Schwarzenegger v. EMA

Page: 1 2
ID:104174
 
Nov 4 2010, 1:04 pm
Keywords: miscellaneous
I'm going to skip Tech Tree this week. I'm running low on solid news items and I spent the last couple days in the hospital. Instead, I offer more links regarding Schwarzenegger v. EMA. Those of you outside of the US can ignore it or sit back and laugh.

If you're still wondering what this is all about, California has put violent videogames on the same level as porn and banned their sale to minors. The case will decide whether it is unconstitutional. OC Weekly offers this article on how the result will affect you.

Now that the case is in session, it's getting some attention from more mainstream press like Bloomberg, Forbes, The Wall Street Journal and The Washington Post. Due to the restrictions on speech, the Comic Book Legal Defense Fund and First Amendment Center are keeping an eye on things as well.

Of course, the gaming press has been aware for a while. Joystick offers this summary of the 72-page transcript of the oral arguments and Game Politics is tracking the eleven attorneys-general who penned and signed California's amicus brief. Meanwhile, Kotaku offers these reactions from both sides:



The Electronic Consumers Association is keeping a list of more articles. It's likely too late to matter, but you may also sign the petition that was submitted along with their amicus brief.
Nov 4 2010, 1:16 pm
DeadStarr mentioned something like a woman killed her child while playing FarmVille.

How far are they going to take their petty fight against violent video games?
That classifies a game as violent? Mario Bros. is obviously violent due to you physically attacking other things in the game. Pokemon is as violent as Halo. You are causing harm to another within the video game.

It's downright ridiculous.
Nov 4 2010, 2:13 pm
But what about violent movies, music, books, etc.?
Nov 4 2010, 2:30 pm
I believe it's more about the physical blood and gore and depiction of the action in the first person rather than the actual violence itself. They're saying it's increasing children's real violent tendencies, but I think there hasn't been conclusive studies showing that.
Nov 4 2010, 2:57 pm
There is no solid proof that violent video games directly affect the functioning of youth.
It's not the problem, it's not the spark to the fire, it's nothing.
The only thing violent video games do, is pretty much offer a virtual-reality environment for youth to vent their frustration. The problem, is the parents. They buy the games for the kids. Kids can't just waltz up into WalMart or BestBuy and buy an M-Rated game, they need someone to do it for them. And those people are their guardians or older siblings.
Also, parents aren't actually pushing themselves into what their children(s) do. Parents have that right to control and maintain the lives of their children until they are 21 years of age (in most states) or until the child is ''financially responsible'' for themselves, because this is the point of their lives when they get in trouble it's all their fault and not their parents.

I laugh when I see some hypocrite saying ''violent video games affect children'' and yet they turn around and let their children play video games like Mario Bros., and Nintendo Wii's Boxing and whatnot. Saying ''violent video games'' is like saying ''any video game with violence.'' Like I said earlier, games like Mario Bros. and Pokemon contain violence.

People really need to stop wasting our tax money just to have their 15 minutes of public fame, and actually get to work doing something to help our economy.
Nov 4 2010, 4:35 pm
I don't really see why this [violent videogames] is a problem, most stores card you when you try to buy an M rated game, anyway; I needed to get my license before I could buy one myself (when you have a license, everyone just assumes you're >17).

EDIT: Clarified myself. Also, most parents will still buy their kids violent games; how will the law find out I played Fallout 3 if my parents bought it?
Nov 4 2010, 5:08 pm
Maximus_Alex2003 wrote:
I laugh when I see some hypocrite saying ''violent video games affect children'' and yet they turn around and let their children play video games like Mario Bros., and Nintendo Wii's Boxing and whatnot. Saying ''violent video games'' is like saying ''any video game with violence.'' Like I said earlier, games like Mario Bros. and Pokemon contain violence.

The problem isn't the presence of violence but the nature and realism of it. The question isn't "is there violence?" but instead "what's the violence like?". Violence can be categorized. Think about movies and movie ratings. The Lion King is rated G and Black Hawk Down is rated R (primarily for its violence). Both movies have violence, but clearly not the same type of violence.

