Activision's George Rose calls out supporters of California violent game law

by Griffin McElroy on Dec 31st 2010 1:00AM

Activision Blizzard vice president and chief public policy officer George Rose has once again sounded off against attacks on his industry's First Amendment protections. This time, it's in the form of an editorial for the San Francisco Chronicle which tears down the supporters of AB-1179, the California law which prohibited the sale of "excessively violent" games to minors. The law will not go into effect in 2011 due to its repeal by the federal courts -- but that didn't prevent Rose from venting some steam regarding the former law's endorsers.

"Sadly, supporters will accept nothing less than more laws, subbing for parents, that the state can't afford to enforce," Rose wrote. "So to whip up drama and hysteria where none justifiably exists, zealots supporting this movement cite the worst of the worst by harking back to video game dinosaurs like 1997's Postal." Rose argues that no other medium is judged based on one title, so doing so is "disingenuous" in the case of games. Ironically enough, you know what movie we'd use to pass judgment on the movie industry? Postal. Convenient, right?

Via: GamePolitics
Source: San Francisco Chronicle

Tags: ab-1179, activision, activision-blizzard, california, editorial, george-rose, law, politics, supreme-court

Reader Comments (40)

The thought process and complete lack of common sense of some people just boggles my mind sometimes. I don't understand why we, as a people, are letting mothers who have kids playing violent video games point a finger at others instead of teaching them to be a god damn parent. It is their job to protect their kids and what they do. If your kid is playing a video game that you don't want them to play you are clearly doing something wrong.

And, yes, I understand that kids are still going to get out and do what a parent doesn't want them to do, but no shape, way, or form does that reaffirm their finger pointing. Just because you have a voice doesn't always mean you should speak, and just because you can act doesn't always mean you should.

Take. Some. Damn. Responsibility.

@Kaloni

This.

When the government has to step in and take over your role as a parent, I don't think violent video games are the issue.

@Kaloni

The grand irony here is that laws like this aren't even supported by the poor quality parents who let their TVs do the teaching. They're too busy posting videos on YouTube of their kids cussing out people on Xbox Live.

Crap legislation like this is perpetrated by religious groups and people whose view of "freedom" is an uoroboros; unless everyone's freedoms are limited, everyone can't be free.

The people behind this nonsense have no interest in the actual state of modern video games. They just know that this damn "rock and roll" is the Devil's music.

@Chareth Cutestory

"Crap legislation like this is perpetrated by religious groups and people "

Um. . . yeah before you go pointing your finger at the religious people, you may consider that this could just be a political movement to gain swing votes to win elections in CA.

Anyway before anyone goes crazy pointing fingers I think that we all should just point fingers at the voters of CA for voting for this law and not blame certain groups or parties; and become social bigots online.

Bust out the soap boxes. Please realize that all the long-winded rants that are about to take place will not affect anyone. These laws come around with a different name every year. Stop making a fuss, especially considering most people crying about it probably won't even vote on the matter.

This time it's quite different. IIRC, it's making rounds US Supreme Court, with a ruling to be made next spring / summer or so. In other words, this time could be the last time. If the Justices rule that games are protected by the first amendment, it will set a precedent that would make such laws either entirely irrelevant, or produce a willingness of both sides to support constructive regulation as opposed to censorship in the future.

This is it mate.

@SaltCube64

If you want to roll over and let the government essentially decide what you play, go right ahead. But some of us like having M-rated games to play.

Don't think that will happen? Consider that game retailers, though most of the ones I've been to card for M-rated game, aren't perfect. If this law passes, the government would put a pretty hefty fine on every M-rated game sold to a minor. Game retailers could look at these consequences and decide not to carry any M-rated except the AAA titles that are sure to rake in cash because it isn't worth the risk of someone handing you a fake ID.

We all know that there are plenty of titles besides the purely AAA that are worth playing. Sure, we'll still probably get the Mass Effects, Call of Duties and so forth, but we'd end up missing out on the Bayonettas and the House of the Deads.

So, it's a pretty big deal. I won't even bother to touch on the fact that you're just willing to deal with it because "people won't even vote on the matter," anyway. Honestly, though, if you aren't willing to stick up for your rights as a citizen, you deserve to lose them.

@Epoque

I really hope so. It really is sickening every time I see a new hardcore mother on some news channel complaining about video games.

And as for the "ranting" comment by SaltCube64, that is the point of commenting on an article like this. To express your views and thoughts about what is being posted in the blog entry. Might want to reevaluate your logic there. And I do agree that there will be people that likely won't vote against something like this because they are too busy playing the ever so harmful video games themselves, not everyone is so lax to having other people making decisions for us.

