| Mail |
You might also like: WoW Insider, Massively, and more

Reader Comments (64)

Posted: Apr 26th 2010 1:39PM (Unverified) said

  • 3 hearts
  • Report
It's about damn time.
Reply

Posted: Apr 26th 2010 1:39PM Funkoid said

  • 1 heart
  • Report
Forgive my ignorance in the topic, but why would someone (non-minor) not advocate this law? Isn't it simply keeping potentially graphic content away from kids?

Also, how would it determine what is a violent video game? I assume the ESRB rating, though it is separate from the government. Kind of like the theater industry I suppose...
Reply

Posted: Apr 26th 2010 1:46PM Victoryismine52 said

  • 1 heart
  • Report
You know I'm with you I never understood why the gaming comunnity is so against this kind of legislature. Unless of course it's simply do to ignorance and they think that this is banning video games like what happened in australia but it's not. There is no breach of first amendment rights it's simply keeping potentially inapropriate content away from kids. sure they'll still be able to get thier hands on it. It's just going to make it more difficult for them. I mean I understand why the game industry I.E. creaters and publishers of violent games, are opposed to it. Every time a minor buys thier game they get money for it. but I don't see how any gamer over the age of 18 should even care.
Reply

Posted: Apr 26th 2010 1:47PM vidguy said

  • 3 hearts
  • Report
I think most of us could agree that there are games that, for reasons of violence, language, or adult-themes, do not belong in the hands of children.

The real problem, however, is with the restriction on game publishers. The law is directed at specific content (rather than being content-neutral), which under constitutional law requires /strict scrutiny/. This means that there must be a COMPELLING NEED for the law, the law must be NARROWLY TAILORED to achieving its purpose, and there must be NO LESS RESTRICTIVE MEANS. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Strict_scrutiny

Problem with this law? It fails all three requirements.
Reply

Posted: Apr 26th 2010 1:49PM vidguy said

  • 3 hearts
  • Report
Lost my last line:

In the end, it's not a problem with the law's ends but its means. The law does something that most people would agree with, but in a way that the US Constitution prohibits.
Reply

Posted: Apr 26th 2010 1:57PM aristokrat said

  • 3 hearts
  • Report
You guys have surely heard of the "slippery slope" argument? That's the entire basis for the free speech protection, and the US is somewhat unique in its willingness to protect all expression, regardless of content.
Reply

Posted: Apr 26th 2010 2:12PM (Unverified) said

  • 3 hearts
  • Report
Because it's the PARENTS job, NOT the retailers. Period. End of story.
Reply

Posted: Apr 26th 2010 2:30PM GreenElf said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
@ fil.vina

I agree with you. I'd even take it one step further and say it's the responsibility of anyone who buys a game for a child, whether they be a parent, grandparent, uncle or even a friend. It's also up to the parent to make a stand to the child should someone buy a game that is inappropriate for their kid.
Reply

Posted: Apr 26th 2010 2:47PM Gaddes said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
The problem is this won't really have the effect they think it will. If a kid wants a rated M game, they will still be able to obtain it, regardless of this law, because ultimately it is the shitty parents who allow them to play these games. Worse yet, kids will probably start having their parents buy these games for them. How will this really be enforced anyway? Even if it passes, I'm sure underpaid, unconcerned employees will still let some of these slip out.

On the game dev/publisher side, I'd be worried that this could negatively impact variety of games in the long run. If retailers get turned off by the government breathing down their neck, they may put pressure on game companies (in a variety of ways) to either make their content more kiddy-friendly or avoid more violent/sexual/mature IPs altogether. Overall we'd be potentially risking a loss of free speech/expression to some degree.

But I don't know... honestly these are all estimations and assumptions at this point. All I know is that it sounds wasteful of taxpayer dollars and ineffective... the real solution is waking inattentive parents to what their children are playing and helping to make better choices for what their entertainment is.
Reply

Posted: Apr 26th 2010 3:07PM antv said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
Look at Australia and then ask that question again. If this legislature is deemed constitutional there will be much less incentive to make your mature themed Call of Duty, GTA, Halo, Split/Second, kind of game because retailers -- in fear of paying out fines for sale of such games -- won't risk carrying such products, I hope everyone in Cali enjoys playing Barbie Horse Adventures.
Reply

Posted: Apr 26th 2010 3:30PM den69 said

  • 2.5 hearts
  • Report
When I think back to the best games from my childhood, I was nowhere near old enough to be playing them.
It's just stupid, I'm not a serial killer or anything... (yet...)

