The California video game law is back and may even go to the Supreme Court |
Ó
Who can forget the bill proposed by California Assemblyman Leland Yee (now a state Senator)? It sought to restrict the sale or rental of video games that are classified as "violent" especially if such games are offensive and that the violence is especially heinous, cruel, or depraved in manner.
This bill was signed into law by the Governator, Arnold Schwarzenegger.
The law has been described unconstitutional, and gaming institutions were quick to act in countering the law, putting it under preliminary injunction, and eventually a permanent injunction. But it seems that California isn't calling game over just yet, as they are appealing the ruling made by the lower court in 2007.
The 9th US Circuit Court isn't expected to be able to rule immediately on the matter after today's hearing. California Deputy Attorney General Zackery Mozzarini compares restricting violent games to limiting access to sexual content, describing that the violent video games are just as obscene. The San Jose Mercury-News reports that Circuit Court judges, however, are more inclined to uphold the 2007 injunction.
"What you are asking us to do is go where no one has gone before," Judge Consuelo Callahan said to the state's lawyer. "Admittedly, the violent video games are disgusting, But aren't you just trying to be the thought police?" The video game law raises plenty of issues which go against the First Amendment, and the appeal has to come up with heavier arguments to challenge its unconstitutionality.
It sure doesn't look like that the loser in these new proceedings is going to give up. San Francisco's ABC-7 reporter Terry McSweney comments, "Both sides agree that whoever loses is going to appeal this thing and it's going to end up in the US Supreme Court."
Vowing to vigorously defend this law, the Governator said, "Many of these games are made for adults and choosing games that are appropriate for kids should be a decision made by their parents," on a comment back in 2007.
The Governator said it himself, it should be left to the parents. He may have wanted the law implemented, but if parents don't want their kids playing GTA and the sort, then they should be the ones to filter their kids' games. While it's true that video games may affect behavior, implementing this law would not be fair to those who could handle violence better than the others.
Six similar laws have been overturned in the US, and we expect this one to have the same result.
Via Game Politics
52 Jumps PlayStation celebrates 15th birthday
40 Jumps PSP homebrew - MHUSPEED v3
22 Jumps PSP homebrew - MacroFire v3.0.12
Contact Us:
The QJ.net Network |
 |
| Site | Feed |
| QJ.NET | RSS |
| Nintendo DS | RSS |
| PlayStation 3 | RSS |
| PSP Updates | RSS |
| Wii | RSS |
| Xbox 360 | RSS |
| MMORPG | RSS |
| Personal Computer Games | RSS |
| iPhone - iPod Touch | RSS |
| QJ.NET Forums | RSS |
Add QJ.NET
User Favorites - December
User Favorites - December
Categories
Archives
Accessories
Add-ons
Applications
Artwork
Batteries
Cheats
Deals
Emulators
Events
Featured Articles
Firmware
Flash Applications
Flash games
Game Demos
Games
Hacks & Exploits
Homebrew Applications
Homebrew Demos
Homebrew Development
Homebrew Emulators
Homebrew Games
Homebrew Themes
How-To
Humor
Imports
Interviews
Magazines
Mods
MY QJ
News
Off Topic
On Shelves This Week
Opinions & Analysis
Podcasts
Previews
PSP Go
PSP Minis
PSP Slim & Lite
QJ How-To Series
QuickJump QuickGuide
QuickJump QuickPeek
Reviews
Rumors
Scans
Screenshots
Site News
Titles
UMD Movies
Videos
Weekend Warrior
Wi-Fi
December 2009
November 2009
October 2009
September 2009
August 2009
July 2009
June 2009
May 2009
April 2009
March 2009
February 2009
January 2009
December 2008
November 2008
October 2008
September 2008
August 2008
July 2008
June 2008
May 2008
April 2008
March 2008
February 2008
January 2008
December 2007
November 2007
October 2007
September 2007
August 2007
July 2007
June 2007
May 2007
April 2007
March 2007
February 2007
January 2007
December 2006
November 2006
October 2006
September 2006
August 2006
July 2006
June 2006
May 2006
April 2006
March 2006
February 2006
January 2006
December 2005
November 2005
October 2005
September 2005
August 2005
July 2005
June 2005
May 2005
April 2005
March 2005
February 2005
January 2005
Comments [refresh]
...but someone would inevitably try to take his place.