It's the same people who voted the terminator as their governor, what do you expect from them. What did Forest Gump say - stupid is what stupid does.

In any case, I think the supreme court will side with the games and the 1st on this one, so I'm not worried.

@2late2die
You're probably right, but I still don't understand why porn is banned for kids, and violent games are not. The reverse would make more sense.

@GuardianLegend Because America is a religious nation and in religion (especially Catholicism) violence is fine, while sex is a big no-no.

I know America is a little backwards at the best of times but why should it be legal to sell mature games to minors? It only seems like common sense to try and enforce the age rating as stated on the box.

Do people honestly think, through this law that parents will be taken up, if their child is found to be playing an 18 rated game? I fail to see the case against a law that only serves to punish greedy, immoral retailers.

The exact same law is enforced in most progressive nations, so why Blizzard; a company that is as internationally reaching as most game devs get, decides to take a stand against it, confuses me......

@ll features ll As an outsider I really don't think industry self regulation is what they made out to be. For example, the M rated CODBlops sold 8 million in a month in US, is it really unlikely without selling to minors, and I do constantly play vs teen sounding players online.

But from Red Dead Redemption I get the impression that Americans want minimal governmental presence in their life, or something like that

@ll features ll

Sure, these laws are imposed in more progressive nations, but "progressive" doesn't necessarily mean "free."

Don't get me wrong, on most issues I sway a little more toward the left. But this, at it's core, isn't an issue about ratings, it's an issue about content. We have politicians, parents or otherwise "concerned citizens" saying that video games cause school shootings and mass murders when they don't hold the qualifications to make such a claim. This is what this case was born of.

So, basically, it's a bunch of people who don't play video games who are buying into the hype because it's a medium they don't understand. Parents say that violent video games made their kid go on that rampage because they don't want to take the blame for not being proactive in raising a child. Politicians do it because it isn't PC to blame the parent after such a tragedy - and also because a politician's job, no matter what side of the spectrum they're on, is all about control.

It isn't that I think retailers should have to sell to any kid who wants to buy and M-rated game. I'm completely behind carding for those. But why do we need to government to step in and play parent when the parents should have been doing that in the first place?

@ll features ll Also the idea of ESRB seems to me is that M rated is "recommended" for adult, a soft cap, while AO is "harder". Otherwise what's the big difference between a 17+ person and a 18+? One year really doesn't make a change that drastic

@Heffer Wolfe So the issue is that you are afraid of such law would be abused, judging from the characteristics of its proporsers. And if minors do get to buy the games they shouldn't, that's still better than the consequence of government regulation. Am I understanding this correctly?

@ybfelix

Yes, that's what I'm saying. We shouldn't need government regulation. We should have parents who are proactive in what their child does in their free time.

Yes, yes, I know that a parent can't watch their child every minute of every day, but they can monitor their game play and if they see their child has gotten their hands on a game they don't want them play, they can take it back to the store.

I just offered a solution to this problem with 49 words, and the government thinks it should be solved with more regulation and money we can't afford to spend.

@ll features ll

From a legal perspective, this is actually a really big deal. Free speech and protection of creative works are near sacrosanct. There's only a few instances in which the government can ban or regulate speech or published content. The two that most often come up are pornography and imminent threats to the safety of the union (much as some would like to expand that second one).

Allowing a law like the Californian one to stand would add a new exception to our existing free speech rights, and for the first time in the history of those rights, include violence as a reason for regulating speech.

@kgoo867

The real problem with this law is the fact it's an esoteric law (yes i used a big word), meaning only a few people would understand it and those few people would be the politicians who came up with it.

The way they set up the law it doesn't use the ESRB rating system it was all dependent on someone in government capacity deeming something violent, so if they saw a game rated 10 and thought there was something violent about it they could ban the sale to a minor.

Instead of using a rating system that is in place and writing the law in plain English, these officials decided to make it as complicated as possible, I for one would gladly welcome a law that states "games, movies, books shall not be sold to anyone under the age the Item is rated without parents being present and approving said purchase, (I. E "M" rated game needs a parent to be there in person and approve the purchase for anyone under 18)"

If they had done something along that lines i doubt there would be as a big an uproar about this law but they didn't instead people who have no interest in being parents pushed this off on government officials and they in turn came up with a ridiculous law that would make it so some poor employee selling a game to a minor even though it's ESRB age appropriate liable and could end up getting fired.

The silly part is that if the Governator had just called the ESRB and said that "This content should be grounds for an adult only rating", then they probably would have put that content on the adult only list.
Instead of progress though... congress.

@Ozewa No retailer would ever carry an AO title.