It's about maturity not just age though.
Reply

Posted: Apr 26th 2010 3:57PM EatMoreBread said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
It also sets a dangerous precedent. If video games are allowed to be considered as harmful to minors, it would allow legislatures to being to put restrictions on video games, as a whole, not just to minors but to everyone. It allows them the opportunity to say "video games are not just harmful to minors, but to [insert group here] and we get to decide what's harmful and what's not". It opens the door to states being able to legislate which games they approve of and which they don't.

It is this kind of thinking that has certain video games being banned in Australia, where I believe one attorney general stated (and I'm paraphrasing) "...although 99% of gamers aren't psycho, some gamers are, so to protect the 99% from the 1%, we need to outlaw certain violent games".

But if the Supreme Court declares (as have most other judicial jurisdictions) that video games are protected free speech, they cannot be regulated based on their content (because the first amendment doesn't allow this).

So it all comes down to whether or not the Supreme Court decides that 1) video games are potentially harmful, in which case they may be regulated, or that 2) video games are free speech, in which case they cannot be regulated. Without being a lawyer or knowing the specifics of this case being presented, I would bet the Supreme Court will favor #2, as most judicial jurisdictions recognize it this way.

But we'll find out in October (or later).
Reply

Posted: Apr 26th 2010 7:10PM BananaBoat said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
@Op -

Your ignorance is forgiven, but you are wrong. As has been mentioned, if this law passes, the free speech rights of adults will be damaged when publishers inevitably skew their games toward a teen rating. The government doesn't currently rate any form of media whether it is books, music, or movies. If the supreme court rules that it is legal to bar children from violent video games, music and movies are definitely next. God help us if the "think of the children!" crowd gets to rate our video games, music, and movies.

I don't have a whole lot of faith in SCOTUS, but there is such a vast precedent on this issue (specifically that this law, and others like it, are unconstitutional) that I can't imagine they'd completely go against it and do what critics would call "legislating from the bench". Having said that, the court is primarily old, primarily male, and rather completely out of touch with technology and with our generation. We'll see I guess.

The long and the short of it is that parents need to do their jobs. We don't need any more nanny state laws.
Reply

Posted: Apr 26th 2010 8:48PM (Unverified) said

  • 2.5 hearts
  • Report
In First Amendment-speak, it's called a chilling effect. As soon as retailers can be given fines or criminal sanctions for selling certain video games to minors, it gives a disincentive to carry those games, and further upstream a disincentive to make those games.

What exactly is a "violent game" that can be regulated? Or better yet, what is "redeeming social value" that could exempt a video game for regulation? Does Bioshock have it? How about Modern Warfare 2? It took decades for the Supreme Court to try to develop a coherent scheme for what pornography is and what can be regulated, and the it's still largely incomprehensible to lawyers.

And the vaguer the law, the worse the chilling effect. Retailers, the industry, and game developers all don't know what could make a game "too violent" so they pare back on what they plan on making or offering just to avoid the line that makes their game questionable. Why toe the line or challenge the law and risk your hundreds of million dollars invested in a game?

In the end, if you applied this law to movies, people would be outraged. Video games are speech protected by the First Amendment just as much as books, movies or music, which means the government can't regulate their content.
Reply

Posted: Apr 26th 2010 1:41PM (Unverified) said

  • 3 hearts
  • Report
If this law can keep Terminator Salvation out of the hands of just one video gaming kid, then I say we scrap the First Amendment.
Reply

Posted: Apr 26th 2010 2:10PM That Burning Sensation said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
Agreed. Once I saw the Terminator 'eels' I walked out. Something I should have done in the first 10 mins. How hard is it to just have a bunch of freakin robots on one end and humans on another and have them battle it out.
Reply

Posted: Apr 26th 2010 2:25PM Kid Icarus said

  • 1 heart
  • Report
How about Christian Bale talking into a cb radio saying "this is john connor" every 3rd line. bad movie.
Reply

Posted: Apr 26th 2010 1:42PM vidguy said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
I think the important question here is: whose speech are we talking about? If it is the rights of the minors who want these games - the law could probably be upheld under the state police powers to regulate social welfare. On the other hand, if we are concerned with the free speech rights of the gaming companies, this law is almost assured a strong smackdown.

