In a statement released by the International Game Developer's Association recently, the group called California's controversial game bill "oppressive censorship, singling out one form of expression based only on popular myth and biased research." The response came just days after the US Supreme Court decided to allow California governor Arnold Schwarzenegger's appeal to review the bill on a federal scale, though it's been ruled unconstitutional multiple times in his state (not to mention the similar bills in other states that have also been shot down repeatedly).
We reached out to the California Attorney General's office to find out why it's pursuing a bill that's been plagued by overrulings, and were told, "All of those courts held that it is up to the US Supreme Court to decide whether extremely violent material can be treated the same as sexually explicit material under the First Amendment when it comes to minors. This means that we had to ask the Supreme Court to extend the law, something the lower courts were not willing to do." We further pressed for why it's targeting video games over films, television, and other entertainment mediums. A representative responded, "There is a growing body of social science that has identified violent video games as being especially harmful to children given the interactive nature of video games, and the FTC conducted investigations that showed it was easier for minors to buy Mature-rated video games than it was to get into R-rated movies."
However, the IGDA's statement contends "Violence is conveyed in explicit ways on television, in print media, via the Internet, and in film. All of these platforms constitute speech protected by the First Amendment of the United States Constitution." The piece also states the association's position that it remains staunchly against "censorship of expressive media in all forms" but points out that it's especially against politicians using that censorship "for political gain." The appeal could see its first hearing as early as this October, when the Supreme Court begins its next term.
[Via GamePolitics]
Reader Comments (40)
Posted: May 3rd 2010 8:06PM MystileArmor said
YAAAAUUWWWW 360 DEGREES OF FIYAAHPOWAHHHHHHH
Posted: May 3rd 2010 8:27PM Dan50 said
I hope this does not open up laws that will lead to a total ban on violent video games and bans them from even adults.
Posted: May 4th 2010 10:26AM syrik zero said
Instead of banning the games shouldn't they just come down on stores that sell "M" games to children?
Reply
Posted: May 4th 2010 6:15PM theenglishman said
I completely agree with Luc. Exposure to excessively violent games (i.e. those slapped with an M or 15+) should be restricted from children, but why shouldn't responsible adults have their fun?
Reply
Posted: May 3rd 2010 8:30PM MLS said
I've actually played that game. Don't think I ever made it past the mall.
Posted: May 3rd 2010 10:32PM OAKside said
I can't be the only one who thought True Lies was an awesome top-down shooter (for 1995 or so). I almost bought/stole a Genesis for this game! The fond memories even trick me into tuning in to the movie when I see it on TV... not as good.
What was this about again? Oh, yes: Politics. I don't have such great confidence in our Supreme Court anymore, after the whole 'unlimited corporate funding' nonsense. If they can't get that right, what chance does a gaming issue have...
Reply
What was this about again? Oh, yes: Politics. I don't have such great confidence in our Supreme Court anymore, after the whole 'unlimited corporate funding' nonsense. If they can't get that right, what chance does a gaming issue have...
Posted: May 4th 2010 3:45AM Fullmetal Salchemist said
True Lies was a really good shooter.
It was also a decent film. Certainly one of the better romantic comedies I've ever seen.
Reply
It was also a decent film. Certainly one of the better romantic comedies I've ever seen.
Posted: May 3rd 2010 8:53PM Baron von ChickenPants said
Robert Heinlein once penned
"If it can't be expressed in figures, it is not science; it is opinion. It has long been known that one horse can run faster than another — but which one? Differences are crucial."
"If it can't be expressed in figures, it is not science; it is opinion. It has long been known that one horse can run faster than another — but which one? Differences are crucial."
Posted: May 3rd 2010 8:40PM Cheesus Crust said
Posted: May 3rd 2010 8:58PM (Unverified) said
I did a post about this over on my blog. Basically? I'm not seeing that this is going to be such a major issue as far as sells.
Most parents will buy the games or give their kids the credit cards anyways. In the end it seems to me to be in lines with the CDA.
Heck, maybe just modify the CDA to account for "Obscene Violence" and leave it at that?
Most parents will buy the games or give their kids the credit cards anyways. In the end it seems to me to be in lines with the CDA.
