THESE FORUMS NOW CLOSED (read only)
Fun Stuff => CLIKC => Topic started by: maxh on 12 Aug 2010, 15:50
-
Arnold Schwarzenegger, '80s action star and governor of California, has passed a law banning the sale of "violent" video games to anyone under the age of 18.
This law has been challenged and is now on its way to being tested in the Supreme Court. The National Youth Rights Association is currently working on an amicus brief to oppose this law, and we need help from the rest of the gaming community. We are collecting testimonies that detail the social, artistic, and especially political value of video games to prove to the court that their distribution should be protected under the First Amendment.
The media has been demonizing gamers ever since someone decided that Doom caused Columbine. Getting the Supreme Court to strike down this law and admit the value of video games would be a huge step forward in fighting these misconceptions. This is our chance to clear the name of video games and protect the First Amendment rights of young gamers. This could be the first step in government regulation of video games that could affect all gamers, regardless of age. Our brief is coming along, but we really do need your help. The more testimonies we have, the better our chances of winning over the court.
For more information and to submit your testimony, visit:
http://blog.youthrights.org/2010/08/11/schwarzenegger_v_gamers_help_us_fight_back/
-
(http://art.penny-arcade.com/photos/215542537_kmh7D-L-2.jpg)
seriously though, that article you linked to was almost entirely uninformative. it didn't even give the definition of "violent video games" that your courts will be considering. For all I know they could just be talking about hyper-violent games like Manhunt that kids probably shouldn't be playing anyway
-
it didn't even give the definition of "violent video games" that your courts will be considering.
That's because the law didn't actually define what that means.
-
I wouldn't worry too much about it.
It can't not be found unconstitutional because it's....surprise!.....UNCONSTITUTIONAL. To a ridiculous degree. Not only that, it's absurdly hypocritical because no other...anything (media stuff like books, movies etc.)...is subject to such a pathetically draconian excuse for a law.
It won't last long because there is just no way that it can. Besides, I thought people learned during the prohibition that banning things only makes them more dangerous.
also, Arnold Schwarzeneger is an ex-body builder and actor and I am astounded that anyone lets him decide what to wear in the morning, let alone OUR FUCKING LAWS.
hey, california! hey, over here! Nice work, douchebags! I hope you sink.
alright, during the process of typing this, I realized that there could be a great silver lining in this! After it fails (which it will) there will be legal precedent for this type of thing, making it so nobody else can try to replicate this farse in the future. hurray
-
It can't not be found unconstitutional because it's....surprise!.....UNCONSTITUTIONAL. To a ridiculous degree. Not only that, it's absurdly hypocritical because no other...anything (media stuff like books, movies etc.)...is subject to such a pathetically draconian excuse for a law.
True, but you have to remember that most of the SCOTUS justices (as well as lawyers on both sides) have very little familiarity with video games. That's the point of this -- to teach them about video games. It is much more likely to be ruled unconstitutional if there is social, artistic, or political value to them.
-
yeah there is no part of me that cares about this after you said "to minors"
it's like rating movies "R"
derp derp
-
Actually, it isn't because a minor seeing a rated R movie is legal. There's no law saying they can't purchase a ticket to an R rated movie, even unattended. They can't because of the rules set in place by the MPAA in conjunction with the theaters- the MPAA will fine the theaters and if they don't pay, they'll revoke their ability to show their movies if they catch them. This system is pretty much already in place nationwide as an agreement between retailers and the ESRB, thus a law is unprecedented and illegal.
-
i still don't care
-
i still don't care
Even without getting into the "you should care about the rights of others" argument, it isn't only the rights of others. If selling violent video games to minors is banned, many stores will simply avoid selling them at all.
-
also, Arnold Schwarzeneger is an ex-body builder and actor and I am astounded that anyone lets him decide what to wear in the morning, let alone OUR FUCKING LAWS.
So anybody who is an actor or a body-builder is automatically considered unworthy of deciding something as minor as what to wear?
-
As long as there are parents who are ignorant of ESRB ratings (willfully or otherwise), do not even put titles into Google before running to the store, and will buy any of the latest games for their children "because they want it" and "because video games are for kids", all this proposed legislation will be for naught anyway.
Put the effort into informing the parents instead of making up asinine laws that will be difficult and expensive to enforce. It's their responsibility to monitor what media their kids can and cannot access, not the government's.
-
Yeah, I don't really see the point of this. The law, or opposing it. I worked in a video game store, we could not sell M games to minors. That's just how it is. If people want to buy them for their kids, I've got no problem with it, but I don't really think you should sell them to the kids. I'll let the parents decide what is and what isn't appropriate for their children.