When you compare the content in games to the content in movies, many games would have R ratings. Some are tasteless enough to get NC-17 ratings. It shouldn't come as a surprise that people might want to subject the video game industry to the same type of regulations as the movie industry. It's only surprising that it's taken this long.
Nov 4 2010, 6:23 pm
If violent video games affect children, then how can't these public T.V. shows with gun shooting, deaths, violence, profanity, and such? It's just plain ignorant how they are trying to keep kids from the violence but yet it's publicly visible. Politics is ignorance.
Nov 4 2010, 6:29 pm
If violent video games affect children, then how can't these public T.V. shows...

http://www.controlyourtv.org/Control.aspx
Nov 5 2010, 11:44 am
Forum_account wrote:
When you compare the content in games to the content in movies, many games would have R ratings. Some are tasteless enough to get NC-17 ratings. It shouldn't come as a surprise that people might want to subject the video game industry to the same type of regulations as the movie industry. It's only surprising that it's taken this long.

The film industry isn't regulated by the government, which is what California is trying to do with videogames. Further bad example because the videogame industry already regulates itself for more than the movie industry. Try sending a kid into buy a mature videogame in any retail store. They'll get carded and wont be able to buy the game, however try again but have them try and buy an R or Unrated movie and they'll likely be able to get the movie.

edit:

If violent video games affect children, then how can't these public T.V. shows...

http://www.controlyourtv.org/Control.aspx

Just to add this in, you can do this with every single current videogame console. They have parental restrictions in them that can restrict the types of games that can be played such as teen or mature rated games.
Nov 5 2010, 2:02 pm
There is a big difference between Pokemon ( which uses terms like "fainted" and doesn't use any blood/gore or profanity ) and a game like Halo ( in which people actually die, use firearms and explosives, and has blood ). Apples and oranges.
Nov 6 2010, 6:30 pm
Maggeh wrote:
If violent video games affect children, then how can't these public T.V. shows...

http://www.controlyourtv.org/Control.aspx

Just to add this in, you can do this with every single current videogame console. They have parental restrictions in them that can restrict the types of games that can be played such as teen or mature rated games.

Also, why should the government have a say in how my parents raise me? I understand giving the option to restrict us, but to force it? Get the fck out of my life. They try to tell us how to eat, how to live, and now how to buy video games? No wonder the economy is in bad shape.
Nov 7 2010, 1:47 am
That's ridiculous, government needs to GTFO people's lives.
Nov 7 2010, 5:05 am
Its really quite simple, games with adult content should be labelled as such and not sold to minors (usually meaning under 18's in most countries). We get this debate in the UK about whether games such as GTA be legal to sell, totally bypassing the fact that many parents will buy those kind of games knowing full well of the big "18" certificate rating and then hand it to their 12 year old kid when they get out of the shop.
Nov 7 2010, 8:08 am
Acebloke's right, it really is simple. You aren't forced to buy the games, they're just labeled as having adult content, give a brief description of the adult content, and not sold to minors. What else do you need? They'd better ban all "adult" stores and adult videos and adult books if they want to ban adult games, and heck, how about anything that can be bad? Let's all live in secluded bubble-cages on Mars.

ALSO:

Jedioh wrote:
That's ridiculous, government needs to GTFO people's lives.

Nov 7 2010, 1:03 pm
"That's ridiculous, government needs to GTFO people's lives... except for when there is a disaster and I need the government to come rescue me. kthx"

Fixed
Nov 7 2010, 1:59 pm
EmpirezTeam wrote:
"That's ridiculous, government needs to GTFO people's lives... except for when there is a disaster and I need the government to come rescue me. kthx"

Fixed

I've never been in a disaster. (:
Nov 7 2010, 3:24 pm (Edited on Nov 7 2010, 3:46 pm)
I haven't been affected at all by violent video games of any nature, ever. I have seen people who have been though. I think what it comes down to, is whether or or not the individual is responsible enough to maintain a healthy lifestyle and not copy what's going on in their television/computer screens.
Nov 8 2010, 12:51 pm (Edited on Nov 8 2010, 12:59 pm)
Jedioh wrote:
EmpirezTeam wrote:
"That's ridiculous, government needs to GTFO people's lives... except for when there is a disaster and I need the government to come rescue me. kthx"

Fixed

I've never been in a disaster. (:

Know anyone that's on food stamps, Medicaid, Medicare, or unemployment?
Nov 8 2010, 1:02 pm
Justin Knight wrote:
Know anyone that's on food stamps, Medicaid, Medicare, or unemployment?

Go to the other 90% of the people in the world, then you'll see a disaster. We in America have it great, even the lowest of us all.
Page: 1 2