Heck, maybe just modify the CDA to account for "Obscene Violence" and leave it at that?
Posted: May 3rd 2010 9:13PM MystileArmor said
Well, you seem to forget that if violent video games get the same treatment as sexually explicit material, for one big chains like Wall-Mart won't be selling them anymore (that's a loss in sales), stores can't legally have those games on shelves (You'll lose impulse sales).
So... yeah, that will be a loss of sales on a fairly big scale. But to me that's not even the only issue here. More games will be toned down and edited for content, much like movies on tv nowadays. And while some companies won't settle for an edited and modified product than originally intended, a lot of them will.
Reply
So... yeah, that will be a loss of sales on a fairly big scale. But to me that's not even the only issue here. More games will be toned down and edited for content, much like movies on tv nowadays. And while some companies won't settle for an edited and modified product than originally intended, a lot of them will.
Posted: May 3rd 2010 9:23PM (Unverified) said
@MystileArmor
Only if they decide to not carry them. And I'm pretty sure that many of the big chains like Wal*mart and such don't carry the AO rated games.
And from my layman's point of view after reading the Writ filed by the State of CA, it would be these types of games affected. Not "all" violent games, only the extremely violent ones.
But like I said, that's just my POV.
Reply
Only if they decide to not carry them. And I'm pretty sure that many of the big chains like Wal*mart and such don't carry the AO rated games.
And from my layman's point of view after reading the Writ filed by the State of CA, it would be these types of games affected. Not "all" violent games, only the extremely violent ones.
But like I said, that's just my POV.
Posted: May 3rd 2010 10:31PM TheDarkWayne said
AO games are not carried because they are just that, adults only. If the other ratings become legally adults only, rating on the box or not, it's more than likely Wal-Mart wont carry those as well
Reply
Posted: May 3rd 2010 8:58PM Platoesq said
As long as the IGDA and other outlets that create our entertainment can make strong arguments, these types of laws will continue to be struck down. Just as movies and now TV are allowed to self-regulate, I can't see why the ESRB ratings should be taken any different.
Can't wait to hear/read the oral arguments before the Court, this fall. Should be very interesting.
Can't wait to hear/read the oral arguments before the Court, this fall. Should be very interesting.
Posted: May 3rd 2010 9:18PM (Unverified) said
Being a dirty foreigner, I don't see why this is such a big deal. I mean it's a tad hypocritical that they're not targeting movies and stuff as well, but I mean, really, so what? Plenty of countries, including my own, have it as criminal offenses to supply minors with restricted material and we get along just fine.
Of course, I never got the American rating system for media. It's all self-regulated and it doesn't seem like there is actually a reason to enforce most of it except for the fear of government regulation. Nor do I see why such fear exists. It's not like you live in China or something.
/shrug
Humans are funny and different people. :)
Of course, I never got the American rating system for media. It's all self-regulated and it doesn't seem like there is actually a reason to enforce most of it except for the fear of government regulation. Nor do I see why such fear exists. It's not like you live in China or something.
/shrug
Humans are funny and different people. :)
Posted: May 3rd 2010 9:23PM xSFx said
Man, I love that game.
Posted: May 3rd 2010 9:27PM Aerothorn said
I wouldn't be so sure. The Roberts court is not above trampling on precedent (see the recent campaign financing decision) and Justice Thomas (among others) has basically gone on record as saying that minors should have little if any rights.
Posted: May 3rd 2010 10:09PM BrianH said
this is just fkcing hypocrisy.
their social research is so flawed, to the point where they are trying to blame things like bystander apathy on the desensitization that video games supposedly cause.
as if bystander apathy hasn't been around for ever.
and blaming things like school shootings on video games is equally ret@rded, look at whats happening in china, with like 4 school attacks in a week by middle aged men.
and even if in america, 100% of school shooters play video games, that's still 99.999% of video gamers who don't shoot up their school.
instead of saying .001% of gamers are extremely violent, they are saying that recent violent attacks are done by video gamers (that's like saying all attacks are caused by people who breath air) just in order to spread their fcking propaganda about video games.
this is just as ret@rded as banning catcher in the rye because some douche figured he would kill someone because he interpreted some bullshit.