-
also, Arnold Schwarzeneger is an ex-body builder and actor and I am astounded that anyone lets him decide what to wear in the morning, let alone OUR FUCKING LAWS.
So anybody who is an actor or a body-builder is automatically considered unworthy of deciding something as minor as what to wear?
wow, this alternate universe where hyperbole and jokes don't exist sure is weird! *twilight zone music*
-
Yeah, I don't really see the point of this. The law, or opposing it. I worked in a video game store, we could not sell M games to minors. That's just how it is. If people want to buy them for their kids, I've got no problem with it, but I don't really think you should sell them to the kids. I'll let the parents decide what is and what isn't appropriate for their children.
Store policy would not allow it. It was not illegal.
-
That is true, store policy will not allow it because it's irresponsible to be selling games with such mature content to children. I am uncomfortable selling games with a 15 or 18 rating to kids who are clearly under that age limit even when their parents are stood beside them saying "Yeah it's fine, they've got all the other ones and all their friends are playing them..."
To me it just seems pointless to put an age/suitability rating on a game if it's not going to be listened to. Most games are rated 18 or M for a reason, and I believe the law should change, just as it is illegal to sell an 18 rated movie to a minor, or sell cigarettes, alcohol, knives or lighters to a minor. There are restrictions on so many items in order to protect children, and I think that there needs to be a law stating that hey, maybe these games aren't actually okay for your kids to be playing at age 10, and maybe you should think twice, and ask the opinion of others before you expose them to violent content.
I think it would be responsible of the video games industry to get behind this change in law. A lot of people who attack video games for being violent are saying that it is the fault of the retailers and games industry as a whole for putting this content out there for children to get hold of, and that we should be doing more to stop it. This change would put the responsibility directly on the parents and guardians of these kids, and would entirely shift the blame off the industry and retailers. The public would no longer be able to attack video games for being violent and readily available, but instead would have to put the blame onto the parents who are buying this stuff for minors.
It would make sense in my mind, at least, because what is the difference between say an 18 rated DVD and an 18 rated video game? From a retail perspective, I can't selll an 18 rated DVD to anyone who looks under 25 and can't prove they're over 18, or for anyone purchasing it on behalf of somebody who looks under 25 and can't prove they're over 18. On the other hand, although I can't directly sell a game to anyone who looks under 25 and can't prove they are over 18, I CAN sell it to somebody on their behalf, even if they are very obviously buying it for a 7 year old. That to me seems wrong, as the difference between passively watching an 18 rated movie and actively shooting civilians in the airport level of Modern Warfare 2 is quite enormous. That level even disturbed me a bit.
Basically kids go QQ more because honestly getting to 18 doesn't take that long and I am so sick of online multiplayer on XBL being flooded with ten year old kids who don't shut the hell up or play well.
-
it is illegal to sell an 18 rated movie to a minor
Is it in England? Because it isn't in America.
-
Basically kids go QQ more because honestly getting to 18 doesn't take that long and I am so sick of online multiplayer on XBL being flooded with ten year old kids who don't shut the hell up or play well.
Mute them? And it's not like the 20 year olds are any better at the games (especially modern FPS's) than the 10 year olds.
-
I'm not a big fan of telling people how to raise their kids, to be perfectly frank. Your morals probably aren't my morals.
-
who cares
-
i mean it doesn't stop kids from getting cigarettes or alcohol so if a kid wants gears of war 3 in the state of california really bad i'm sure he can finagle a copy somehow. he did before it was literally a law.
-
it is illegal to sell an 18 rated movie to a minor
Is it in England? Because it isn't in America.
http://www.bbfc.co.uk/download/point-of-sale-info/Point%20of%20Sale%20Information%20-%20English.pdf
yup.
-
i mean it doesn't stop kids from getting cigarettes or alcohol so if a kid wants gears of war 3 in the state of california really bad i'm sure he can finagle a copy somehow. he did before it was literally a law.
Just because you can bypass a law doesn't mean we should accept shitty laws.
-
i don't give a shiiiiiiiiiiiiit
-
We are collecting testimonies that detail the social, artistic, and especially political value of video games to prove to the court that their distribution should be protected under the First Amendment.
There are a handful of games with real value, but honestly most games are stupid shit. If they enact this law it might prod the game industry to get its act together. So while in theory I am against legislation based on hating videogames, in this case I kinda see this law as a good thing actually.
It can't not be found unconstitutional because it's....surprise!.....UNCONSTITUTIONAL. To a ridiculous degree.
Why? The law isn't banning all videogames, just the sale of certain games to minors.