@Flapjackal Isn't that the real problem? Despite adults are superficially allowed to buy AO titles, it's very hard in practice to get them, thus AO became a virtually useless rating

@Ozewa
Amazon carries AO titles.
The different between an M rating and an AO is rather superficial. But anyway, AO isn't a useless rating, it keeps the stuff behind the counter that kids should not be playing. That pretty much what the aim of the legislation was to begin with.

Could have handled it with a couple phone calls. But again... I'll say it. Instead of progress... congress.

I agree that we as Parents need to do actual parenting! You'd be amazed at the crap I see. As a separate issue, when I saw the Activision logo I immediately wanted to side with whatever they were fighting against. I'm starting to dislike them that much.

BURN!

Much as I loath cheering on any Activision executive, there's really only one thing to do here....slow clap

The irony is that porn games aren't allowed on 360, PS3, or Wii, because the Big Three refuse to allow that aspect of free speech on their systems.

But saw a man in half with a chainsaw? Sure!

And I'm sure this Activision guy will never raise a protest with the Big Three about this issue either.

@GuardianLegend

Makes me sad. Id like to see Sexy Beach 4 for the Xbox 360 with kinect capablities.

@GuardianLegend

There's no irony there. The big three are private businesses, they can do what they want and limit what speech shows up on their products. The government has to uphold free speech, there's no way around that.

@Heffer Wolfe
You don't see the irony in a big business game company guy championing free speech one second, then restricting it the next?

This guy is saying no one should substitute the job of parents, and yet big publishers and the Big Three do it themselves when they refuse to put porn games on their systems.

Bottomline here is that game companies just want to keep all the decision making for themselves. NOT for parents, the public, or the government. Let's not be fooled by their "free speech" stances.

@GuardianLegend
It doesn't have anything to do with actually wanting to take on the role of a parent. It has everything to do with marketing. Violence is a hot button issue when it comes to games, but overt sexuality is almost entirely off the table. A product that needs to be marketed as something you should buy for your kids won't risk having that stigma attached. The first big-name console to allow straight-up porn games will probably be the focus of a media shitstorm, and none of them want to be the one weathering the constant barrage of "OMG IS THE INNOCENT BOX YOU BOUGHT LITTLE TIMMY AND JANIE REALLY A...PORN PLATFORM?!" All it will take is one or two games to have that pretty much define the system in the media for a few years. Look at what happened when Mass Effect first came out: a bunch of talking heads who had never even touched the game started ranting about the romance scenes and basically claiming it was a sex simulator, and as unfounded as that was, it had legs for a little while.

@Irem But isn't the PC (via the internet) basically a porn box - or at least can be looked at by those wanting to stir controversy? Yet it survived.
I mean I do actually agree with your point, but both Sony and MS are large enough, with a large enough user base, that I think they could survive whatever shitstorm Fox and the Republicans create if xbox or PS3 start allowing adult games.

Wouldn't it be great if both grew a pair and announced together that they will start allowing adult games on their systems? (I'm not including Nintendo because they are definitely more kid oriented) I mean yeah, F&R will start crying "save the children", but realistically what could happen. You think the millions of customers who already own system will sell them? You think all the parents will be able to resist the whining of their kids asking for the consoles? Nah, there will be a lot of huff and puff but the (brick) house will keep on standing. If only they had the stones.

Ironically, being told playing games will make me violent has brought me closer to violence than any game has...

The problem with the people fighting for this game law isn't their position, its the precedent they're citing.

They're citing studies that they claim prove violent games cause violent behavior. While a correlation has been proven, correlation does not equal causation. I don't think the simpletons we're talking about here comprehend the concept of a logical fallacy though.

A path that might lead to a lawful ban on the sale of violent games to certain people (minors, ex-cons, whatever) would be the argument that certain games fall within the definition of obscenity or indecency. Obscenity has been clearly excluded from free speech in numerous cases. This is why it is illegal to sell porn to minors, and why in some states (like Utah), the sale of porn to anyone is illegal.

The question then comes down to how is indecent and/ or obscene media recognized. The role of the FCC could be expanded, or a new agency could be established.

Of course, this is all hypothetical, since the California state lawyers have been using their state "IOU" vouchers to buy too much weed to present a decent case . . .

Oh, and I think violent games should be kept out of the hands of minors, just like they shouldn't watch certain TV shows, R rated movies, or listen to music with parental warnings. It'll be a cold day in hell before my daughter is popping heads off in MW2.

@JCDoe

I can agree with everything you say cause you make a valid point as a parent and clearly you not only feel responsible but take responsibility as a parent.

The problem i have with this law is that they don't use a rating system that is in place and works when used, instead they want to make it where they can say this game is violent and that game isn't even if say it's an "M" rated game.