fck politicians, why don't you try fix the historical debt in California before wasting millions of taxpayer dollars to thwart freedom of speech.
their social research is so flawed, to the point where they are trying to blame things like bystander apathy on the desensitization that video games supposedly cause.
as if bystander apathy hasn't been around for ever.
and blaming things like school shootings on video games is equally ret@rded, look at whats happening in china, with like 4 school attacks in a week by middle aged men.
and even if in america, 100% of school shooters play video games, that's still 99.999% of video gamers who don't shoot up their school.
instead of saying .001% of gamers are extremely violent, they are saying that recent violent attacks are done by video gamers (that's like saying all attacks are caused by people who breath air) just in order to spread their fcking propaganda about video games.
this is just as ret@rded as banning catcher in the rye because some douche figured he would kill someone because he interpreted some bullshit.
fck politicians, why don't you try fix the historical debt in California before wasting millions of taxpayer dollars to thwart freedom of speech.
Posted: May 3rd 2010 10:09PM BrianH said
just because one country eats shit doesn't mean they all should.
Posted: May 3rd 2010 10:36PM (Unverified) said
Because preventing minors from being exposed to violent media is horrible and should be avoided at all cost, right?
This is such a non-issue it's not even funny.
Reply
This is such a non-issue it's not even funny.
Posted: May 3rd 2010 11:05PM BrianH said
please, this is an issue of parenting, not government.
for instance, what is this nonsense about it is easier to get an m rated movie than it is to get into an r rated movie?
there the fck did they get that bullshit statistic.
even i have been carded when trying to buy an m rated game, and i regularly have to go with my brother when he wants an m rated game because they card him.
as for an r rated movie?
anyone can go up the automated tellers that sell tickets and buy an r rated movie ticket, and once you have that ticket they can't deny you entrance, they can only deny you entrance when you are purchasing it (and like i said, you dont need to talk to a person to get a ticker for an r rated movie).
this is all bullshit, and regardless if it is a non issue, there are significantly more important things for california to be taking care off, rather than spending weeks and months on this bullshit.
Reply
for instance, what is this nonsense about it is easier to get an m rated movie than it is to get into an r rated movie?
there the fck did they get that bullshit statistic.
even i have been carded when trying to buy an m rated game, and i regularly have to go with my brother when he wants an m rated game because they card him.
as for an r rated movie?
anyone can go up the automated tellers that sell tickets and buy an r rated movie ticket, and once you have that ticket they can't deny you entrance, they can only deny you entrance when you are purchasing it (and like i said, you dont need to talk to a person to get a ticker for an r rated movie).
this is all bullshit, and regardless if it is a non issue, there are significantly more important things for california to be taking care off, rather than spending weeks and months on this bullshit.
Posted: May 3rd 2010 11:26PM (Unverified) said
I find your comments interesting. Correct me if I'm wrong, but it sounds as if you are aiding in the purchasing of your brother M-rated games.
Obviously, then, you don't see a problem with M-rated games being in the hands of minors, thus immediately see this bill as an issue.
On the hand, I would disagree. I see M-rated games in the hands of children as an issue, and I would encourage a law that would make it an offense to enable children to get such games. (I am fully in support of a law in my own country that does exactly that.) It is my understanding that at the moment, there is nothing they can do about it. As you say, they can only stop you at the time of purchasing, not once you have already purchased it.
As an aside, falling back on the parenting issue highlights your age more than your comment about being carded. Parents are not omnipotent and children are sneaky and devious. The best a parent can do is take an interest in their child's lives and install them with a sense of ethics and values. Unfortunately, that is usually not enough to combat the allure of playing an M-rated game/looking at porno/smoking/whatever.
At the end of the day, however, this is just a difference in political/ethical opinions and I expect to change yours as little as you should expect to change mine. So I think I'll just leave it there. :)
Reply
Obviously, then, you don't see a problem with M-rated games being in the hands of minors, thus immediately see this bill as an issue.
On the hand, I would disagree. I see M-rated games in the hands of children as an issue, and I would encourage a law that would make it an offense to enable children to get such games. (I am fully in support of a law in my own country that does exactly that.) It is my understanding that at the moment, there is nothing they can do about it. As you say, they can only stop you at the time of purchasing, not once you have already purchased it.
