California Game Ban

Cheese

CAGiversary!
From the San Francisco Gate:

Committee revives bill to ban violent video games for kids

With a new member casting the deciding vote, an Assembly committee Thursday revived a bill that would bar the sale or rental of violent video games to children under age 17.

The bill, by Assemblyman Leland Yee, D-San Francisco, fell one vote short of passing the Arts, Entertainment, Sports, Tourism and Internet Media Committee on Tuesday with one lawmaker, Assemblyman Jerome Horton, D-Inglewood, not voting.

Yee asked for another vote, and on Thursday, with Assemblyman Dave Jones, D-Sacramento, sitting in for an absent Horton, the committee approved the bill, 6-4 — the bare majority it needed.

"This bill has received overwhelming bipartisan support and deserves a vote on the Assembly floor," Yee said in a statement.

But he told the committee that if the bill got out he would convene a meeting of supporters and opponents to try to reach a compromise. If no deal is reached, he said he would let Assembly Speaker Fabian Nunez, D-Los Angeles, decide if the bill should be voted on by the full Assembly.

The bill deals with the sale or rental of video games that depict injuries to human beings in a particularly heinous, atrocious or cruel manner. Selling or renting one of those games to a child who was under age 17 could result in a $1,000 fine.

Please write the Assembly members who voted for this and tell them why you think they should leave games alone.

[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]

I wrote them this...

Assembly Member,
Assemblyman Yee was quoted in the SFGate as saying "For the same reason we don't allow kids to buy pornography, cigarettes or alcohol, we shouldn't allow them to go to stores and buy video games that teach them to do the very things we put people in jail for,"

In that statement he likens Video Games to Pornography, cancerous cigarettes, and liver damaging alcohol. Please name me one pornographic video game released in America, then name me one that destroys your liver, then name me one that gives you CANCER. Video games are works of fantasy, the only kids they 'teach' anything to are kids who have a loose grasp on reality in the first place, to restrict our society to such a small group of people is like banning peanuts because some folks are allergic to them. Peanuts kill more people a year then video games. Would you advocate restricting the sales of peanuts before you restrict the sale of violent video games?

The worst of the worst of video games ever only reach a PG-13/R rating. There is nothing pornographic in any of them. Even Grand Theft Auto: San Andreas (which is admittedly the worst offender) has no nudity. I'd suggest you play some of these games your talking about before you run off to restrict their sales. Putting mature and adult themed games behind the counter of the store justifies the idea that there is something 'dirty' or 'wrong' about them. It will invariably get them pulled from major retailing chains like WalMart and Target who would rather not sell them at all then risk being fined. Soon one might have to go to seedy back ally porno shops to buy a VIDEO GAME. Or worse the industry will stop making them all together and pacify itself right out of the game bizz which could collapse the industry itself putting a lot of over educated homeless on Silicon Valley/San Francisco streets. You walk a dangerous road when restricting something, especially a justifiable art form; you are in danger of retarding the form because of an incorrect assumption that they are for children (when according to an Interactive Software Ratings Board poll the average video game fan is 28). It's a undeserved scarlet letter that says that the state needs to raise children because parents aren't able to. Throughout the 20th century Americans have held misconceptions that we laugh at now. Jazz music drove kids to drugs, Rock and Roll drove them crazy, Heavy Metal made them kill themselves, Rap music made them kill each other, now Video Games are the cause of our reckless youth. Will history judge you as a hero that helped parents ignore their children's interests, or a paranoid, book burning, quack like Dr. Frederick Wertham? Are either what you want your legacy to be?

The Movie & Music industries have self-instituted policies against extreme content and children; can you offer me a reason why this should be any different? You could lean on the retailers to have company policies restricting the sales and have individual stores enforce them. It's my belief that not unlike the movie industry the stores that sell games can set their own policy without the state getting involved. Once it's state mandated it opens the door to further restriction and eventual outright banning of material that isn't that bad to begin with.

It's not the job of retailers to be children's parents, think what an impact you'd have if you spent all the time you will spend on this with your children. Learning what they are interested in, guiding them, teaching them and then encouraging other parents to do the same. It shouldn't be hard to look at what your child is doing and have an interest in it. Games have a rating on them; all you have to do is read the box to see if they are appropriate for your children. If not, take it away, or better yet don't buy it for them in the first place. Video games cost $50 each. I don't know about you but I never had $50 to spend on anything when I was a kid at least not without my folks being there to shell out the cash for it and I would've been laughed at if I had asked them to buy me an adult video.

Thank you for your time.

Mark Hasselberger
 
Sorry, but I don't think there is anything wrong with them banning the sale of violent games to minors. At least this way if the parent buys the kid the game, they have to at least see what they are buying.
 
Gimme a break. Not selling heinously violent games to kids? Sounds like a good idea to me.

Please name me one pornographic video game released in America, then name me one that destroys your liver, then name me one that gives you CANCER.
Dunno about the liver, but I can tell you that sitting in front of a TV, you get all kinds of radiation. Just a thought. And though it may not be hardcore, there are several console videogames with softcore pornographic content, and, in a niche market, plenty of hardcore pornographic games. While we're on the subject...

Please name me one pornographic video game released in America
Leisure Suit Larry: Magna Cum Laude Uncut
Singles: Flirt Up Your Life AO edition
And there is softcore material in DOA:XVB, Playboy: The Mansion, and others.
And I could list about a hundred Japanese-imported porn games, but I'll avoid it for now.

The worst of the worst of video games ever only reach a PG-13/R rating.
Wow. Interesting. The most violent games reach the equivilant of the highest (general) movie rating, in which all but the most extreme (and we're really talking extreme) violence is allowed. Fascinating. I don't have to explain why this is a stupid statement, do I?

