Printable View
http://www.gamesindustry.biz/content_page.php?aid=6868
"Oh great. Now there are two of them."
It seems Darth Sidious has a new pupil on the Left Coast. This new student of the Dark Side resides in the California State Assembly.
Lest you think him no match for gamer nation, marvel as he crushes this interviewer.
Impressive.
I can't wait for the day I have to go to a curtained backroom at my local Blockbuster just to rent some videogames. I'll be sure to wear my raincoat too.
it's so easy to hate something you know nothing about.Quote:
BIZ: Lastly, we were wondering if you are a fan of any of these video games; have you played any yourself?
LY: I've seen clips of many of them.
BIZ: But you've never actually played any of these games, which you're essentially trying to ban from getting into the hands of minors?
LY: The only comment I have on that is: would I have to smoke in order to go ahead and support bills banning the sale of cigarettes to children? We've seen clips of the more heinous types of violence against women, children, minorities, poor people and so forth.
I don't have to have buttsex to know it's something I don't want.
I have no problem with banning the sale of M games to minors.
I do, but on the other hand I have no problem with Revoltor having buttsex so long as he doesn't tell us about it.
Seriously, don't be a moron. One medium is all media. You ban sales of M games to minors by law and you've set precedent for tv and, more importantly, books. A law against it is a bad, stupid, hideous thing. An industry-regulated setup, on the other hand, is just fine.
James
As they say, don't knock it if you haven't tried it (so long as I'm the top ;) )
Anyway, I don't see this law hurting or affecting anyone here (well except for you 16 year olds)
Well, the law could easily affect any gamers in the long run, and as James said, it sets a very dangerous precedent for other types of entertainment.
Kids can't get into R rated movies either. That was like 20 years ago.
It's one of those slippery slope things. First they do Thing A, which enables them to do Thing B, which opens up Thing C, which directly pisses me off. It's best to keep the entire process from starting rather than having to engineer a governmental overthrow later.Quote:
Anyway, I don't see this law hurting or affecting anyone here (well except for you 16 year olds)
James
"You ban sales of M games to minors by law and you've set precedent for tv and, more importantly, books. A law against it is a bad, stupid, hideous thing. An industry-regulated setup, on the other hand, is just fine."
Thats fine. I have no problem with banning M rated anything to minors.
I don't have a problem with it either.Quote:
Originally Posted by Joust Williams
However, what will happen is no one will make M rated games, because not enough people will buy them. I draw a comparison to the movie industry and the NC-17 rating.
Rather than a ban, I'd prefer to see some strict, hardcore marketing on the part of the games industry to educate parents about the rating system. Front page, movie trailer, can't turn on the TV without seeing it, OJ Simpson, Michael Jackson type coverage. Ram it down the throats of the ignorant parents.
The average age of gamers keeps getting bigger, so I don't see M-rated games going extinct. Most adults don't want to see NC-17 movies. SO what if kids can't buy it? The parent still can.
Which means the kids can still have their field day when they find that secret stash dad keeps hiding.
Just wanted to draw emphasis on the cause of this entire stupid debate.Quote:
Originally Posted by Jefmcc
And they say there's no market for these things...Quote:
I'd prefer to see some ... hardcore ... games
James
I agree with joust completely.
If this law takes effect, what is next? How about M-rated games being wholly banned within another 2 years? Bye bye Ninja Gaiden, or at least hello to a watered-down sequel. You can't give them a few feet if you don't want them to take the whole 100 yards. This law can suck it.Quote:
Originally Posted by Joust Williams
Let the retailers make their own choice whether or not they wish to refuse M-rated game sales to minors. Just as JefmcC said- have an ad blitz about the game ratings to clear it up for the parents who just don't understand.
"If this law takes effect, what is next?"
nothing
"How about M-rated games being wholly banned within another 2 years?"
I don't see how that logically follows
"Bye bye Ninja Gaiden, or at least hello to a watered-down sequel."
