Video Game Voters Network starts Stop Schwarzenegger Campaign

by Justin McElroy { Aug 14th 2007 at 2:13PM }

You have to give it to the Video Game Voters Network: They've got guts. The organization is attempting to do what T-1000, Sinbad, a kindergarten class, and yes, The Devil himself could not: Stop Arnold Schwarzenegger. As you may already know, the governor of California (does anyone else still get the feeling we're living in Bizarro World?) is moving forward on an appeal of a judge's ruling that proposed AB 1179, which would legally ban minors from buying "violent video games," is unconstitutional.

The VGVN is trying to preempt the action, asking Californians to send this letter or one of their own creation to Schwarzenegger as they implore him to drop the bill and instead focus on education. "But Joystiq," we hear you ask, "if it's already been ruled unconstitutional, why does he continue to fight? What could Schwarzenegger possibly have against the Constitution?" Oh dear, sweet reader. We should think it would be obvious.

Tags: ab1179, california, gamebill, schwarzenegger

Reader Comments (Page 1 of 1)

mr nimblewick @ Aug 14th 2007 2:18PM

Can we add something to the letter asking him to leave office? kthx

Anonim @ Aug 14th 2007 3:12PM

(german accent)
"I was chosen to LEAD!, not to READ!"

Rare Hare @ Aug 14th 2007 7:58PM

Right. Only Arnold Schwarzenegger isn't from Germany. He's from Austria.

Avatar @ Aug 14th 2007 10:52PM

It's from the Simpsons movie, Hare.

Randy @ Aug 15th 2007 8:24AM

Avatar, I don't think Rare Hare was confused about where the quote was from. He was correcting Anonim on which type of accept Arnold has. Similar to when people correct English accents vs Austrailian. They are not the same and Arnold is not German, thus his accent isn't German.

FrankTheCrank @ Aug 14th 2007 2:21PM

I DON'T HAVE A TUMOR!!

mr nimblewick @ Aug 14th 2007 2:23PM

It's not a Too-ma!

hvnlysoldr @ Aug 14th 2007 2:22PM

My dad made me a bunch of his movies as a kid. They were awesome.

mr nimblewick @ Aug 14th 2007 2:24PM

Is he listed as producer in the credits? Finally, one step closer to learning your true identity!

hvnlysoldr @ Aug 14th 2007 2:30PM

Oops. That's supposed to be my dad made me watch a bunch of Schwarzenegger movies as well as Fellowship of the Ring and Robocop.

Kevin @ Aug 14th 2007 2:33PM

Every time I read the word "Californians", I just can't help but hear Arnold's voice saying it.

Neebs @ Aug 14th 2007 2:41PM

Excellent end of article link.

HineyWipe @ Aug 14th 2007 2:47PM

I call malarky on the Video Game Voters Network. Better yet, they are some schill or Astroturfers for the gaming industry. Do the research...

"He is completely disregarding the Constitution, court rulings across the country, and the ESRB's successful progress in educating parents about what is the correct choice for their respective children."

The ESRB is successful? Minors buy games. They use their parents CC and order from Gamespot.com, or rent them through Gamefly. I know this as my nephew's friends are quite braggart on this, and minors. And I've never seen a parent not get their kids a game they wanted "Whaaaaaa, everyone has it but me!!!!".

"Awwnold's point is to prevent minors, who don't vote, nor have the right to have what they want, from purchasing violent video games. KALLefPhornya is just the place to have this, where games are born..."

Oh, I guess that 6 year old will tell no tale of the videogames he played before some taxidriver-former-mother's boyfriend pummeled him to death in Ventura County...yesterday...

Nushio @ Aug 14th 2007 3:04PM

What the kids really need is edumacation. If their parents aren't pwning their kids with books and stuff, and continue to let them grow spoiled (Taking the credit card without permission?).

Edumacation. Say it with me.

Anam @ Aug 14th 2007 5:45PM

The purpose of the ESRB is not to prevent minors from purchasing games (that is unconstitutional), it is to educate parents and allow them to make a decision for their kids.

The ESRB is as successful in that task as anyone can possibly expect, considering that every game is marked with a clearly identifiable rating, the back of the box includes what that game was rated for, and notices are placed in many major stores such as Best Buy explaining the ratings.

The only thing I can think of that the ESRB could do that they aren't currently is require game developers to place a warning during the intro of a game, similar to how home movies are done. Also, I personally think that they should change game ratings to mimic movie ratings just for clarity (meaning start calling games "R rated" instead of "M rated.")