There is nothing pornographic in any of them. Even Grand Theft Auto: San Andreas (which is admittedly the worst offender) has no nudity. I'd suggest you play some of these games your talking about before you run off to restrict their sales.
Ever heard of pornoviolence?

Soon one might have to go to seedy back ally porno shops to buy a VIDEO GAME. Or worse the industry will stop making them all together and pacify itself right out of the game bizz which could collapse the industry itself putting a lot of over educated homeless on Silicon Valley/San Francisco streets.
You're overreacting, dude. Not selling extremely violent games to kids will NOT bring down the industry. Jesus.
 
This is ridiculous. If you are going to fine retailers $1,000 a pop for selling violent games to children then soon retailers are going to figure out it is not worth the hassle to carry these games and then the developers will stop making them. Why isn't there a comparable law in place for renting R-rated movies or selling certain violent CDs to minors? I'm pretty sure 50 Cent talking about bitches and hos right into junior's ear has at least if not more of an effect on him then playing a video game.

Also, who is going to decide what is violent and what isn't? It's almost impossible to do. The way I see it, most games involve some type of violence - I'm surprised PETA hasn't called for a ban on all the Mario games for teaching cruelty to flying turtles. Why hasn't the DMV come down on Burnout for teaching kids to speed? It's fucking crazy and I can't believe the regression we have been going through for the last 5 years. This is America people. We've gone from the rebellious 60s where freedom reigned to the everybody's having sex with everybody 70s to the everybody's doing coke 80s to the holy shit carve my eyes out with a spoon because I just saw a nipple present day. It makes me sick.
 
I am impressed that you actually wrote to your representative. That is great. One word of advice though: you should proofread your letters before sending them (or get someone else who is knowledgable about grammer to do so). Your letter is full of grammar mistakes which detract from its effectiveness.
 
Most kids young enough for this kind of legislation to affect them aren't old enough to vote anyway, so there's no way they can vote against said politicians in the next election. Most parents will assume it's violent videogames (and not their lousy parenting skills) that are causing their kids to become knuckleheads as well, so I don't see what voting group can actually stand up against this legislation.
 
give me a break, not selling violent video games to minors is a great idea. its not that hard to ask you parents, and most will comply. so get over it, and lots of retailers already id kids for M rated games, includign gamestop, so why does it matter, the only people who care are 15 year old punks whos parents arent going to buy them the game
 
It's a terrible idea. Why should the store employees be required to do a parents job? Employees should never be held responsible. It's another way to blame someone else for lackluster parenting. That's why it's so wrong.
 
[quote name='gamereviewgod']It's a terrible idea. Why should the store employees be required to do a parents job? Employees should never be held responsible. It's another way to blame someone else for lackluster parenting. That's why it's so wrong.[/QUOTE]

yeah youre right, let kids see r and worse rated movies, rent and buy porn, cigarettes, alochol, violent games etc, because its not the stores job to make sure, the parents should be keeping an eye on them :roll:
 
[quote name='gamereviewgod']It's a terrible idea. Why should the store employees be required to do a parents job? Employees should never be held responsible. It's another way to blame someone else for lackluster parenting. That's why it's so wrong.[/QUOTE]

So because some kid has a shitty parent, society should just allow them to do whatever they want?
 
[quote name='iheartmetal']yeah youre right, let kids see r and worse rated movies, rent and buy porn, cigarettes, alochol, violent games etc, because its not the stores job to make sure, the parents should be keeping an eye on them :roll:[/QUOTE]

The issue here isn't whether or not kids should be allowed to get their grubby little hands on this stuff - of course they shouldn't. The issue is penalizing the retailers $1,000 an incident. This will have a chilling effect on the entire industry once stores figure out that it would be much easier to not carry the games in question than to keep getting fined. The methods in place now (while admitedly aren't the best), are really all that should be done. There are clearly marked ratings on every game manufactured today. Video games should be treated no differently than movies, music and books as a valid form of entertainment. It's a horrible "law" and I just don't see how anyone who supports creativity or freedom of expression could think that this is a good idea. It's one step removed from banning the production of these games altogether.
 
[quote name='CoffeeEdge']Gimme a break. Not selling heinously violent games to kids? Sounds like a good idea to me.

Dunno about the liver, but I can tell you that sitting in front of a TV, you get all kinds of radiation. Just a thought. And though it may not be hardcore, there are several console videogames with softcore pornographic content, and, in a niche market, plenty of hardcore pornographic games.[/QUOTE]

Not selling violent games to kids is fine, but letting the state decide what is bad and what isn't is the first step to restricting the content from even being made in the first place. Next thing you know we're all playing Barbie Horse Adventure (or whatever it's called). Like movie theaters and record stores company policies can do the same job.

TV's give off small doses of cathode radiation, it's not cancer causing, besides that's the TV not the game itself. you could play the game on a flat screen which doesn't give off anything.

I can only think of four recent generation American console games that has any nudity in it whatsoever. BMXXX, The Guy Game, Liesure Suit Larry and God of War. Three of which failed horribly. So out of the thousands of games that have come out for the current generation of systems (anyone actually know the number, I tried looking but I couldn't find it) four have 'softcore' content. You could even argue that while the Guy Game has nudity it's not really presented as erotica so it's not 'pornographic'. There's a big difference between nudity and pornography.


iheartmetal:
let kids see r and worse rated movies, rent and buy porn, cigarettes, alochol, violent games etc, because its not the stores job to make sure, the parents should be keeping an eye on them

Um... It's not the stores job. Watching over your kids is kind of the definition of being a parent.
 
Well all I can say is wow, why hasn't this already happened since the title is rated M for mature which means 17 and older. This should have been passed yeard ago right when the rating label came out. No 13 year old kid should be playing GTA anywyas.
 
They still carry cigarettes, and alcohol. Most people who steal smokes are underage.

So it's not the store's responsibility? Hop over to the Walgreen's thread, over there people thing it *is* the store's responsibility to watch out for their customers.