As an aside, falling back on the parenting issue highlights your age more than your comment about being carded. Parents are not omnipotent and children are sneaky and devious. The best a parent can do is take an interest in their child's lives and install them with a sense of ethics and values. Unfortunately, that is usually not enough to combat the allure of playing an M-rated game/looking at porno/smoking/whatever.
At the end of the day, however, this is just a difference in political/ethical opinions and I expect to change yours as little as you should expect to change mine. So I think I'll just leave it there. :)
Posted: May 4th 2010 12:12AM sonicspike41 said
http://img12.imageshack.us/img12/6094/messageov.png
Had to do it like this since I kept getting word filtered (even after changing half the letters to similar variants).
Reply
Had to do it like this since I kept getting word filtered (even after changing half the letters to similar variants).
Posted: May 4th 2010 2:18AM The Nth Doctor said
@Liam since his username makes it impossible to reply to his original comment:
Assuming that yes, it is a good thing for the government to determine what media different individuals can experience, what specific problem do you see in the M-rated game/ minor individual combination? Do you honestly believe the still scientifically unproven theory that a 17 year old is going to be mentally warped by playing Halo?
Reply
Assuming that yes, it is a good thing for the government to determine what media different individuals can experience, what specific problem do you see in the M-rated game/ minor individual combination? Do you honestly believe the still scientifically unproven theory that a 17 year old is going to be mentally warped by playing Halo?
Posted: May 3rd 2010 10:13PM Walter White said
This coming from the only state that banned toys in Happy Meals.
Seriously, I really want to know what the appeal of California is. It's the most oppressive state in our union, yet everyone thinks it Shangri-La...
Personally, I can't wait for it to fall into the Pacific. Oh, and if you believe Arnie is a Republican, then I own the rights to the Terminator franchise...
Seriously, I really want to know what the appeal of California is. It's the most oppressive state in our union, yet everyone thinks it Shangri-La...
Personally, I can't wait for it to fall into the Pacific. Oh, and if you believe Arnie is a Republican, then I own the rights to the Terminator franchise...
Posted: May 3rd 2010 10:29PM TheDarkWayne said
man, I hope he comes back to movies when he's done. He made the cameo in Salvation, and now The Expendables! So who knows?!
Reply
Posted: May 3rd 2010 10:22PM Spike Spiegel Humble Bounty Hun said
In 90 minutes, the holy fire, will light up the skies!
I support violent media. Sure beats physical violence. Pretty sure LARPing hurts a bit.
I support violent media. Sure beats physical violence. Pretty sure LARPing hurts a bit.
Posted: May 3rd 2010 10:32PM Nook said
Abortions like this that come to pass as law are the stepping stones to hearing the same authors proclaim - "Come one, come all. Come for your government approved media!"
Not in my lifetime. Right?
They seem bent on making a precedent by extending the law (via supreme Court) and getting a favorable ruling to push this through. Everyone should show support against measures like this, however we do need to be aware of the impact certain programming can have on youth that are still in a developmental stage of life.
Things have changed, yeah - our biology / physiology hasn't changed though.
Not in my lifetime. Right?
They seem bent on making a precedent by extending the law (via supreme Court) and getting a favorable ruling to push this through. Everyone should show support against measures like this, however we do need to be aware of the impact certain programming can have on youth that are still in a developmental stage of life.
Things have changed, yeah - our biology / physiology hasn't changed though.
Posted: May 3rd 2010 11:44PM pika2000 said
I couldn't care less for the violent games. Where's my idolmaster?
Posted: May 3rd 2010 11:46PM EMaster said
True Lies for SNES is HIGHLY underrated!! That was an awesome game!
Posted: May 4th 2010 2:05AM ThePhantomnaut said
THE BRIDGE IS OUUUUT!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Posted: May 4th 2010 4:27AM Magetto1 said
Because we're Americans, and we value our rights. It's not the government's job to decide and censor what is good or not for what we can watch/play/experience, especially based on flawed research. We can decide for ourselves the best way to raise our kids.
Funny you mention China though, they do a lot stuff like what this bill is doing -- censoring stuff they don't like.
Funny you mention China though, they do a lot stuff like what this bill is doing -- censoring stuff they don't like.