Not only that, it's absurdly hypocritical because no other...anything (media stuff like books, movies etc.)...is subject to such a pathetically draconian excuse for a law.
What are you talking about? All kinds of books, movies, and music are off limits to minors. The laws just don't crack down as hard because, like, movies aren't 50% porn.
-
Why do I have to keep underscoring that there is no law banning the sale of (non-pornographic) movies, books, or music to minors in America.
-
Yeah I get that, which is why I said:
The laws just don't crack down as hard because, like, movies aren't 50% porn.
In other words, they don't have to legislate sales of R movies to minors because people don't sell R movies to minors. The same is not true for videogames however, so I'm thinking a slap in the face might make everyone pay more attention.
(Incidentally, I've always found it hypocritical the harshness of our laws toward porn while having relatively lax attitudes toward violence, but that's not the main issue here.)
And again, my overall stance on this matter is that I very much support videogames as a means of expression, and am dismayed by a lot of the reactionary moralizing about videogames. At the same time however I see the industry as having almost totally dropped the ball on doing anything worthwhile with this medium, so I would tentatively support this law on the basis of it would motivate the game industry to improve and eventually be able to strike down the law.
In one of his articles Chris Crawford pointed out how the movie industry wins a lot of legitimacy by producing a wide breadth of content, whereas the games industry is very narrowly focused. As he put it, "Koyaanisqatsi played just down the road from Debbie Does Dallas."
This image from of all places Cracked.com sums up what I'm getting at:
(http://cdn-www.cracked.com/phpimages/article/2/7/5/25275.jpg)
-
i mean it doesn't stop kids from getting cigarettes or alcohol so if a kid wants gears of war 3 in the state of california really bad i'm sure he can finagle a copy somehow. he did before it was literally a law.
Just because you can bypass a law doesn't mean we should accept shitty laws.
what's shitty about this law though
-
Incidentally, anyone who's too cheery on the game industry should really consider people within the industry have been beating against the narrowness of focus pretty much continuously for decades. The specific article from Chris Crawford that I referenced was written in 2003, and just a few days ago Escapist released this video:
http://www.escapistmagazine.com/videos/view/extra-credits/1923-Innovation
Clearly the industry will never change unless forced to.
-
It's just a dangerous precedent, man. It's saying the government has the ability to legislate content for an entire medium. I mean, look at how well that's working for the industry in Australia, yeah?
-
It is a dangerous precedent, that's very true. Personally I wish this hadn't gone to the Supreme Court so quickly, so the law could actually be in effect for a while before the big fight to repeal it, but oh well it is what it is.
-
i don't give a shiiiiiiiiiiiiit
Thank you for giving me a reason to boycott E.A. again.
Johnny, it's shitty because it involves a bunch of rich old white men controlling access to something that they know nothing about. At all. It's the same as the 1985 P.M.R.C. hearings, except the PMRC never tried to actually make it illegal for children to buy albums they disliked, as far as I can recall (I have forgotten most of what I learned about them).
-
yr taking this rather srsly
a little too srsly
-
imagine the uproar if Arnold said "It's come to my attention that children can freely buy and read books that contain violence, sex, complex philosphical themes, and other things that I'm obligated to pretend to want to keep out of kids' hands; so I'm making an unconstitutional law against selling such books to kids!"
he'd be impeached in six months; but since it's vidya gayms it's all apathy and shoulder shrugging instead.
It needs to be taken seriously, because it's serious.
Then again, I don't see any way that it can possibly stick, so I guess I'm not taking it completely seriously either.
-
Image of FPS games.
I still get a li'l annoyed when people show that image given that Medal of Honor and Call of Duty games were made by a lot of the same people. It feels like taking a picture of Mortal Kombat 1 and Mortal Kombat 2 and saying "THIS IS THE WHOLE INDUSTRY GUISE!!!". Then again, I've never owned a Medal of Honor game, (real war settings make me uneasy) and I've never even played a Call of Duty game. But I do own a bunch of games that were rated far higher than they deserved or outright never released in the US primarily due to religious references, so I'll admit to living in my own weird sort of bubble that predisposes me towards viewing such legislation in the worst possible light.
Anyway, I think getting the government involved is a horrible idea since I'm not really a fan of giving them any more power than they already have and because I like ratings systems right up until they outright forbid things. I like leaving things up to parents and consumers and I'm quite happy to defend the right to make shitty decisions sometimes.
-
The current rating system is actually pretty awesome, and it actually works. The problem is that they're trying to fix a problem by changing something that's not really the issue.
It's like trying to fix a leaky faucet by draining the whole town's reservoir.