As a parent, I try to be involved with what my child sees/experiences. I may not want him playing M games. I have no problem with a law enforcing id checks for rated games--although they should do the same for movies and music. Similar legislation already exists for cigarettes, and probably porn mags as well. But if I wanted to, I could go and buy them, and hand them right to my 12 year old kid.
I have no problem with this law, in fact, I rather like it. About time the government does a little bit to help support a parent rather than degrade the parent's power.
 
[quote name='dtcarson']They still carry cigarettes, and alcohol. Most people who steal smokes are underage.[/quote]

Most people who steal cigarettes are russian mob guys stealing them by the truckload. Violent video games are not cigarettes or alcohol or even porn.

So it's not the store's responsibility? Hop over to the Walgreen's thread, over there people thing it *is* the store's responsibility to watch out for their customers.

Drugs aren't already morally rated. If RU486 was already rated 'M' and the store wouldn't carry it, fine. But it's not. On top of that a pharmacist has a duty to serve his patients, not his conscience. But that's a debate for over there.

As a parent, I try to be involved with what my child sees/experiences. I may not want him playing M games. I have no problem with a law enforcing id checks for rated games--although they should do the same for movies and music. Similar legislation already exists for cigarettes, and probably porn mags as well. But if I wanted to, I could go and buy them, and hand them right to my 12 year old kid.
I have no problem with this law, in fact, I rather like it. About time the government does a little bit to help support a parent rather than degrade the parent's power.

If you handed cigarettes or Beer to your kid you'd be struck with a Contributing the the Delinquency of a Minor Charge, give him porn and you're going to jail. (funny how the law allows us to watch all the murder we want on tv, but a boobie in a magazine is supposed to be bad for us?).

You prefer the government making it against the law for a 12 year old kid see a PG-13 movie? You'd get fined for letting him see star wars, or Lord of The Rings. Let's extend the law to let the government tell us what food we can feed them, lord knows feeding your kid nothing but McDonald's is more dangerous then letting them play DOOM. Let's make a law against it. Candy too, it rots their teeth. Ban it. That sure would make it easier to raise your kids! Wow, we can go around banning everything fake science says is bad to make the world safe FOR THE CHILDREN. Baseball? Fudge no! Football? Too violent! Rock and Roll? Gone! Rap music? For heathens! Where should we stop? More kids die from hitting their heads on sharp corners on coffee tables then do playing video games. Do we ban sharp corners? At some point parents have to take responsibility for their children. There are a thousand more dangerous things in the world then video games. Try banning them first. Ban cars, dogs, trees, kites, rocks and other kids, all hurt and even kill more kids then video games could ever hope to.
 
I'm all for banning the sale of M rated games to minors. If it passes, hopefully it will stop the flood of law suits claiming that games made their children kill people.

[quote name='cheese']Not selling violent games to kids is fine, but letting the state decide what is bad and what isn't is the first step to restricting the content from even being made in the first place. Next thing you know we're all playing Barbie Horse Adventure (or whatever it's called). Like movie theaters and record stores company policies can do the same job.[/quote]
The state isn't deciding what is bad, the ESRB is doing that. From what I gather, the purpose of this law is not to impose a new rating system on the industry.
 
[quote name='Cheese']Most people who steal cigarettes are russian mob guys stealing them by the truckload. Violent video games are not cigarettes or alcohol or even porn.



Drugs aren't already morally rated. If RU486 was already rated 'M' and the store wouldn't carry it, fine. But it's not. On top of that a pharmacist has a duty to serve his patients, not his conscience. But that's a debate for over there.



If you handed cigarettes or Beer to your kid you'd be struck with a Contributing the the Delinquency of a Minor Charge, give him porn and you're going to jail. (funny how the law allows us to watch all the murder we want on tv, but a boobie in a magazine is supposed to be bad for us?).

You prefer the government making it against the law for a 12 year old kid see a PG-13 movie? You'd get fined for letting him see star wars, or Lord of The Rings. Let's extend the law to let the government tell us what food we can feed them, lord knows feeding your kid nothing but McDonald's is more dangerous then letting them play DOOM. Let's make a law against it. Candy too, it rots their teeth. Ban it. That sure would make it easier to raise your kids! Wow, we can go around banning everything fake science says is bad to make the world safe FOR THE CHILDREN. Baseball? Fudge no! Football? Too violent! Rock and Roll? Gone! Rap music? For heathens! Where should we stop? More kids die from hitting their heads on sharp corners on coffee tables then do playing video games. Do we ban sharp corners? At some point parents have to take responsibility for their children. There are a thousand more dangerous things in the world then video games. Try banning them first. Ban cars, dogs, trees, kites, rocks and other kids, all hurt and even kill more kids then video games could ever hope to.[/QUOTE]

Actually if a parent gives a kid a beer, its legal, I think. Its only legal for the parent to do so though. Keep in mind that the law just makes the parents buy the game for the kids. Its not illegal for the minor to possess the game just buy it. If their parents buy the game it would be ok. Its just a way of forcing a parent to take responsibility whether they like it or not. Thats why I don't think its a very big deal.
 
I have no problems with restricting minors' access to videogames, so long as the VIDEOGAME INDUSTRY enacts and enforces such laws. The government has no right to stick it's hands in this issue.
 
The state isn't deciding what is bad, the ESRB is doing that. From what I gather, the purpose of this law is not to impose a new rating system on the industry.

Illinois is in the process of passing a law that would allow the state government to slap a rating on games it deems inappropriate to sell to minors.
 