But realistically, those things won't make a difference. The bottom line is that there are still millions of parents who haven't yet grasped the concept that there are games made for adults. Until those parents die off and are replaced by a new generation, there's not much we can do.

blooh @ Aug 14th 2007 6:40PM

hineywipe, you have to be 18 to get a credit card. that's negligent parenting that lets those kids use credit cards to sign up for gamefly or buy from gamestop.

hold the parents accountable for godssake

dsub @ Aug 14th 2007 8:24PM

Wow. You are part of the problem. All I had to do was read the first part of your post...

"The ESRB is successful? Minors buy games. They use their parents CC and order from Gamespot.com, or rent them through Gamefly. I know this as my nephew's friends are quite braggart on this, and minors. And I've never seen a parent not get their kids a game they wanted "Whaaaaaa, everyone has it but me!!!!"."

First of all, what parent in their right mind would EVER give their credit card to a child under 17 to allow them to make purchases on the internet. Perhaps you are merely a bonehead parent like the rest of them that goes into a store and just buys the kid whatever they want, ignores the clerk that undoubtedly asks if it's okay their child get the game, and then turn around and blame the gaming industry when little jimmy gets detention for pretending to shoot his friends because they were "playing grand theft auto".

The ESRB is designed to INFORM parents so that they can make decisions on what their child can and can't play. It's their fucking job to make those decisions for their children. Not the damn government. Sometimes I think people like you should move to other countries because you obviously don't want to live in a free one where people are able to make decisions for themselves.

Hell, why do we even have parents? I mean, shit, we should just make parenting laws for every aspect of life so our moms and dads can just pass the blame on to uncle sam when little jimmy is a complete fuck up.

My god. This country has lost it's mind.

Benjamin Heckendorn @ Aug 14th 2007 3:04PM

So selling a kid a game in which you shoot an alien and green blood squirts out (Halo) is a felony, selling them a MOVIE with "torture porn" (Hostel) is OK, or simply "not store policy"? Nice double standard. Can anyone say SPECIAL INTEREST? It's not just for oil.

Problem is, the old politicians (even Arnold, twice the age of the average gamer) still think games are "just for kids" and thus violent games are bought only by them. Games not being seen as art is part of the problem, which is bullocks because most games have better plots than 90% of the crap Hollywood dishes out.

The game industry needs to band together and fight this lopsided, special-interest, double-standard nonsense.

Anam @ Aug 14th 2007 5:48PM

Agreed.

dsub @ Aug 14th 2007 8:27PM

I agree. In a time when DVD sales are at an all time low and Hollywood is trying to find a way to get people to go BACK to the movie theaters, one must question to motives behind Arnold's ideals. Afterall this bill is in California.

Video Games are huge competition for the Hollywood entertainment industry.

Sam @ Aug 14th 2007 3:05PM

GOOO~! Get too the VOTUHS!!!!!!!

gamernewz.net @ Aug 14th 2007 3:06PM

Its parental denial.

Blame kid violence on everything except the actual cause. Do people not understand behavioral science?
Kids personality comes directly from they're PARENTS. Its proven. (Except for gene traits)
Face it parents, you suck ass.
And you want the Terminator to tell you its not your fault.

And they call UFO's mass hallucinations. Trust me, if you think videogames in any shape or form are responsible for someone's violent actions(kid or otherwise) you're trippin.

Phinehas @ Aug 14th 2007 3:11PM

I'm confused. So the VGVN is *in favor* of minors buying violent video games? Aren't we trying to get minors not to buy violent video games by putting appropriate ESRB ratings on the box?

OK, I can see why it might be a good idea to stay away from government legislation and instead focus on being more responsible as an industry, but I only ever hear about the first part of this concept. Let's be really honest here for a second. If we didn't have a few bawdy companies insisting on pushing the naughty envelope with the games they make, games wouldn't even be a blip on these politician's radar. And if the industry was really doing everything it could to educate parents on the ESRB rating system, no one would be suggesting legislation in the first place.

Personally, I'd like to see two things. I'd like to see Arnold back off *and* I'd like to see the gaming industry grow up.

Fullmetal Salchemist @ Aug 14th 2007 3:43PM

The problem is that "violent video games" is a very vague term, and one that would be legally defined by the government. If they wanted to, they could decree that football is violent, and fine stores that sell football games.

The bottom line is, if laws like this are allowed to go through, the video game industry would cease to be self-regulated, and would instead be regulated by the government.

captainawesome @ Aug 14th 2007 8:17PM

I'm 14, I live in California, and I don't want to be told that I can't play Metroid Prime 3 because it is somewhat violent. The term violent is just way too vague.