The problem is not the rating system, or that stores are selling the M games to kids (which they aren't). The problem is the parents. It's always the fucking parents. Not to say that some individual somewhere doesn't mess up from time to time and sell a Mature game to a kid, but those are almost certainly the very minor minority. I mean...I'm 23 and they card me every time I buy an M-rated game, even though they know me by now, and know that I"m plenty old enough. I find it hard to believe that those same people are absent-mindedly selling MW2 to 8th graders.
-
At the end of the day, this law really isn't endangering anything. It wouldn't, as someone said, cause stores to stop stocking or selling M-rated games -- these stores ALREADY refuse to sell these titles to minors. Yes, the law is fucked up -- if it wasn't, it would mean there would be similar laws restricting minors from seeing R-rated movies and the like -- but it's a law that has as much a chance of being adopted as its impact on the industry would be. You can take the high-ground if you like ("it's unconstitutional! Blah blah blah! Think of the children!"), but at the end of the day there's no fucking reason to get so disgruntled about the damn thing.
-
Well, yeah it's unconstitutional and will get thrown out hopefully. But that's no reason to be so fucking blasé about it because, frankly, the people who run this country don't know or give a shit about video games enough to make it a sure thing it will be shot down.
-
Plus, last I checked, nobody's burning down churches or taking to the streets over this shit. I mean, you've already said that you see where people are coming from on the subject in principle, so how much more effort would it take to do so without being kind of a twat about it?
-
who cares
I don't think I was the first one in this thread to make a joke. I just don't see principle as a valid reason, by itself, to get up in arms about this.
-
it's not just "principle," though.
At the end of the day, this law really isn't endangering anything.
Incorrect. It's not endangering anything right now, because....well, obviously it won't change anything in the present. It is, however, a slippery slope that could be cited in future court cases when some whackjob decides he wants to restrict circulation of Sense & Sensibilty to only people who have 9 toes. Sound ridiculous? So does this.
It's a tangible and real danger to the future of free speech in art and media. It sets a completely unacceptable and dangerous legal precedent saying that it's okay to restrict the free exchange of ideas based on arbritary guidelines that "The Gub'ment" decides. The measures to stop kids from buying Mature-rated games are already in place and if these fucking blue-blood retards would step out of their ivory cloisters and mingle with the real world for a little while they would see that literally nothing needs to be done (besides maybe mandatory IQ tests and parenting classes for all pregnant people/couples).
It's not okay, and your apathy is pretty indicative of our generation's attitude towards...well, everything...and it makes me sick.*
Sorry if I'm ranting and not making sense; it's been a long day and this text-box is all sorts of fucked up in Internet Exploer right now. formatting and proof0reading almost impossible.
*please note: Fraser, I like you. You don't personally make me sick. We all make me sick to some degree, including me. Because deep down I'm just as apathetic as everyone else, but I'm trying my best to fight it, damn it!
-
yr taking this rather srsly
a little too srsly
Not really boycotting EA, I never have. I just think it's funny how even now some people are still looking for reasons to hate them.
The difference between you and me is that you trust the courts to throw out insane laws. I don't.
-
Actually, the main source of my apathy is that I'm Canadian and our laws sometimes make a little more sense. If your argument is that while the law itself isn't dangerous, the legal precedent it could make would be, then I guess you're right but I still can't be arsed.
-
I'm Canadian
derp. I knew that.
oh well, like I said earlier, I'm not really that worried about it either because it's pretty much destined to fail; this is just the perfect subject for blowing off some end-of-the-day steam.
hehe steam
-
I don't think I was the first one in this thread to make a joke. I just don't see principle as a valid reason, by itself, to get up in arms about this.
The difference is Johnny C hasn't repeated the joke and then thrown the fact that I care even an iota about this topic back in my face as the discussion continued. One strident message by the OP shouldn't mean that everyone else who talks about it is fair game for "Srs business" type mockery. Do I really have to explain that having opinions on a wide array of topics doesn't necessarily imply a lack of perspective? Because I totally realize that compared to things like say, pogroms or Bolivian water crisis politics that what we're talking about here is the very definition of a bullshit first world problem. I don't need it pointed out every time I say that making industry by industry exceptions often makes for bad law.
-
I find how quickly this thread became darkly serious business much funnier than the opinions and views expressed under serious business discussion. Cheer up guys.
-
No, Fraser
FUCK YOU
-
What Ozy said, but not really joking.
-
Incorrect. It's not endangering anything right now, because....well, obviously it won't change anything in the present. It is, however, a slippery slope that could be cited in future court cases when some whackjob decides he wants to restrict circulation of Sense & Sensibilty to only people who have 9 toes. Sound ridiculous? So does this.