[quote name='greendj27']Actually if a parent gives a kid a beer, its legal, I think. Its only legal for the parent to do so though. [/QUOTE]

I assure you, child endangerment is not legal. :D

[quote name='greendj27']Keep in mind that the law just makes the parents buy the game for the kids. Its not illegal for the minor to possess the game just buy it. If their parents buy the game it would be ok. Its just a way of forcing a parent to take responsibility whether they like it or not. Thats why I don't think its a very big deal.[/QUOTE]

I don't think anyone is disputing that selling violent games to minors is a bad idea and there should be rules in place to dissuade retailers from doing so, however, making it a law and imposing a $1,000 penalty is a terrible, terrible idea due to the secondary effect that it will have on the marketplace.

It's like when they passed the law in NYC saying it was illegal to sell porn within 1,000 feet of a school or church. Sounds like a good law, right? I'm all for keeping porn away from the kids and I can understand why churches might not want it nearby however the actual secondary effect of the law was that all of a sudden porn became illegal everywhere in NYC because you can't go 1,000 feet in any direction and not hit a school or church. The law was struck down as a violation of first amendment rights...

If this law passes, the secondary effect will be that stores will stop carrying these games (not worth the risk of being fined) and in turn game developers will stop producing these games. Everyone loses.
 
[quote name='javeryh']The issue here isn't whether or not kids should be allowed to get their grubby little hands on this stuff - of course they shouldn't. The issue is penalizing the retailers $1,000 an incident. This will have a chilling effect on the entire industry once stores figure out that it would be much easier to not carry the games in question than to keep getting fined. The methods in place now (while admitedly aren't the best), are really all that should be done. There are clearly marked ratings on every game manufactured today. Video games should be treated no differently than movies, music and books as a valid form of entertainment. It's a horrible "law" and I just don't see how anyone who supports creativity or freedom of expression could think that this is a good idea. It's one step removed from banning the production of these games altogether.[/QUOTE]

Give me a break! This "law" does not threaten creativity and freedom of expression. I agree that the legislation should be consistent throughout all forms of media, but if you don't penalize the retailers for selling the products in qiestion to minors than what reason do they have to abide by those ratings. Hell, add CDs, movies and books to the list then if that will make you happy. Consistency is good! You seem to think this will have a much more widespread effect than it really will. What is really involved? Sales clerk: "Mmmmm.....I am a lazy ass sales clerk and I have to check an ID? Holy shit! God forbid I take an extra second to ask for and actually look at an ID!!!" CEO: "Oh crap! Our low paid employees have to take an extra minute to make sure that these kids are old enough to buy the games! That is going to slow production of our employees! I think we should pull this multimillion dollar selling product off our shelves completely!"

First and foremost parents are responsible for knowing what their kids are getting into, but retailers also should not be able to just sell anything to kids. The rating system now is just an informational system. It's not enforced. It's the same with the explicit lyrics logo on CDs. The problem is that parents are not always with their kids and may not always see what they come home with. That's not ideal obviously, but that will never change.

By the way, I like how you suggest that the current system is all that should done, but then admit that it isn't good. Do you make a practice of supporting crap products and/or ideas?
 
[quote name='MaxBiaggi2']Most kids young enough for this kind of legislation to affect them aren't old enough to vote anyway, so there's no way they can vote against said politicians in the next election. Most parents will assume it's violent videogames (and not their lousy parenting skills) that are causing their kids to become knuckleheads as well, so I don't see what voting group can actually stand up against this legislation.[/QUOTE]

Card-carrying members of the ACLU.
 
[quote name='javeryh']

It's like when they passed the law in NYC saying it was illegal to sell porn within 1,000 feet of a school or church. Sounds like a good law, right? I'm all for keeping porn away from the kids and I can understand why churches might not want it nearby however the actual secondary effect of the law was that all of a sudden porn became illegal everywhere in NYC because you can't go 1,000 feet in any direction and not hit a school or church. The law was struck down as a violation of first amendment rights...

If this law passes, the secondary effect will be that stores will stop carrying these games (not worth the risk of being fined) and in turn game developers will stop producing these games. Everyone loses.[/QUOTE]

I really don't see the similarities here. That law would have restricted the sale completely. Not just to kids. If retailers stop selling these products because of this law (if it is passed) they are fools. I don't think it will happen and I don't see why you think it will. What is a $1,000 fine to Best Buy or Circuit City? Not much. It's certainly worth the risk because VGs are a multimillion dollar industry. There are limits and fines in place for alcohol and cigarettes, yet retailers still carry those.
 
[quote name='greendj27']Sorry, but I don't think there is anything wrong with them banning the sale of violent games to minors. At least this way if the parent buys the kid the game, they have to at least see what they are buying.[/QUOTE]

Do you think there is anything wrong with banning the sale of violent movies to minors?

How about books?

What about free games? Can I give a violent game to a minor for free?

What exactly constitutes a "violent" game? Is America's Army a violent game?
 
[quote name='CoffeeEdge']Leisure Suit Larry: Magna Cum Laude Uncut
Singles: Flirt Up Your Life AO edition
And there is softcore material in DOA:XVB, Playboy: The Mansion, and others.
And I could list about a hundred Japanese-imported porn games, but I'll avoid it for now.[/quote]

I was kinda sticking to console games, was Singles released on the XBOX? I don't remember, I don't think so though. I forgot about Playboy. More evil computer boobies. DOA:XBV is about a s pornographic as a trip to the beach. When bikinis become porn, let me know. If you don't know your kid is importing japanese porno games, you really need to a) cut off his allowance, those things are expensive and b) open your eyes.

Wow. Interesting. The most violent games reach the equivilant of the highest (general) movie rating, in which all but the most extreme (and we're really talking extreme) violence is allowed. Fascinating. I don't have to explain why this is a stupid statement, do I?

NC-17, Kill Bill had to go Black and White to get an R rating and I could think of much more violent films then that.

Ever heard of pornoviolence?

No, what the hell is that and where can I get some?

You're overreacting, dude. Not selling extremely violent games to kids will NOT bring down the industry. Jesus.