Good, that game sucks anyway
"You can't give them a few feet if you don't want them to take the whole 100 yards."
that's dumb
"Let the retailers make their own choice whether or not they wish to refuse M-rated game sales to minors."
no
If parents can't raise their own kids, they shouldn't take it out on the entertainment industry.
I agree. But there's no harm in a ban of sale of games not intended for minors to minors.
True, I see nothing wrong with keeping games sales of M-rated games to those of age, but punishing people who do so with penalties similiar to selling cigarettes or booze to minors is excessive. This is clearly a case where the industry can regulate itself.
Well, since they don't always (regulate themselves), I disagree. I don't think the cost is that great. Whether it matches the benefit, I don't know. But the same thing could be said with smoking. What kind of benefit does society get for banning cigarette sale to minors? I don't like most of those people anyway ;p
Comparing smoking or alcohol to violent videogames is illogical. Both smoking and alcohol potentially pose serious health or safety dangers, there is no credible scientific evidence that playing violent videogames is detrimental to one's health. Is there a similiar fine for selling DVDs with violent content or CDs with explicit language? I don't think so, and yet I think that videogames are far closer to that side of the scale than being in with smokes and booze.
"smoking (poses) serious health or safety dangers"
Yeah, and it should be banned in public places.
"there is no credible scientific evidence that playing violent videogames is detrimental to one's health"
So you don't think subjecting young audiences to violent material desensitizes them and that they don't copy what they see glorified in other medium?
"Is there a similiar fine for selling DVDs with violent content or CDs with explicit language?"
Maybe there should be. Just because one doesn't exist doesn't mean that's the way it should be.
Simply put, I fail to see any good reason why this should not be a law. It's not expensive to implement.
Industry decides it doesn't want to sell M games to minors- fine, whatever.
Government makes it illegal- bad, bad thing.
Simple as that, really.
James
No it's not. That's just crazy anti-government talk with nothing but slippery slope arguments. "Oh no, 1984 revisited!"
No more than the 6 o'clock news or anything else. Desensitization is a term thrown around more than a cheap at a port of call. If the parents are there to explain reality from fantasy, appropriate behavior from inappropriate, right from wrong, then no amount of 'violent videogaming' is going to somehow turn an ordinarily normal child into a deranged psychopath. Atleast, there is no evidence to support that theory.Quote:
Originally Posted by Joust Williams
There is a reason why there isn't, though. Because it's obviously a job for parenting and not governmental regulation.Quote:
Originally Posted by Joust Williams
It's constant "slippery-slope" arguments that keep us from going down the slippery slope. I'd much prefer erring on the side of caution when it comes to free expression.Quote:
Originally Posted by Joust Williams
Well, then make a law that requires parents to be good.
You can't.
"I'd much prefer erring on the side of caution when it comes to free expression."
What does this have to do with free expression? Nothing.
Response:Quote:
Originally Posted by Joust Williams
Quote:
Originally Posted by Joust Williams
I disagree. Many videogames of today, like any other entertainment medium, are vehicles for artistic expression as well as entertainment.Quote:
Originally Posted by Joust Williams
Yeah, and why should it be subjected to MINORS?
This law doesn't say anything about creation of free expression.
I'm not saying they should be subjected to minors, but introducing legistlation is simply not necessary. It's "Mother Knows Best" government, and I for one am fully against it. The industry can regulate itself in this circumstance. Putting this sort of law in place is pointless.Quote:
Originally Posted by Joust Williams
I don't quite know what you mean here. What I'm saying is videogames are vehicles of expression and should be protected under the First Amendment the same way books, music, and movies are. This is what seperates them from 'legal vices' like cigarettes and alcohol.Quote:
Originally Posted by Joust Williams
That's why this legistlation is bad, because it's obviously the first step in trying to ban sales of 'violent videogames' entirely. They already tried it once, who is to say once this bill is passed they won't try it again down the road?