You do realise slippery slope arguments are very, very dumb though, right?
Like, it's many of the fucktards in the Supreme Court that support the ban on gay marriage because if we let two dudes (it's always two dudes in these examples, by the way) get married, then what's next? Marrying a horse? A hurf durf doopily doo.
-
On the one hand, I do sort of agree with you, but on the other hand that's not really the same at all.
This would be setting a legal precedent that people could cite in the future when trying to pass laws that disagree with the constitution. That's a pretty legitimate slippery slope argument, I think.
Also, from a legal standpoint, there is pretty much no way you could convince a judge that marrying a horse, or a piece of string should be allowable because at some point gay marriage became legal. Whereas, it's not that much of a stretch to think that in a future where this kind of law passes, people attempting to keep Jane Eyre out of the hands of kids could cite this law and the judge would say "well, you have a point."
also:
Like, it's many of the fucktards in the Supreme Court that support the ban on gay marriage because if we let two dudes (it's always two dudes in these examples, by the way) get married, then what's next? Marrying a horse? A hurf durf doopily doo.
So if someone stupid likes a band then that band becomes stupid? I don't understand your logic here. Attributing abritary charactiersitcs to a thing because of the people that happen to use it or something....doesn't really follow.
Does any of that make sense? I have a massive headache right now so I feel like I"m explaining myself pretty well, but it's hard to be certain.
-
Of course, if the law sticks, you then have a precedent of censoring and banning a medium for those who would argue for other such laws for other media. Even if the law is created by those who would not consider it to have merit, once it is made, all you have to do is argue that it, in fact, does(and it, in fact, DOES) and you can make it broader.
-
If you consider video games to have any artistic merit at all, then it's easy to make the mistake to assume that the judges will arbitrarily slam down on all kinds of art - but that's rather the point: they don't.
Defend this. I dare you. Video games can have amazing visual design, visual design is art. They can have beautiful musical scoring, music is art. They can have great plots (almost all don't, but there is nothing inherent in their design that presents it), stories are art. Explain to me how something containing three kinds of art loses the status of art when you get the chance to control it. Roger Ebert is Frank Sinatra insisting that Rock and Roll isn't art because it has the spirit of meanness in it.
-
I also misinterpreted that pronoun at first. The subject "they" is referring to is not "video games" but "the judges" or even just a nebulous "them" referring to supports of this law. Jens is not saying video games are not art, he is saying the judges do not consider them to have that merit.
Highly ambiguous and he should be shamed anyhow.
-
I don't think he is defending it as logical, he's just saying that for practical purposes, judges very rarely understand artistic merit outside of the standard boxes society has defined, and so it takes extra convincing to even get them to consider that aspect of the case.
Comic books are an example of a medium with a much longer history, both socially and legally, and yet their status as a clearly protected form of artistic expression has not yet been fully established (http://www.thefileroom.org/documents/dyn/DisplayCase.cfm/id/773). (Note that this case was of a comic book seller selling an adult comic book to an ADULT.)
So yes, this is an important case, and the ruling is very likely to be wrong, which will muddy the waters on this issue for years to come.
-
I'm just hoping that someone will give an awesome Edward-Norton-in-Larry-Flynt-esque monolog that will sway the hearts and minds of the somewhat misguided, misinformed, law-maker-types, winning the case for the side of all that is good and right as the audience roars with applause and hats fly into the air. Then, camera pans over to the judge and just when you think he's going to bang the gavel and say "order order!" you see a little sparkle in the corner of his eye. Fade to black. Credits.
or something
-
video games as art, that's pretty laughable. I mean, if a video game is art, then anything can be art, even shit like this
(http://3.bp.blogspot.com/_dZnmZ5QscKo/RjuAbViM5gI/AAAAAAAAA3c/CXu-NJ1aY48/s400/Jackson_Pollock_Galaxy.jpg)
-
I don't know if it's really necessary to turn this thread into a whole "are games art?" discussion. I mean, what exactly is the definition of "art" anyway?* You can't productively argue for or against something unless you have even defined the question. The way some "games are art" people throw the term around, "art" can be literally anything, at which point of course the term is useless because it is meaningless. Without knowing precisely why, most people grasp that art does in fact have certain boundaries, that, say, a contractor painting a wall red isn't making art while a muralist painting a wall red can be.
For the record my feeling on the issue is that some games are art but the majority are not. However, I don't really feel like this is a discussion this thread should turn into, because something doesn't have to be art before it's protected speech.
*This is a rhetorical question.