That's not what I said, what I said was legislating it leads down the slippery slope of censorship, which could condemn video games to be unjustifiably seen as kids fodder for years not unlike comic books. When the government got involved then it retarded the medium and made it "kids only" for nearly 20 years and gave it a stigma that still holds true today.
 
May just be me, but I agree with the bill. It's not banning the games, just stopping sales to minors, correct? It'd force the parents to actually be parents.

Working at TRU I can say that about 80% that come into the store whith their young children wanting to buy a M-rated game aren't even aware of the ESRB ratings. Once we explain it to them they thank us for the information and normally send the kid back for something like T-rated or less.

I thought most retail outlets had policy's like this anyway.
 
[quote name='javeryh']I assure you, child endangerment is not legal. :D



I don't think anyone is disputing that selling violent games to minors is a bad idea and there should be rules in place to dissuade retailers from doing so, however, making it a law and imposing a $1,000 penalty is a terrible, terrible idea due to the secondary effect that it will have on the marketplace.

It's like when they passed the law in NYC saying it was illegal to sell porn within 1,000 feet of a school or church. Sounds like a good law, right? I'm all for keeping porn away from the kids and I can understand why churches might not want it nearby however the actual secondary effect of the law was that all of a sudden porn became illegal everywhere in NYC because you can't go 1,000 feet in any direction and not hit a school or church. The law was struck down as a violation of first amendment rights...

If this law passes, the secondary effect will be that stores will stop carrying these games (not worth the risk of being fined) and in turn game developers will stop producing these games. Everyone loses.[/QUOTE]

I understand what you are thinking, but I don't think it will impact game stores much. Think of it in terms of cigarette and alcohol sales. Its not hard to check an ID and both products are still carried all over.
 
[quote name='eldad9']Do you think there is anything wrong with banning the sale of violent movies to minors?
[/QUOTE]
No.

[quote name='eldad9']
How about books?
[/QUOTE]
No.
[quote name='eldad9']
What about free games? Can I give a violent game to a minor for free?
[/QUOTE]
That is just a dumb question. The laws cannot regulate what you give as a gift. That adds nothing to your side of the argument. I think you're really reaching here.
[quote name='eldad9']
What exactly constitutes a "violent" game? Is America's Army a violent game?[/QUOTE]
I would limit it using the exising ratings. M games should be restricted.
 
I agree with this 100%. This is exactly the kind of thing I want to see. It means
a) No censorship.
and
b) It gets people off of the backs of the video game industry because it isn't their concern to begin with.

I believe that ultimately it should be the parents' duty to keep track of what their kid buys, especially since parents will still probably go and buy inappopriate games for their kids and then bitch about it,. But it would be far too hard to eliminate stupid people from the world, so we'll just have to make do.
 
[quote name='chickenhawk']What is a $1,000 fine to Best Buy or Circuit City? Not much. It's certainly worth the risk because VGs are a multimillion dollar industry. There are limits and fines in place for alcohol and cigarettes, yet retailers still carry those.[/QUOTE]

Best Buy and Circuit City would be among the first to stop selling them. The cheap games are just to get you in the door, once you're there they try and sell you a Plasma TV or a stereo, that's where they make their money. Walmart, KMart & Target would stop selling them early too. Sure they can afford the fines, one or two a month; but how about 2000 or 3000 times a month across the nation, it adds up. Let's say a high volume store like best buy gets hit twice a month with fines for a year (24000). Multiply that by the number of stores (1200 by 12/2005) and you get nearly $29 million in fines.

Again, cigarettes and alcohol are actually PHYSICALLY harmful and can cause developmental disorders in children. Video games cannot.
 
Give me a break! This "law" does not threaten creativity and freedom of expression.

Not on it's face but the effects of laws like this will.

I agree that the legislation should be consistent throughout all forms of media, but if you don't penalize the retailers for selling the products in qiestion to minors than what reason do they have to abide by those ratings.

Like you said, ratings are there to inform the consumer of the content inside the product. They aren't there to say who should or shouldn't be allowed to buy the product. If a store wants to take it upon themselves to regulate who they sell to then fine but keep the government out of it. Parents should learn to stay on top of their kids. It not that hard if they cared for even one second instead of being lazy and constantly looking to shift blame elsewhere then they would know what their kid was up to. Besides, all kids do stuff their parents don't want them to do - it doesn't make it right but it's part of being a kid and growing up.

Hell, add CDs, movies and books to the list then if that will make you happy. Consistency is good! You seem to think this will have a much more widespread effect than it really will. What is really involved? Sales clerk: "Mmmmm.....I am a lazy ass sales clerk and I have to check an ID? Holy shit! God forbid I take an extra second to ask for and actually look at an ID!!!" CEO: "Oh crap! Our low paid employees have to take an extra minute to make sure that these kids are old enough to buy the games! That is going to slow production of our employees! I think we should pull this multimillion dollar selling product off our shelves completely!"

Um, in the real world your $5 an hour sales clerk doesn't give a shit if his employer gets fined. Plus, who is going to decide what qualifies as violent and what isn't? I mean, besides the blood, is Street Fighter or Zelda really any less violent than Metal Gear?

Also, the "multimillion dollar selling product" doesn't generate millions of dollars for the retail stores who carry it. One incident of getting fined $1,000 would probably wipe out 200 sales of the game without getting fined. It's a big deal.

First and foremost parents are responsible for knowing what their kids are getting into, but retailers also should not be able to just sell anything to kids. The rating system now is just an informational system. It's not enforced. It's the same with the explicit lyrics logo on CDs. The problem is that parents are not always with their kids and may not always see what they come home with. That's not ideal obviously, but that will never change.

You are right, it will never change.... but we've been getting along just fine for the last thousand years - I don't think video games are going to be the downfall of society. Besides, every generation's standards of what is acceptable for children is going to differ - remember when Elvis and the Beatles were the GTA of their day? It's laughable now.