From what I've seen, the 9th Circuit was primarily concerned with the rights of gaming companies, finding that the lack of evidence of any harm to minors meant that the law was overbroad in achieving a valid purpose. If the Supreme Court agrees, I expect this to be a big win for the First Amendment.
Reply

Posted: Apr 26th 2010 1:42PM Spike Spiegel Humble Bounty Hun said

  • 3 hearts
  • Report
Sad part is a lot falls on the parent's lack of responsibility or ignorance of ratings. I have always been carded for 18+ games. If there's a large source of retailers letting kids buy these games they should lose their job immediately for not following procedure.
Reply

Posted: Apr 26th 2010 1:46PM peternography said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
true ive been at gamestop many a time seeing a mother buying resident evil 5 for her 11 year old son and the clerk clearly knowing the mom is not going to see what this kid is playing
Reply

Posted: Apr 26th 2010 1:49PM Spike Spiegel Humble Bounty Hun said

  • 3 hearts
  • Report
Even then the Gamestops I go to always clearly state "This is a violent game. It involves blood, gore, partial nudity, etc" and the parents just laugh it off and say it's fine. I've seen this happen on too many occasions.
Reply

Posted: Apr 26th 2010 1:57PM Funkoid said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
I feel like the parent should be able to bypass the law this way. Some minors are simply more mature than others and, ideally, no one should know this better than the parent.
Reply

Posted: Apr 26th 2010 1:59PM Spike Spiegel Humble Bounty Hun said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
I agree. With parental consent it's entirely legal. But sometimes these consents are based on biased views of their child. They feel if they don't purchase it for them the child will be unhappy. Also some of these parents really don't understand how violent some of these games are. Surely there are minors that are very mature out there and can handle and understand the concept of the violence. But retailers selling to minors without parents is just plain wrong.
Reply

Posted: Apr 26th 2010 2:01PM That Burning Sensation said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
Exactly guys. See the law should punish the parents (if you have to punish anyone at all) for buying violent video games for kids. But what do people expect. When adults and mainstream citizens hear the word "video game" they automaticly think of Pong, Mario, and kids. I think the industry should change that damn monkier "video GAMES" and give it a contemporary label, just like so many industry leaders have been saying. As long as Interactive Entertainment (TM) is linked to the idea of 'just a game' then people will continue not to take the medium seriously as an artform.
Reply

Posted: Apr 26th 2010 3:36PM den69 said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
Surely you guys played 18+ games when you were younger?
Did they affect you in any way?

Now imagine if you were only allowed to play Disney video games when you were younger... What a waste of a childhood that would have been lol
Reply

Posted: Apr 26th 2010 3:57PM Uphillbothways said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
The parent *should* be able to bypass this law. Government should not replace a parent's ability to act as such.
Reply

Posted: Apr 26th 2010 4:09PM Spike Spiegel Humble Bounty Hun said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
@den-69

I played mature games when I was younger, below the age of 18. My parents though understood what they were purchasing me and also understood I was mature enough to accept it was fictional violence and bringing that into real life was wrong.

Really it comes down to the education of the parents and the maturity of the child. The same can be blamed for violent movies, books, and other forms of media.
Reply

Posted: Apr 26th 2010 1:44PM Dan50 said

  • 2.5 hearts
  • Report
Who wants to be a video game boot legger? *Puts on 1920s mobster hat* Lets go boys.
Reply

Posted: Apr 26th 2010 1:47PM peternography said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
ohh ohh ohh pick me pick me
Reply

Posted: Apr 26th 2010 1:55PM That Burning Sensation said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
It's just tragic irony that the man who was made famous and rich from violent movies, is now trying to regulate the new generation of entertainment. How about passing a law that makes people take classes before having children, then maybe these people will start being real parents.
Reply

Posted: Apr 26th 2010 2:02PM aristokrat said

  • 2.5 hearts
  • Report
Maybe he's a robot sent back from the future to keep us from having fun! "Your clothes, give them to me now."
Reply

Posted: Apr 26th 2010 6:29PM (Unverified) said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
Seriously, how does Conan the Terminator have the balls to come out against violent entertainment like this.
Reply

Posted: Apr 26th 2010 1:56PM Dan50 said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
Ok Pete you get the car in the back and I'll start loading up the merchandise. Keep a look out for the boys in blue. >_>
Reply

Posted: Apr 26th 2010 2:00PM Acosta02 said

  • 2.5 hearts
  • Report
Also, communicate without replying to each other. It's harder for the bulls to trace!
Reply

Posted: Apr 26th 2010 2:11PM (Unverified) said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
While I do agree that kids should not play games like GTA, I do believe it's the parents responsibility to say "No" to their kids. If video game companies were being dishonest by advertising their games as non-violent then I would agree to a bill regulating that. But they clearly state that there is going to be in their games. The ESRB is enough.
Reply

Posted: Apr 26th 2010 2:05PM NeoCloud said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
This is trying to throw first amendment protection for creative works out the window.