Biggest problem our government has right now is when laws are written they use as much mumbo jumbo as possible to make it confusing so it sounds great but it's not benefiting the average person but is instead helping the rich, or politician with their own hidden agenda.

Postal was one of the worst bad movies I've ever seen. It was downright evil. Yet the MPAA gave it a rating, you can rent it, some morons gave Uwe Boll money to make it.

In the end it won't matter - parents will buy M-rated games for their kids anyways. Remember this is America - as long as it isn't sexual, we don't care how violent media is.

Maybe that could be a law. M-rated games must have 50% of their covers devoted to boobs, so soccer moms will be offended enough not to buy it.

@kgoo867 The whole problem with this is that you'll need a government entity that decides which content goes under which category which treads too close to government censorship for my tastes. There's no longer any choice involved...you're being told what content is and isn't appropriate for consumption and trying to buy things that don't fit in the government definition makes you a criminal.

What we need is for parents to not be lazy S.O.B.s and get involved in their children's lives and educate themselves in things that their children are interested in. There are already ratings on the boxes so you know what type of content the different games have. If you know what type of content your children are interested in, you'll know what topics need to be addressed. No law can replace good, involved, parenting.

I would always check the content for the M-rated game and if there is something i don't like i say no did that with dead rising 2 and red dead redemption. Even my son knows what he can and can't get and if he can't buy it we will rent it and play it together or i watch him play it then decide if he can really get it.

oh and Grand theft auto i don't let him touch that

Activision's George Rose calls out supporters of California violent game law

Reader Comments (40)

Posted: Dec 31st 2010 1:13AM Kaloni said

Posted: Dec 31st 2010 2:07AM Heffer Wolfe said

Posted: Dec 31st 2010 10:46PM Chareth Cutestory said

Posted: Jan 1st 2011 10:11AM Retrofraction said

Posted: Dec 31st 2010 1:20AM SaltCube64 said

Posted: Dec 31st 2010 1:30AM Epoque said

Posted: Dec 31st 2010 1:53AM Heffer Wolfe said

Posted: Dec 31st 2010 2:06AM Kaloni said

Posted: Dec 31st 2010 1:37AM 2late2die said

Posted: Dec 31st 2010 3:33AM GuardianLegend said

Posted: Jan 2nd 2011 1:17AM 2late2die said

Posted: Dec 31st 2010 1:37AM ll features ll said

Posted: Dec 31st 2010 2:02AM ybfelix said

Posted: Dec 31st 2010 2:04AM Heffer Wolfe said

Posted: Dec 31st 2010 2:12AM ybfelix said

Posted: Dec 31st 2010 2:23AM ybfelix said

Posted: Dec 31st 2010 2:38AM Heffer Wolfe said

Posted: Dec 31st 2010 3:15AM Courtney said

Posted: Dec 31st 2010 5:32PM asojax said

Posted: Dec 31st 2010 1:52AM Ozewa said

Posted: Dec 31st 2010 2:28AM Flapjackal said

Posted: Dec 31st 2010 3:00AM ybfelix said

Posted: Dec 31st 2010 3:12AM Ozewa said

Posted: Dec 31st 2010 2:40AM Doctor Doom said

Posted: Dec 31st 2010 3:08AM Undying said

Posted: Dec 31st 2010 3:17AM Courtney said

Posted: Dec 31st 2010 3:27AM GuardianLegend said

Posted: Dec 31st 2010 3:31AM GuardianLegend said

Posted: Dec 31st 2010 3:57AM R Planteer said

Posted: Dec 31st 2010 4:13AM Heffer Wolfe said

Posted: Dec 31st 2010 2:21PM GuardianLegend said

Posted: Dec 31st 2010 7:23PM Irem said

Posted: Jan 2nd 2011 1:27AM 2late2die said

Posted: Dec 31st 2010 6:52AM SolidRevolver said

Posted: Dec 31st 2010 11:11AM JCDoe said

Posted: Dec 31st 2010 5:40PM asojax said

Posted: Dec 31st 2010 1:27PM benheck said

Posted: Dec 31st 2010 2:32PM qrack said

Posted: Dec 31st 2010 4:08PM seck1254 said

Posted: Dec 31st 2010 4:10PM seck1254 said

Info

Description

MSRP

Release Date

Genre

Developer

Publisher

Rating

Breaking News

WB conjures up Harry Potter for Kinect this fall

Featured Stories

Silver Lining: I Am Alive's unfeeling world

Game Of Thrones and the paradoxes of adaptation

Super Joystiq Podcast 004: 38 Studios meltdown, Gravity Rush, Civilization 5: Gods & Kings, Dragon's Dogma

Engadget

TUAW

Massively

WoW