By the way, I like how you suggest that the current system is all that should done, but then admit that it isn't good. Do you make a practice of supporting crap products and/or ideas?

When I said it wasn't good, I was referring to keeping the content out of minor's hands. However, it is not the intent of the ratings and I think it is a good system ad really all that needs to be done. Movies have been getting along just fine this way. Everyone needs to start taking responsibility for their own actions.
 
[quote name='greendj27']I understand what you are thinking, but I don't think it will impact game stores much. Think of it in terms of cigarette and alcohol sales. Its not hard to check an ID and both products are still carried all over.[/QUOTE]

I agree in theory but cigarettes and alcohol are very cheap to produce and they practically sell themselves. Plus, they are way way way overpriced (partly due to the high tax the government places on these things) and guaranteed huge moneymakers. It costs tens of millions to produce one video game - if you were going to sink that kind of money into something that wasn't even going to be a guaranteed success and right off the bat you knew that if you made an M rated game, Walmart, Best Buy, Circuit City and Target weren't even going to sell it, what kind of game would you make?
 
[quote name='Cheese']Best Buy and Circuit City would be among the first to stop selling them. The cheap games are just to get you in the door, once you're there they try and sell you a Plasma TV or a stereo, that's where they make their money. Walmart, KMart & Target would stop selling them early too. Sure they can afford the fines, one or two a month; but how about 2000 or 3000 times a month across the nation, it adds up. Let's say a high volume store like best buy gets hit twice a month with fines for a year (24000). Multiply that by the number of stores (1200 by 12/2005) and you get nearly $29 million in fines.

Again, cigarettes and alcohol are actually PHYSICALLY harmful and can cause developmental disorders in children. Video games cannot.[/QUOTE]

I don't understand why are assuming that these stores will just be fined over and over. If the law would be enacted, they would just stop selling them to minors. Its not that difficult to check an ID.

Also, cigarettes and alchool are physically harmful, but the law is aimed at perventing emotional harm. Some kids can handle violence and sex in games fine, others can't. This law puts the burden on the parents to take responsibility instead of blaming a video game for their kids problems. Watching porn doesn't cause a kid physical harm either, but that doesn't mean its ok for a kid to watch that either.

I'm just curious how old you are. I'm not saying that in any kind of negative way, I'm just guesing that people under the age of 18 are going to be much more against this than adults.
 
[quote name='javeryh']The issue here isn't whether or not kids should be allowed to get their grubby little hands on this stuff - of course they shouldn't. The issue is penalizing the retailers $1,000 an incident. This will have a chilling effect on the entire industry once stores figure out that it would be much easier to not carry the games in question than to keep getting fined. The methods in place now (while admitedly aren't the best), are really all that should be done. There are clearly marked ratings on every game manufactured today. Video games should be treated no differently than movies, music and books as a valid form of entertainment. It's a horrible "law" and I just don't see how anyone who supports creativity or freedom of expression could think that this is a good idea. It's one step removed from banning the production of these games altogether.[/QUOTE]

There is no chance this would happen. Mature rated games are the primary source of income for game retailers (most customers aren't buying games based on reviews or quality, they walk in and pick up whatever looks cool, usually the most violent or sexually themed thing that came out recently). Given the choice between dropping the source of the majority of their income or firing incompetent employees who can't follow simple instructions, I'd say the unemployment line will be growing before you have trouble getting your hands on the next GTA.
 
[quote name='javeryh']It costs tens of millions to produce one video game - if you were going to sink that kind of money into something that wasn't even going to be a guaranteed success and right off the bat you knew that if you made an M rated game, Walmart, Best Buy, Circuit City and Target weren't even going to sell it, what kind of game would you make?[/QUOTE]

a3647i0_Barbie2_w.jpg

651268.jpg


Ooooh, I can't wait!
 
javeryh -

You make valid points, but I still do not think that it will have the widespread effect that you suggest. I completely agree though that everyone is responsible for themselves but doesn't that apply to the retailers too? It is irresponsible for them to be selling innappropriate products to kids. I also agree that VGs are not going to bring down our society if they are not regulated, but that doesn't change the fact thath kids should be able to play GTA unless the parent knows about it (and that, depending on the kid is another discussion all together).

How you determine what is "violent" is a valid question. I would say go with the current ratings. Anything with a Mature rating qualifies. Maybe that is not always because it is violent, but unless you change the rating system (which personally I don't think it needs any change) that's the most appropriate way to determine what should be regulated.

You're also right that clerks don't care about BB getting fined. If it starts to happen too much than they will just have to adjust and make them care. Take some $$$ out of their check or something. No system for this is going to be perfect, but I don't think it's bad to suggest that retailers share some of the burden to keep these products out of kids hands.
 
[quote name='chickenhawk']javeryh -

You make valid points, but I still do not think that it will have the widespread effect that you suggest. I completely agree though that everyone is responsible for themselves but doesn't that apply to the retailers too? It is irresponsible for them to be selling innappropriate products to kids. I also agree that VGs are not going to bring down our society if they are not regulated, but that doesn't change the fact thath kids should be able to play GTA unless the parent knows about it (and that, depending on the kid is another discussion all together).

How you determine what is "violent" is a valid question. I would say go with the current ratings. Anything with a Mature rating qualifies. Maybe that is not always because it is violent, but unless you change the rating system (which personally I don't think it needs any change) that's the most appropriate way to determine what should be regulated.