Posted: May 4th 2010 5:35AM LaughingTarget said
It's a culture war that's raged since the nation's founding. Those who want to be left to make their own decisions vs those that want to force their own opinions onto others. It's best determined as Hamiltonian (aka the rest of the world) vs Jeffersonian (uniquely American) ideals. Sadly, the Hamiltonian is slowly winning, which was mainly due to violent force vis the US Civil War. It wasn't about slavery until the war was decidedly in the Union's favor (dishonest Abe was like Obama, always told the audience what they wanted to hear, but he was decidedly pro-slavery, except when it came to punishing the South, the North was far more brutal to free blacks than the South to slaves), but about whether government existed to protect rights or if it existed as a means to simply allow one population to dominate over another.
The reason we don't see the argument much anywhere else is because other nations never enjoyed true freedom at any point in recorded history. England, Germany, France, etc have never treated people as self determined individuals, but always as colonies of insects. Interchangable, identical, exist to provide for the colony and not self. America prospered like no other because it was recognized that people don't exist as resource fonts for others. This is especially true today when poverty is no longer defined as starvation, sickness, and death, but the "indignity" of owning older cars and televisions and subscribing to slower Internet connections and not having premium cable television.
There is still a population in this country that doesn't want to have their lives driven by the scared, stupid, or weak willed. But it's a dying breed, and it's rare to find those that steadfastly refuse to live under a dictatorship of the majority even if it means losing a few, token things that may benefit themselves.
I dislike this bill because I like the idea of being able to make my own decisions without asking Mr. government if it's OK to do it. My life is already being driven and controlled by the self-righteous and self-important to the point that even medieval serfs had more rights and freedoms available (not to mention only 1/6 the tax burden). A game bill is just another step toward that Soviet regime this nation's government hypocritically calls evil.
The reason we don't see the argument much anywhere else is because other nations never enjoyed true freedom at any point in recorded history. England, Germany, France, etc have never treated people as self determined individuals, but always as colonies of insects. Interchangable, identical, exist to provide for the colony and not self. America prospered like no other because it was recognized that people don't exist as resource fonts for others. This is especially true today when poverty is no longer defined as starvation, sickness, and death, but the "indignity" of owning older cars and televisions and subscribing to slower Internet connections and not having premium cable television.
There is still a population in this country that doesn't want to have their lives driven by the scared, stupid, or weak willed. But it's a dying breed, and it's rare to find those that steadfastly refuse to live under a dictatorship of the majority even if it means losing a few, token things that may benefit themselves.
I dislike this bill because I like the idea of being able to make my own decisions without asking Mr. government if it's OK to do it. My life is already being driven and controlled by the self-righteous and self-important to the point that even medieval serfs had more rights and freedoms available (not to mention only 1/6 the tax burden). A game bill is just another step toward that Soviet regime this nation's government hypocritically calls evil.
Posted: May 4th 2010 5:44AM Dummy00001 said
"[...] minors should have little if any rights."
Rights are the consequence of responsibilities. Parents are responsible for minor's acts, thus minors have "little if any rights" ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Children%27s_rights ). From legal perspective this is a plain fact.
Still IMO they should rather improve enforcement of the ratings with e.g. more sever penalties for the incidents. Banning something never really worked with kids...
Rights are the consequence of responsibilities. Parents are responsible for minor's acts, thus minors have "little if any rights" ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Children%27s_rights ). From legal perspective this is a plain fact.
Still IMO they should rather improve enforcement of the ratings with e.g. more sever penalties for the incidents. Banning something never really worked with kids...
Posted: May 4th 2010 11:41AM Dan50 said
I know I'm just afraid of what will happen if you give them an inch and they take a mile.
Posted: May 4th 2010 3:49PM Dan50 said
Because the government will try to come up with ways to get any game they don't want to be banned. They will use this government 18 rated thing to ban any game like the AO rating bans a game.
Posted: May 4th 2010 3:49PM Dan50 said
Don't like*
Featured Stories
Super Joystiq Podcast 004: 38 Studios meltdown, Gravity Rush, Civilization 5: Gods & Kings, Dragon's Dogma
Posted on May 25th 2012 3:30PM