BananaBoat @ Aug 14th 2007 3:20PM

GET TO THE CHOPPA!! ZE VIDEO GAME VOTARS ZAY DO NAWFING!

Ratchet the Lombax @ Aug 14th 2007 3:25PM

First off I don't believe that games movies or music cause anyone to be violent. But I can't see why everyone is getting upset by this. First if you are over 18 then the law doesn't apply to you so why should you care. Second If you are under 18 then you shouldn't be able to buy the game anyway without an adults permission regardless of the law. This law is just making it a little harder to get the mature rated games as the weak ones that are in place now don't seem to work.

Almack64 @ Aug 14th 2007 3:54PM

Righton Daddyo

mr nimblewick @ Aug 14th 2007 4:00PM

The industry cares because minors make up a large portion of "M" rated purchases.

Drunkard @ Aug 14th 2007 4:12PM

i cant see anything wrong with the bill, seems normal. Its just like toddlers arn't allowed to watch a 18+ rated movie at the cinema...

is joystiq implying that the constitution is racist?
u might have a very good point.

Mighty Shockwave @ Aug 14th 2007 7:16PM

Actually, there is nothing illegal with bringing minors to an R-rated film (at least that's what I assume you mean by 18+ years movies). It may be against store policy, but it's not illegal. It's the parent's decision whether or not the child is mature enough for the content. For example, a parent may let a kid see Die Hard III, but not Saw or Hostel. Likewise, a parent may let a kid play Halo or Resident Evil Remake, but not GTA or Manhunt. The problem is, however, that many parents aren't actuawlly judging their child's maturity and researching titles. Instead, they just let little Jimmy have everything he wants.

Phinehas @ Aug 14th 2007 4:28PM

"Fullmetal: The problem is that "violent video games" is a very vague term, and one that would be legally defined by the government."

Is that the real issue though? Is this what has the VGVN up in arms? If so, then it should be quite simple to come up with a better way for categorizing violent games. Why not just use the ESRB's ratings? If it has an 'M' rating, then minors shouldn't buy it. That's not too vague is it? Do you think the VGVN would get behind that idea?

Personally, I'm against government regulation. I'm also in favor of industry responsibility. I also believe that we have the threat of the former because of a lack of the latter. If the VGVN and other industry lobbies would put as much effort into promoting responsibility in the making of games as they put into complaining about politicians, maybe we'd get somewhere. But I can guarantee that as long as developers insist on pushing the violence envelope with games like Postal and Manhunt, there are going to be politicians that will suggest government legislation to protect minors. And it is too easy to blame it all on the politicians. In the end, politicians do what they think their constituents want them to do. The gaming industry needs to win the hearts of the American public, and complaining about its rights while ignoring its responsibilities isn't the way to go about doing that.

"Mr Niblewick: The industry cares because minors make up a large portion of "M" rated purchases."

I sincerely hope that $ isn't the underlying reason here. I'd like to not be that cynical about gaming. If it is all about the bottom line, then I don't see any qualitative difference between this and the big tobacco companies.

LaughingTarget @ Aug 14th 2007 4:50PM

It is more along the lines of, "Great, here comes the government, spending our tax dollars and going further to erode our Constitution. Especially California, which is so far up to its ears in debt it shouldn't be wasting its time with trivial stuff like this." You know, they've eroded it enough, that is why these groups are getting upset. We can't just turn a blind eye to it just because it isn't impacting us or seems like a good idea. Unconstitutional is unconstitutional, no matter the intentions of it.

BananaBoat @ Aug 14th 2007 5:21PM

Just like with R rated movies, and Explicit music, I think the government should be able to pass a law that makes it illegal to sell games to minors. All this law does, is make it harder for minors to get the games that they shouldn't have anyway. It forces their parents to get proactive, and actually make a decision whether or not to buy their children a game, instead of allowing a kid to march into Bestbuy and purchase a game without the cashier even noticing or caring that the game shouldn't be sold to minors. I'd be very much against any bill that allowed the government to regulate or dictate what content can or cannot be in a video game, but this bill doesn't do that. All it does is put penalties in place for retailers that don't follow the sales policies that they already have in place and should be using. Common sense in dead

Rob @ Aug 14th 2007 7:42PM

There are no laws regulating the movie or the music.

For this law to pass constitutional muster, it has to apply to all media or none. It also has to meet prevailing state interest as well as have an immediate impact, neither of which can be demonstrated for games (or almost any other media)

And this DOES limit what can go into a game. Look up "Chilling Effect" some time.