Very disappointed that it's California. Sometimes I just wish it would hurry up and break off from the rest of the United States.
On the bright side, the Supreme Court will very likely crush this bill if it gets that far.
Florida should break off too.
Let's ban the violent video games! After this, we should ban pornography! And while we're at it, let's start burning the books. I hear 451 degrees is the temperature at which books burn.
Honestly. This is stupid. The violence in movies is far .. FAR worse, and right now even more easily accessible, than video games. I get sick from blood and violence in movies, some crap from when I was younger messed me up. Video games do not bother me. But still, tell me how nudity and pornography is only for "adults" (18 or 21 and older), and even the most violent movies are rated R and can easily be rented, borrowed from the library, saw in a theater, by ANYONE. It just doesn't make sense to me.
Now completely getting off-topic, I say we legalize pornography for all ages and limit the amount of violence we see in movies. Forget video games right now, that's just stupid. Digimon is more violent than Grand Theft Auto IV, just from some of the intensity (when I was like 10 mind you)
was American post to be Freedom? I think dont think so. not anymore. We are screwed!
anyways who wants to move to Canada Or The Pirate Bay? LOL
Freedom of speech *****! Go back to your ***** !
I played the original GTA back 10 years ago, when I was 14. I remember thinking back then, haha, got all the orange dudes! Before that it was mortal kombat, wolfenstein and doom.
I believe there were ratings added after that, but even then, it never stopped me. The only time I've been asked my age is at a movie theatre by an overzealous guy, whose boss was behind him.
I mean, the point behind ratings is really clear. It's there to say, "I told you so". It's not helping anyone. it's only there so that when the kid comes up as a mental patient who loves guns and prostitutes, the parents can blame the system and the system can blame the parents who didn't read the obvious warnings. It's like when you hire a consultant to do the work that you know you could do so that you aren't to blame when it all goes wrong.
There was a pirate island that would accept refugees. Sadly, I hear the rent is outragous.
Don't buy games that has gore anything like that in it and BLOCK BLOCK the torrent sites so they wont download the games.
If it's taken to the supreme court they will DESTROY that bill. Like the article says, it's unconstitutiona l. The supreme court is all about upholding constitutional rights.
@Navani - What the hell was all that about?
Ban porn? WTF are you talking about? This doesn't BAN ANYTHING! It restricts 17+ titles to 17+ year olds. I hate to break the news to you but porn is restricted to those who are 18 and over, so are cigs. To make you even more pissed off, liquor is restricted to those who are 21+ in California.
Your comment was ignorant, off base and had nothing to do with the issue.
So, please explain to us ALL why a video game that was deemed appropriate to those only over 17 should be sold to people under 17?
Do you even know what this issue is about?
In the end it's usually the parents who are at fault. Not regulating gameplay, allowing a child to play a title inappropriate for their age, BUYING them a violent game, and perhaps most importantly, not explaining the difference between a video game and real-life.
Also, there is a large discrepancy in adults educated in gaming. Many believe video games are some magical, mystical, evil, new-fangled technology that accurately depicts real-life situations. Jack Thompson used this ignorance to prey on these people's fears, saying things like games are murder simulators and they train kids how to fire a sniper rifle.
Of course anyone who has actually fired a rifle or any firearm knows that carefully adjusting your aim with the R3 stick doesn't come close to shouldering one, aiming it, controlling your breathing, pulling the trigger, and actually hitting the target.
I remember a news segment (on MSNBC I think) where a news caster was asking questions to a group of video game fearing adults. One question was, "Why do you fear video games more than movies?" The response was that movies have a rating system. Of course, the news caster was a bit baffled and said that video games have had a rating system for over a decade.
