IEMA ready to fight CA violent videogame law

by Ross Miller { Oct 11th 2005 at 7:00PM }

California Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger recently, at almost the last possible moment, signed bill AB1179 into law. The bill, which has gained much attention online, requires extra warning labels to be placed on violent games, as well fining retailers $1,000 for not using the labels or not checking a customer's ID. Naturally, the IEMA, ESRB, and ESA are none too pleased by this, and today IEMA released a press statement condemning the new law.

The statement expresses disappointment with Schwarzenegger's decision to sign the bill into law, citing his previous platform of "taking the politics out of lawmaking." The IEMA predicts this law, on the grounds of First Amendment violation, will be overturned, and praises its own self-regulation of Mature rated games. Expect a lawsuit by the ESA in the coming months, but in the meantime do you think the IEMA is overreacting?

Reader Comments (Page 1 of 1)

PickyPants @ Dec 18th 2005 10:09PM

Well, they might be overreacting in the mind of the end user, but this bill means loss of revenue, so I can totally see them freaking out about it. Money money money!

Bloo (formerly Glenn) @ Dec 18th 2005 10:09PM

What's wrong with banning selling games like Grand Theft Auto to kids? As long as they don't ban the games it's all good.

vaylen @ Dec 18th 2005 10:09PM

It's good to see that Arnold Schwarzenegger is leading the way towards ensuring that no child ever sees a person getting shot, slashed or killed violently by another person. Having such images on the TV of their home would surely warp their little minds. Arnold knows this, so he is making sure such products would NEVER be allowed to be viewed by children.

In a related note, Wal-Mart has just been fined $500 million for their sales of Conan, Terminator, Predator, Commando and True Lies movies to minors. The USA and TNT networks have also been fined $10 billion for their showings of these movies with the violent deaths still depicted to countless millions of children over the past two decades. Thanks for not being a hypocrite, Arnie!

funkonaut @ Dec 18th 2005 10:09PM

"Naturally, the IEMA, ESRB, and ESA are none too pleased by this, and today IEMA released a press statement condemning the new law."

Why is the ESRB pissed? Shouldn't they be pleased that M rated games are not being sold to kids? I don't see how you can argue that kids should be allowed to buy M rated games. What's the point of a ratings system if you don't want anyone to abide by it? If the ESRB doesn't want this law, they might as well disband; there wouldn't be a need for them to rate games.

Soothsayer @ Dec 18th 2005 10:09PM

I think one reason they might be pissed is because this law basically dismisses the existing self-regulation system as ineffectual. If the law is allowed to stand, it will hurt the credibility of the industry in the long run.

As an aside, I don't see how the first amendment has anything to do with this.

Greg O. @ Dec 18th 2005 10:09PM

I don't see how it is replacing or overruling any system put in place by the ESRB, or anyone else. Is it not just making a stricter policy on selling the (already rated) Mature games? I feel like everyone's making an excuse to get mad at Arnold..

A New Challenger @ Dec 18th 2005 10:09PM

I have no problem with preventing 8 year olds from buying Grand Theft Auto. What I have a problem with is that the selling of books, movies, or tickets to movie theaters, and CDs to minors is not legislated. Like vaylen said, hypocrisy.

Of course, what this hinges on is the perception that "video games are for kids" and the argument that the interactive nature of gaming is more potent than words on a page or noninteractive screen images in warping the fragile little minds of the youth. correct me if I'm wrong, but I believe the Bloods and the Crips predate GTA: San Andreas by about 30 years.

Do you think the ESRB would be better off ditching the rating system and slapping a "Parental Advisory: Explicit Content" label on violent games or games with suggestive themes?

climber07 @ Dec 18th 2005 10:09PM

If revenue requires selling age restricted games to minors then too bad. If a 12 year old bought a porno or tried to walk into a rated R movie by his or herself, then the same restriction would be placed on them. If the games have the rating, then retricting the purchase of them is only logical.

My nephew buys the games through his mother, but at least she knows what he is buying and playing.

What is the difference between this and any other age restricted item. I got carded in a WalMart for buying DVDs becase the register required an ID for an R rated movie. I'm 34 and don't even get carded for alcohol any more.

jcervant @ Dec 18th 2005 10:09PM

The problem with this law is that it's trying to fine stores for something that they can't often do anything about. The law leaves too many open holes for the government to basically fine the distribution section of the video-game industry almost at will. When a kid goes into a rated R movie because the man at the booth wasn't paying attention, does the theatre get fined? No. The kid gets kicked out. However, with this law, if a kid manages to trick the guy at the counter, the store will get fined a ridiculous amount of money. If they had any concern about real justice they'd fine the parents who aren't bothering to take enough time out of their day to check what their children are buying. They're trying to take responsibility from parents and enforcing it through vague, exploitable, and frankly unfair legislation.

YoYo-Pete @ Dec 18th 2005 10:09PM

Government cant fix the problems from violent video games... Only parents can.

No matter how many stickers and ratings are put on a game, CD, Movie, etc... Kids are going to get their hands on it.

Parents need to know what their kids are doing. Don't say "You cant have this" because the kid is going to do everything he can to get it.

Instead, parents need to understand why their child wants to play, watch, listen to these things and make the child understand that games, movie, music, etc... is all fiction.

Parents need to understand if they are dealing with a "beavis and butthead" or if they are dealing with a "jimmy neutron". What's the difference?

Beavis and Butthead would laugh about running over hookers in GTA because it's funny to run over hookers and watch them bounce off the car.

Jimmy Neutron would laugh about running over hookers in GTA because the social commentary in the game is a funny and it's just ridiculous what you can do.

In my mind, there is a night and day difference between the two (and a million shades of gray in between).