You're also right that clerks don't care about BB getting fined. If it starts to happen too much than they will just have to adjust and make them care. Take some $$$ out of their check or something. No system for this is going to be perfect, but I don't think it's bad to suggest that retailers share some of the burden to keep these products out of kids hands.[/QUOTE]

I totally agree that it is irresponsible for a retailer to sell something like God of War or GTA to kids but I don't think a blanket fine is the way to go about it. There's definitely a huge grey area and I'm not sure there is a perfect solution. It seems to me that selling GTA to a 9 year old is just insane when compared to selling it to a 16 year old but the punishment is the same. They would need to come up with a lot more categories - the difference in maturity in a 13 year old still in grade school is very different than that of a 14 year old who is in highschool. I'm not suggesting that it should be a free-for-all for retailers to do whatever they want but sweeping legislation that lumps everything together is definitely not the way to do it.

I think the solution you presented (and probably thought of in 5 seconds) is MUCH more effective and accomplishes the same goals without nearly as much of a potential adverse effect on the industry as a whole. If you took money out of a sales clerk's paycheck as punishment for selling to a minor than there would be an incentive to follow the rules and at the same time game makers could keep making the games they want to make for the audience they are intended for. Easy!
 
There are plenty of parental groups out there who think the rating system doesn't work. They'll fight to keep T games out kids hands too.

It can very easily have a negative effect on the industry. Once stores start getting fined because new employee X didn't check ID, they're fined. They hire someone else, same thing happens. It has a ripple effect. Think of how money this could cost a company in the long run. They'll simply stop carrying the games. That's where censorship comes in.

Again, I understand being a parent is hard, but it's not the retail stores nor the game makers fault if a parent doesn't check the rating on the front of the box, the back of the box, the flyers in the store, and the commercials on game kiosks. The information is there. If stupid people refuse to use, that's not my problem as an employee. Do I check ID? Yes. Do I feel I should have to? No.

When mom or dad sends little Johnny into a video game store with $50, it's not my responsibilty to monitor what he's doing with it, period.
 
[quote name='greendj27']Actually if a parent gives a kid a beer, its legal, I think. Its only legal for the parent to do so though. Keep in mind that the law just makes the parents buy the game for the kids. Its not illegal for the minor to possess the game just buy it. If their parents buy the game it would be ok. Its just a way of forcing a parent to take responsibility whether they like it or not. Thats why I don't think its a very big deal.[/QUOTE]

According to Illinois law, you're right and wrong at the same time:

[font=Arial, Arial, Helvetica]It is unlawful for any person to give alcohol to a person under twenty-one years of age except in performance of a religious ceremony or service. To do so is an offense punishable by a fine of up to $500.00 and/or imprisonment for up to six (6) months. (IL. Rev Arr., ch 43 ,131.)

[/font]
blobul1e.gif
[font=Arial, Arial, Helvetica]A parent or adult who furnishes alcohol or drugs to a minor may be guilty of contributing to the delinquency of a child, an offense punishable by a fine of up to $1 00,000 and/or punishment of up to one (1) year. (IL Rev. Stat., ch 56 1/2:1401.)

[/font]
blobul1e.gif
[font=Arial, Arial, Helvetica]A parent or adult who furnishes marijuana to a minor may be guilty of a felony, either punishable by a fine of up to $10,000 or imprisonment for up to twenty-eight (28) years, or both. (IL Rev. Stat., ch 56 1/2,705)

[/font]
blobul1e.gif
[font=Arial, Arial, Helvetica]A parent or adult who furnishes alcohol at a home party may be liable in a civil action for money damages to any person who is injured in person or property by an intoxicated person whose intoxication is attributable to the parent or adult furnishing the alcohol. (IL Rev. Stat., ch 43:135.)

[/font]
blobul1e.gif
[font=Arial, Arial, Helvetica]It is unlawful for any person to knowingly possess a controlled substance and possession of a controlled substance may result in punishment by a fine of up to $100,000 and or imprisonment for up to thirty (30) years. In addition, it is unlawful for any person to knowingly possess marijuana, and possession of marijuana may result in punishment by a fine of up to $10,000 and/or imprisonment for up to ten (10) years, or both. (IL Rev. Stat.,, ch 56 112, 1402.)

[/font]
blobul1e.gif
[font=Arial, Arial, Helvetica]It is unlawful for a person under twenty-one years of age to consume alcohol unless he does so under the direct supervision and approval of his parent or parents in the privacy of the home. Consumption of alcohol by a minor under any other circumstances is an offense punishable by a fine of up to $500 and/or imprisonment for up to thirty (30) days.

[/font]
blobul1e.gif
[font=Arial, Arial, Helvetica]Any person under the age of twenty-one years who has alcohol in his possession on any street or highway or any public place, or in any place open to the public, may be guilty of an offense punishable by a fine of up to $500 or imprisonment for up to six (6) months, or both, unless that person is making a delivery of alcohol in pursuance of an order of his parent or in pursuance of his employment. (IL Rev. Stat., ch 43:131.)

[/font]
blobul1e.gif
[font=Arial, Arial, Helvetica]It is unlawful for any person under the influence of intoxicating liquor to drive. Driving while under the influence of alcohol is an offense punishable by fine up to $1,000 and or imprisonment for up to one (l) year. (IL Rev. Stat.,ch951/2,11-501.)

[/font]
blobul1e.gif
[font=Arial, Arial, Helvetica]State Law provides for testing and administrative suspension of the driver's license of, anyone under the age of 21 years who is operating a vehicle and who has a blood alcohol concentration greater than 0.00%.

[/font]
blobul1e.gif
[font=Arial, Arial, Helvetica]ZERO TOLERANCE is the policy when any officer comes into contact with a driver of any vehicle who is under 21 years of age and has consumed any alcohol.

[/font]
blobul1e.gif
[font=Arial, Arial, Helvetica]Any person who drives a motor vehicle anywhere within the State of Illinois thereby consents to take a complete test or chemical analysis of his breath or blood to determine the alcoholic content of his blood when such a test or chemical analysis is made pursuant to a lawful arrest. If a person refuses to submit to the test, his driver's license will be automatically suspended for at least six (6) months. (IL Rev. Stat. ch 95 1/2:1 1 -501.1.)