Heh. What I'm getting at is that most of this video game hatred is just coming from ignorant people. With the existence of slimy lawyers like Jack Thompson still running around who target these ignorant people for the sole purpose of making themselves a few bucks, the situation isn't going to get better until we educate these idiots.
Constitutionall y... this thing will never hold up. Hollywood alone will fight it tooth and nail.
Documented... Absolutely no corolation between the violence in movies/video games/music that invokes violent behavior. If you are a violent ***** then you were always wired to be a violent *****.
Supreme Court knows this to be true and can never rule this into law. (Federal anyway)
One form of censorship or another leads to a more stringent garnishing of further censorship. The, "I can't define what is pornographic, but I can tell you what it is when I see it" argument is still vehemently fought here in the states.
Just a bunch of lawyers looking for political positions and a few bucks on the side. This thing will blow over before the Christmas shopping season.
Nuff Said...
I understand your repulsion to violence depicted in movies, but the , "and it warped me" is what these lawyers are banking on you to say.
In fact, I grew up in the 'hay-day' of "let's see just how violent we can get". Started as bad horror films in the 60's (yes... haha... I am that old...) that ran as a B movie at the drive-in (ask your folks, if they blush you have something on them). Which later the entire scene went to Dawn of the Dead depictions of violence.
Have you once gone out and shot someone because you saw Hostel? Have you ever thought of eating the cat raw from the ass to the head because you saw Halloween? I don't think so. On the surface I think you have turned out to be a decent person.
Tom Savini, the guy that did all the horror make-up for a bunch of the Friday the 13th movies and the Dawn of the Dead series? He was affected by violence. The movie was called the Vietnam Conflict/War. How else do you think the poor guy got the ideas for some of the violence depicted on the screen? He even went so far as to say that his early exposure to violence at the bijou was that death was depicted TOO CLEAN. Death was more than grabbing at your chest and falling off your horse. He saw it for what horror it really was. So have I.
No folks... Movies won't hurt you... Video games will not bite you... and rock & roll will not have you drawing out pentagrams on your bedroom floor with cats blood and offer your little sister to Satan. That is all Hollywood salesmanship.
Why else did this crap start in it's home state?
Nuff, Nuff Said...
Your last blurb got me thinking on a tangent:
Video games have been outselling/outprofitting movies for some time, now. Take a deep breath and read the next line with an open mind.
What if this video game violence bill was actually proposed by the Hollywood movie industry?
Yeah, this sounds like another conspiracy theory, but considering how more people are spending their money on games vs. movies, I'd say this isn't too crazy.
IF the bill SOMEHOW got approval in the Supreme Court, this would give leverage for similar laws in other states. Overall, game sales drop and movie sales rise.
Crazy, right?
It sought to restrict the sale or rental of video games that are classified as "violent" especially if such games are offensive and that the violence is especially heinous, cruel, or depraved in manner.
It sought to restrict the sale or rental of video games that are classified as "violent" especially if such games are offensive and that the violence is especially heinous, cruel, or depraved in manner.
That's what I based my entire rant on. I did not look up the issue because I live in New Jersey and that's an issue in itself, so I will admit my ignorance. However, I PERSONALLY interpret that as restricting the sales as in not allowing them to be sold to ANY age group. Unless I missed it, the article says nothing about an M-rating.
I was making a statement about how ludicrous it is to bring up video games in a court of law, when violent movies are much more accessible and have the potential to be more graphic, and, most of all, usually include actual people (actors I hope), and they should work harder to limit that. For example, The Dark Knight was probably the most violent PG-13 movie I've ever seen. Yet pornography is a major issue and people can get arrested for selling it to minors, but does that actually harm someone? Priorities must be set straight!
and do you ever agree with anyone, ISOHaven? I just registered, but I've been on this site for a couple years reading up stuff, and you and MrCommonSense used to duke it out and I thought it was humorous. Don't turn on me for my opinion, focus yours.
