologically affect purchasers in a way that I disagree with.
That being said, parents should watch what their kids do and people with a decent moral compass should be able to make their own decisions.
So far so good according to reports from people who heard the argument:
"Some of the Grimm's Fairy Tales are quite grim," Justice Scalia told an attorney for California. "Are they OK? Are you going to ban them, too?" "What about films? What about comic books?"
Please Log In to post.
Log in to comment