Fadobo @ Aug 14th 2007 5:36PM

I don't know. "Violent Videogames" might be a bad formulation, but the idea behind the thing is pretty good. I think the idea videogames should only be sold to the appropriate ages is totally logical. I never thought, I'm going to say that: With his environment protection ideas, and the basic idea behind his vg-law, A.S. is one of the best american politians.

Rare Hare @ Aug 14th 2007 8:04PM

WHAT?

You actually believe that making it illegal for minors to buy M rated video games is OK? Let's see, how did you phrase it... "videogames sold to the appropriate ages."

And who determines what video games are appropriate for what ages? You? Puritans? I've got news for you: it's entirely up to the parents' discretion, and it would be downright censorship if it weren't.

I decide what my kids play, not the government.

matt @ Aug 14th 2007 6:22PM

I can't help but think if this law were to pass, there'd be other politicians (including Governor Schwarzenegger) that would test the waters of other Constitutional changes, using this as a precedent.

It might even snowball into the presidential requirement referenced at the end of the main post.

Phinehas @ Aug 14th 2007 9:03PM

"Rare Hare: And who determines what video games are appropriate for what ages? You? Puritans? I've got news for you: it's entirely up to the parents' discretion, and it would be downright censorship if it weren't."

While I agree in that I am in favor of people showing responsibility in what they create and generally against government regulation, I think you may have overstated your point. Call me a Puritan, but I don't think that it should be "entirely up to the parents' discretion" whether or not to show their young children XXX rated movies or snuff flicks. I don't see why it should be different for games. In other words, I think this may be a matter of where you draw the line and not just an open-and-shut case where we can whip out the 'censorship' label, act aghast at the very idea, and consider the matter closed to discussion.

Rare Hare @ Aug 14th 2007 10:40PM

Here's the thing: short of abuse, the government really has no say in how people raise their children.

(I'm categorizing things such as truancy under neglect.)

Phinehas @ Aug 14th 2007 11:08PM

"Rare Hare: Here's the thing: short of abuse, the government really has no say in how people raise their children."

Agreed. However, the "abuse" label may suffer from the same ambiguity as the "violent" label. Who gets to say whether it is abuse or not? The parents? Doesn't it have to end up being the government that defines abuse?

The issue then becomes that some people are bound to interpret parents allowing a young child to play Postal as a form of abuse. These people are the constituents of the politicians who are trying to pass the legislation. If the gaming industry didn't have games like Postal and things like Hot Coffee hanging around its neck, or if it could show that young children experiencing these sorts of things was a rarity, then maybe all of those constituents wouldn't be so worried that they are demanding legislation.

Au @ Aug 15th 2007 3:09AM

The point is that the child abuse laws are already in effect. There is no need to further legislate media.

Sean @ Aug 15th 2007 10:44AM

End of Days is suh-weet.

Phinehas @ Aug 15th 2007 11:47AM

"Au: The point is that the child abuse laws are already in effect. There is no need to further legislate media."

Well, that's certainly one point. And I agree with. But I've been trying to demonstrate that there is another, equally important point to make *in addition* to rejecting legislative interference. That point is that the gaming industry needs to be more responsible.

You and I may think that legislation is unnecessary, but a lot of the American public disagrees. That's why we have politicians proposing legislature. Politicians do what they think their constituents want them to do.

So what should the gaming industry do? So far, it seems to have taken the stand that it should simply deny that there is a problem (even though we have institutions like the Surgeon General and American Psychological Association saying otherwise), or raise a stink about their rights (As the VGVN is doing) every time the subject comes up.

While I can agree on the rights issue, I just don't think that this strategy is showing itself to be effective. I think many constituents feel the gaming industry is being irresponsible to a degree. I tend to agree with them. So, in addition to talking about constitutional rights and decrying legislative control, I think the gaming industry needs to step up and take a more responsible stance on the matter. Don't just talk about what the government shouldn't do, but also talk about what the gaming industry needs to do to address the issue. Pretending that there isn't an issue just isn't going to work, because a lot of the voting public doesn't seem to be buying it.

aristokrat @ Aug 15th 2007 3:09PM

Why would he have any trouble with that? Couldn't he just send his naked self back to 1776, terminate some British ass, and then return to the present both a citizen upon the adoption of the constitution and in time to save Sarah Connor? Seems like a relatively minor feat (unless of course the British somehow got a hold of T-4000 - mmm, sounds like a great movie!).