That's what disturbs me.
Reply

Posted: Apr 26th 2010 2:09PM Trojan said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
I've been a gamer for nearly 25 years, since the days of the Atari 2600. But as a parent, I definitely think an age restriction on the sale/rental of M-rated games is appropriate. When my kids are old enough I am going to be vigilant about what they are allowed to see/play, but no matter how much parents WANT to pay attention to that stuff, kids can usually find a way to run an end-around to get what they want anyway. A law like this would help prevent that from happening. Although I do think the age restriction for M-rated games should be 16, not 18.
Reply

Posted: Apr 26th 2010 2:15PM Vidikron said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
You could always enabled the parental controls on the consoles and just check it periodically to make sure it's still in place.
Reply

Posted: Apr 26th 2010 2:21PM Paradox596 said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
M rating is 17+
Reply

Posted: Apr 26th 2010 2:18PM Mr Khan said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
I wonder who would support what, though. I could see either the left or right side of the court latching onto the "think of the children" line, and equally see either end hit the "free speech" line .

So we could have consensus, one way or another.
Reply

Posted: Apr 26th 2010 2:32PM sonicspike41 said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
But didn't you know? Playing violent games turns every kid into a sex-crazed violent sociopathic killer

See, they're thinking long term crime rates here. By making sure no kids can illegally obtain violent games, they're stopping an entire generation of killers and thieves that will overrun the state in about 10-15 years!


Sarcasm aside, Wal Mart is apparently the biggest offender of this proposed law, with Gamestop being the smallest offender. Also, parents (or anyone who can pretend to be the kid's parent) can buy the game for the kid, so I really don't see this law changing much.
Reply

Posted: Apr 26th 2010 2:40PM jedimacfan said

  • 2.5 hearts
  • Report
I don't know about the rest of you, but I'm glad that my government and its Supreme Court have solved every single important problem in the country and now have the time to focus on video game related laws.

/sarcasm
Reply

Posted: Apr 26th 2010 7:17PM DerekUGA said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
Well at least someone here gets it.
Reply

Posted: Apr 26th 2010 2:43PM vidguy said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
1. He is arguing in support of the law.
2. The court will review the Appellate Court's decision to uphold the District Court's order against the law. Essentially, the Supreme Court will apply its First Amendment strict scrutiny analysis to the law. Recently, the Court applied the same analysis to dog-fighting videos, finding 8-1 that a law banning the distribution of the videos violated free speech.
Reply

Posted: Apr 26th 2010 2:46PM Archerboy said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
The "governator" is for the law, while the court is most likely trying to appeal it.

It's kinda funny. I'm writing a proposal to "Joe Baca" for my English class to propose this law. It's funny because Joe Baca has 1,500 some bills proposed, with only 3 passed and he's the guy that wanted to put "Warning: Video games have been linked to violent behavior".

Yeah. Lol.
Reply

Posted: Apr 26th 2010 2:45PM Snarf said

  • Half a heart
  • Report
Read the article? Oh wait- effort is required to do that and comprehend what it is saying? Nevermind!
Reply

Posted: Apr 26th 2010 2:47PM vidguy said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
Simple answer to 2. The Court will ask whether the law is unconstitutional.
Reply

Posted: Apr 26th 2010 2:55PM (Unverified) said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
Not that im against minors being restricted from violent video games, but isn't this more than just minors buying violent video games when they're talking about the First Amendment? And is this the kind of stuff our deficit is funding? We're talking about the deficit that cuts funding on schools, cuts teachers and classes. Lets cut education for our children so they can't buy violent video games. That'll lower our crime rate.
Reply

Posted: Apr 26th 2010 3:06PM (Unverified) said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
Actually im a Californian and was actually referring to the state deficit. Sorry about not clarifying.
Reply

Posted: Apr 26th 2010 2:59PM (Unverified) said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
Food critics judge cuisine by watching videos or listening to chewing? Safety standards for automobiles determined by watching "Days of Thunder?" Then how can video game raters determine content if they are not required to actually use the products they rate?

Certainly, there is offensive content that should be restricted from use by parents and responsible parties. But if I send you a video of the most awful things I've done or said in my lifetime, you would think I was a horrible person and would restrict my contact to only those who could tolerate me.

Current systems are broken. Let's talk about all content present in computer and video games, objectionable or not.
Reply
Sorry, you must be logged in to leave a comment.

Featured Stories

Rhythm Heaven Fever review: Crazy into you

Posted on Feb 9th 2012 12:00PM

Remedy not done with Alan Wake

Posted on Feb 9th 2012 10:30AM

Engadget

TUAW

Massively

WoW