@masta.g.86
Your theory is a good one. Skinheads and other poor ***holes with no money have been blaming Jewish people for the plight that the 'American' way of life has fallen. (Don't count a bunch of drunken rednecks that can't raise their kids right and then blame someone other than themselves for ****ing up their kids... And yes, I could be considered a redneck, so those guys can blow it out their ass too)
The thing is, "legally" the state supreme court could go along with the deal. This after they have dragged it out for a few months so the fear mongers can get whatever the hell it is they are after... Then once enough people are outraged, they will push for the federal supreme court to make a "Final" ruling on the subject. The thing is, this could be strung out for more months... maybe a year. All the while, the fear mongers are just raking in (redundantly...) whatever it is they are really after.
I mean think for a moment... I'll even go so far as to say that this WON'T shock you. Here's a little perspective. Got an annoying little kid living in your neighborhood? Hell I have 2 in my house. Is the kid so annoying that you may actually get some pleasure watching the little tripe bang his head against a brick wall till he actually realizes that it hurt?
Now that he hurt his head. On his own mind you, he didn't get the idea from a cartoon or game, he's just pig ****in ignorant and thought it was a good idea.
Here's the clincher... Do you really give a bucket of bat**** whether he is inconvenienced or not? I'll guarantee you neither does your congressional leaders.
I'm sure I'll get the death threats now, but here goes... Right to life folks... want to save your baby right? Do whatever it takes to give that kid a fighting chance... So where the **** are they ONCE the kid is BORN?!?!!! I'll tell you, they're out blowing the christianic conservative that can't (literally) afford ($$$) to be a Republican.
I also come from an area where this kind of retardation is allowed to go on, so bible thumpers save your breath for folks that wish to know your faith. I'm not down on religion or ANY faith. I tolerated a LOT of non-believers that abused the faith-system for nothing more than to better their political standing. (last time I looked God nor Jesus gave 2 ****s if your daddy drove a Cadillac or that you had a designer suit on for church) And NO!!! I am not sorry for my words or thoughts, I am calling it as I see it. Doesn't make me right either, so we can save the bandwidth on that brew-haha...
Personally, Hollywood ISN'T behind this law. This is pretty evident by the number of big named games coming out with large name (or at least VERY recognizable faces) actors in their in-game cutaways. Sounds to me that they are REALLY interested in seeing the gaming industry merge with them.
No, this sounds like a few REALLY bored, husband won't hire a new pool boy (or he's gay) house wives that think they have the right to piss in your pool because they are frustrated or frigged. I think we all need to kick in together and get enough money so we can buy them Tractor Trailor rig sized batteries for their vibrators and hope that keeps their brains and fingers rattling enough to leave the keyboards alone.
Well, enough... I guess I'll let my hate keep me warm tonight...
Nuff, nuff, NUFF Said... I hope...
Wasn't expecting such a huge response.
I agree with everything stated above. More than likely this is lawyers preying upon people's fears to put some money in their pockets while making a name for themselves.
As for my "tangent", anyone think it's odd that outcry on movie and TV violence and immorality is virtually silent? We don't see bills proposed to ban or forcefully restrict movies or TV. It's all aimed directly at the gaming industry.
A restriction or ban on violent movies would be bad for Hollywood. REALLY bad. That, in turn would be bad for California.
Hollywood won't admit that most of their movies as of late are real turds, most not even worth renting these days. So instead, they blame the other big contender in the entertainment industry: video games.
But how do they improve their revenues with the gaming industry skyrocketing as it is? Beat 'em, join 'em, or eliminate 'em.
Beat 'em - VERY unlikely to happen.
Join 'em - I've read past articles about how Hollywood is excited to be working with game companies to simultaneously release the movie and game. Most of these games have been EPIC FAILures. The reverse has also been true, with games like Mortal Kombat, Street Fighter, and more recently Max Payne. All were embarrassingly bad.
Eliminate 'em - assuming the bill SOMEHOW did pass, this would have huge implications. We might wind up with games that are the equivalent of T(een) only. This would be a tremendous blow to gaming. Game makers would have to be more inventive (perhaps a good thing) to make good games, but a lot of people would undoubtedly lose interest and stop playing.