The 3 I highlighted illustrate that, yes, a parent can get in trouble for giving a minor (not necessarily but including his/her children) but if his/her child is drinking alcohol in the privacy of their home (or as part of a religious cermony/service) but he/she didn't give it to them, then it's ok.

Incidentally, this thread needs to be moved to the politics forum.
[/font]
 
[quote name='greendj27']Sorry, but I don't think there is anything wrong with them banning the sale of violent games to minors. At least this way if the parent buys the kid the game, they have to at least see what they are buying.[/QUOTE]

i second that
 
If the game industry opens themselves up for the esrb to rate their games as "mature", and agree that those games aren't meant for kids then they shouldn't have a problem with a penalty being enforced against stores who go against the ratings and the intentions of the developers.

The major argument you will hear about why this is wrong is because of the first amendment. The wackos will tell us that kids have the first amendment right to buy porn and other mature vices - including games that have been deemed for adults by the game industry. They are wrong of course.
 
[quote name='Scrubking']If the game industry opens themselves up for the esrb to rate their games as "mature", and agree that those games aren't meant for kids then they shouldn't have a problem with a penalty being enforced against stores who go against the ratings and the intentions of the developers.

The major argument you will hear about why this is wrong is because of the first amendment. The wackos will tell us that kids have the first amendment right to buy porn and other mature vices - including games that have been deemed for adults by the game industry. They are wrong of course.[/QUOTE]

You completely do not understand the first amendment argument. Kids have no (or limited) first amendment rights but it's not about that, it's about the chilling effect the law will have on the adults making the games.
 
[quote name='javeryh']You completely do not understand the first amendment argument. Kids have no (or limited) first amendment rights but it's not about that, it's about the chilling effect the law will have on the adults making the games.[/QUOTE]

Commenting on the Californian legislation, the Interactive Entertainment Merchants Association's director of government relations, Marie Sylla, welcomed the vote against the bill, saying that "it is evident that most of the committee members recognized the obvious flaw with the legislation - that it is wholly unconstitutional."

Yes, this is about the first amendment - or so that is how the opposition portray it. They should just come out and say that they want to make money at kid's expense, but they'll lose and look bad in the process.

The truth is they make mature games that are NOT meant for kids, but secretly count on the fact that kids will get their immature hands on them anyway and give up their money in the process. That is what this is really all about because, like I said, if the games are NOT meant for kids they shouldn't care if kids aren't able to buy them.
 
[quote name='greendj27']I don't understand why are assuming that these stores will just be fined over and over. If the law would be enacted, they would just stop selling them to minors. Its not that difficult to check an ID. [/quote]

I think they'd get fined often because people make mistakes. I'm sure even if it were company policy (which it is at most places) mistakes are made on the same if not a higher scale. It's the company's responsibility to regulate itself, the kid making $5 an hour is going to be much more responsive to, "If you do this you get fired." then "if you do this, the corporation gets fined." I think they should check ID's. Like letting your kids go see Lord of the Rings or read Catcher in the Rye, it's up to the parents. Retailers have to get better at turning kids away, but since all the stores are run by kids, that's not too easy. Store owners really have to crack down.

Also, cigarettes and alchool are physically harmful, but the law is aimed at perventing emotional harm. Some kids can handle violence and sex in games fine, others can't. This law puts the burden on the parents to take responsibility instead of blaming a video game for their kids problems. Watching porn doesn't cause a kid physical harm either, but that doesn't mean its ok for a kid to watch that either.

How are anti-smoking and alcohol laws aimed at stopping emotional harm? What emotional harm? I'm pretty sure the laws are for the kids physical well being, granted, I could be wrong.

To cater our laws to prevent a small group of people getting it's hand on things that are harmful to itself is counter productive. I ranted a lot earlier about that, the whole "ban peanuts because they are more harmful" thing.

I'm just curious how old you are. I'm not saying that in any kind of negative way, I'm just guesing that people under the age of 18 are going to be much more against this than adults.

I'm in my 30's. My field, comics, was restricted once. Restricted by a code hastily written at congressional gunpoint. The Comics Code Authority, while being self regulating, castrated comics in America and slapped a big "for kids only' stigma on them that has lasted (with exceptions) for 50 years. Enacting a law against violent games makes them nearly the same as porn, and while yes, you can still get porn, it would take it out of the major retailers and as it's been said here already, that's all folks.
 
I'm in my 30's. My field, comics, was restricted once. Restricted by a code hastily written at congressional gunpoint. The Comics Code Authority, while being self regulating, castrated comics in America and slapped a big "for kids only' stigma on them that has lasted (with exceptions) for 50 years. Enacting a law against violent games makes them nearly the same as porn, and while yes, you can still get porn, it would take it out of the major retailers and as it's been said here already, that's all folks.

This is far from being the same thing. Comics had to pass inspection in order to hit the store shelves. No one is inspecting videogames. Developers will still be able to make games as sexual and violent as they want. The difference is that the rating developers willingly submit to, the esrb, will be enforced when it comes to selling the games to minors.
 
riginally Posted by greendj27

Sorry, but I don't think there is anything wrong with them banning the sale of violent games to minors. At least this way if the parent buys the kid the game, they have to at least see what they are buying.

[quote name='rafissaying']i second that[/QUOTE]

An enacted store policy does the same thing without bringing the government into it.
 
[quote name='Scrubking']This is far from being the same thing. Comics had to pass inspection in order to hit the store shelves. No one is inspecting videogames. Developers will still be able to make games as sexual and violent as they want. The difference is that the rating developers willingly submit to, the esrb, will be enforced when it comes to selling the games to minors.[/QUOTE]

At the same time major retailers will pull M rated titles from shelves. Limiting the marketplace for developers to sell their games AND slapping a big MIGHT AS WELL BE PORN stigma on it.
 
bread's done
Back
Top