The real kicker for me that got me on to this tangent to begin with was the fact that this bill was proposed by California Assemblyman Leland Yee (now a state Senator). The guy could have easily been given an "incentive" from Hollywood to propose such a thing. Now that he's a Senator, I'm sure he gets "incentives" left and right from major companies to help persuade him on voting matters that may affect such companies.
Yeah, in all likelihood it's not as blown-up as my conspiracy theory suggests, but I guess I just want others to think outside the box. People who go as far as to remove a personal freedom often times aren't doing it because they believe in what they are doing is right, (e.g. video games are bad so let's restrict/ban them) but rather for money, fame, or political power.
meh...
Preferably just the Southeastern portion. You know, the part that looks like a limp d**k?
Surprise, surprise; California once again houses a law that directly contradicts the Constitutional rights of Americans. Didn't see that coming.
You didn't answer my question?
Also, yes, you missed it. Although you clearly posted it twice in your last post:
"It sought to restrict the sale or rental...."
RESTRICT is the keyword. Restrict is not BAN and restrict does not mean EVERYONE.
This will restrict 17+ games to those who are 17+ and it will restrict 18+ games to those who are 18+. Parents will still be allowed to buy their kids all the violence they want. Although, WTF is point of a 17 and 18 rating? Lame.
This is in NO WAY a violation of our rights. No more then any other restriction set in place.
I agree with you about movies. For some reason we leave that up to each individual organization. However, in my home town, blockbuster will not rent R rated movies to minors and our movie theaters will not sell R rated movie tickets to minors.
And yes, I agree with lots of people. This issue just pisses me off. The only people that are against it are those under 17 and lazy ass parents that are too lazy to get off their fat ass and go to the store with their kids and actually be INVOLVED in their lives. For those that are ALREADY involved, what's the problem? You are already at the video store making sure they get appropriate games so just buy it for them anyway if you don't mind??? Those people are just government whores who cry like babies about any regulation.
I have no problem with peoples opinions. As long as they are based on the facts. Having an opinion about this issue and having it based about BANNING video games is just wrong. People read articles and when they only "sort of" understand they move to the comments to get clarification only to be given completely WRONG information from peoples mis-understandings.
Yeah, in this case I was anal about it. I get that way. Turning into a grumpy old man.
Fun! We've agreed on everything so far. Now it's time to play :)
Which Constitutional rights? I never read any right that claimed a minor has a right to consumer goods.
With that said, let's look at other regulation. Is it against a 14 year olds right to be restricted from porn? Cigs? Alcohol?
A lot of companies already restrict via game ratings. Walmart (at least mine) will not sell a 17 or 18 rated game to anyone under 17 or 18. The register prompts for age verification.
I agree with you that this bill doesn't remove any "rights" from the consumer. The only people who actually have all rights to anything are 18 years or older.
The reason the bill is upsetting so many people (besides the minors posting outcry) is because the California state government is taking a "big brother" approach to this issue. Instead of openly telling parents that's it IS in fact their responsibility as to what their child is playing, they are doing it for them. Effectively removing the responsibility.
If things like this keep up, we will eventually have a country where parents aren't even being parents.
I completely agree with you regarding parents. It should be their responsibility.
However, look at it from a different angle. Right now a kid can get $50 in birthday money. Sneak down to their local TRU and buy a 17+ game. Sneak it home or to a friends house and start playing away! Again, a parent should be more responsible but come on! We all find a way, right? We've all FOUND ways, right?
This law PUTS the responsibility ON THE PARENT. Why do you think porn, liquor and cigs are regulated? So the parents can actually HAVE their responsibility. We can't lock our kids up. They have to have freedom and that freedom limits the ability of the parents. These regulation laws put those abilities right back in the parents hands.
These laws will give parents every chance to hold the box and look at the box their kids want to play. Anyone who thinks they know what their kids are doing 100% of the time, are ignorant fools.
With that said, I wish we had the same regulation on movies as we do all other items I've mentioned and that includes games. Because we can't be everywhere all the time and it's perfectly normal to "test" rules and boundaries. We'd never learn otherwise.
Good point,
Not that i want to steal your thunder, but I am a parent.
I don't expect you folks to believe me, and i am more than educated to know that there are always different circumstances, but please hear me out.
Way back, before any of you were a glimmer in your grandmothers eye, when I was 16, I got served alcohol. Was it illegal at the time, bigger than ****. No fake ID, no coaxing the town drunk into a bottle of ripple for his trouble. Just walk right in ask for product by name, lay the money down and walk out the door.
I wasn't stupid about it. I didn't act like an ass. I just took my booze and drank it with my friends in a safe surrounding.
Now most if not all kids, hear the hint of beer and they act so stupid that even the retarded kids are saying they want a new label.
My point is, when I got to 21 I didn't have a huge chugging contest to see who could poison their liver the quickest to taste some sort of battle fatigued freedom. It didn't matter.
What I am saying is that the "MYSTERY" of the whole thing was completely squelched LONG before the legal age.
Now, here is where you can sit in the privacy of your own home and ponder this one... Don't lie cause it is just you sitting there... Answer this question to the best of your ability, given your age and experience.
Would you allow your 5 year old kid watch, say, Robocop? Unedited. All the yummy cussy words and guts spurtage that cinema had to offer back in the 80's.
Now wait... Here is the twist. Would you let them watch it alone? Or with you sitting there? Given that you would allow them to see it at all.
Interesting don't you think? Here's another look at the same thing, no, the context has not changed at all. Same rules apply.
Which would you 'rather' your kid watch, Keeping in mind that we just use the next 2 movies for this example...
Robocop or Debby Does Dallas?
This is where your moral teachings and sense of good judgment fall to peaces for most adults. "Almost" everywhere in the world sex is not an issue, except the US and Asia. Yet it is in Asia (and in mot cases the US) that there are NO ratings for violence.
Because of this twisted moral majority horse**** that we get fed do we have this kind of social schizophrenia...
My kids were never, that's right, NEVER censored on the violence front. I have a 13 year old kid that reads at a college seniors level (and yes he even has the retention) and the 18 year old is an Eagle Scout, working his ass off to be an emergency specialist. You know, the ones that get to you when YOU are the victim of violence.
Am I super parent? Not in a blue ball twisted **** of an ***hole universe with a pink queen at it's center. I am no where even close to being nominated for parent of the year. Ask these two and they'll tell you I got the life time achievement award for ***hole of the universe.
I don't condone them sneaking in the porn, but I'm not an idiot. All the movies they have ever watched, I have been there. And believe it or not, neither of their heads spontaneously exploded when a pair of tits danced across the screen. Fancy the **** out of that.
I say again, get the prudish fat housewives back into their tee-rooms to sit in their frigid puddle of lack-a-nookie. Once they get back ti fingering, this law will sink to bottom of the septic tank with all the others like it's kind.
More than Nuff Said...
Oh, when I said that, I was referring to the right of game developers to make the games they like under the first amendment, etc. As for your question, I believe the issue of proper games sold to the corresponding ages is under the ESRB's jurisdiction, even though it is a parents responsibility to oversee the purchases of their child. The other aforementioned products (porn, alcohol, etc.) that are currently regulated should be age restricted and only accessible to children if a parent is present and consents to the purchase (although I'm unsure as to why a parent would approve of many of those items). That's my stance on the matter, and sorry I took so long to reply.
Bringing up constitutional rights when can a 21 year old not buy beer WTF!!! is going on in the US... The stores revoke us on buying Porn, Cigs, and beer or liqueur, they dont mind if ur underage stealing it, but they wont sell it to u if theres a minor by you... do the store owners have this right to not sell a 21 year old beer because theres a minor in the store... Thank You Cali for Banning *****s The right to marry u r applauded for this Thank you
Instead of all these silly gaming laws, why can't parents just care about their precious little offspring enough to look at the game box before they buy it for their kids? If there is a man on the cover holding an assault rifle or laser rifle, IT IS PROBABLY A VIOLENT GAME!