Then why have laws for anything? If your parents raise you well, you won't smoke as a kid, kill, or anything. Laws exist to keep people in their place.
"I don't quite know what you mean here."
Videogames can't be sold to minors. That doesn't equate to "videogames can't be made".
That's a pretty big leap in logic. Laws in place for committing harm against others or one's self is totally different from exposure to violent content in videogames or movies.Quote:
Originally Posted by Joust Williams
Show me the difference. You have to prove that violent videogames have no effect on someone's psyche.
It's very simple.Quote:
Originally Posted by Joust Williams
The sales of cigarettes and alcohol to minors SHOULD be regulated because those pose serious proven dangers to one's health as well as those of others (through DUI or second hand smoke).
Videogames, movies, music do not require regulation because they are products of culture. They are art. They need to be understood instead of regulated. You can view a violent movie or play a violent videogame and are not forced to hurt yourself or others, nor is your judgement impaired in any provable manner. Knowing whether or not the behaviors in this entertainment is wrong in the real world is a product of nurturing.
There is no credible evidence that proves it does in any measurable way.Quote:
Originally Posted by Joust Williams
Then why can adults drink and smoke?
"There is no credible evidence that proves it does in any measurable way"
You're wrong.
Because once you have reached a certain age our society allows you to make the decision to engage in these 'legal vices' because you knowingly make the decision to subject yourself to the harm they cause. Even then you are bound to laws that limit how much you have and where you can have it. These laws are in place because these pose serious health and safety dangers.Quote:
Originally Posted by Joust Williams
Please show it to me.Quote:
Originally Posted by Joust Williams
"Because once you have reached a certain age our society allows you to make the decision to engage in these 'legal vices' because you knowingly make the decision to subject yourself to the harm they cause."
"and others" should be in there.
As for the other thing, detailed studies can easily be found with Google.
I don't think it's a bad idea at all to make it tougher for kids to walk into stores and buy M-rated games, it's common sense. Yes, the parents will still be able to buy it for their kids, but if it has a disclaimer like that on the box somewhere atleast the manufacturers and publishers are being more responsible. I'm sure there's specifics that fall to furious ears, but the core of the issue isn't a bad one.
The point is:
a) violent media, cigarettes and alcohol when used by people also have an effect on society
b) rules are in place to stop the propogation of the latter two
So I don't see why a) we should keep those laws or b) why we shouldn't add this one. It doesn't go down any slippery slope.
If you argue that the law can be circumvented, then I ask why we have the other two in place.
I wanted to keep it to the individual, but yes others are affected.Quote:
Originally Posted by Joust Williams
You can also find studies showing the opposite. A good article about the one's you're talking about can be found here. According to the author, even in the studies that show a ' increase in aggression' there is reason to question the results or even the context.Quote:
Originally Posted by Joust Williams
You could say that about any study on anything, though. In fact, they do. That's what error is.
There are studies that say heat does not increase aggression. BUt I'm living proof that that is wrong.
And this is where I totally disagree. You cannot lump violent media in with things that pose a marked health and safety risk, it just doesn't make sense.Quote:
Originally Posted by Joust Williams
Right, but there is a point where the weight of evidence in one direction or another makes it easier to come to a rational conclusion. Take smoking for example, I'm sure there are studies that say there is no link between smoking cigarettes and developing lung cancer, but those studies are completely overshadowed by the weight of evidence showing a correlation between the two.Quote:
Originally Posted by Joust Williams
My point is that there is not enough evidence to justify making public policy on it.
"but those studies are completely overshadowed by the weight of evidence showing a correlation between the two."
And there are more studies that say there is a link of violence than studies that say otherwise. Do kids not mimic? Whether the parenting is good or not is irrelevant.
The law may or may not do any good. But frankly, until someone shows me how this law is going to affect free expression, I see no reason to not have one.
No, there are few studies that actually show an increase in 'violent behavior' among children. There are studies that show increased 'aggressive cognitions', which are completely different and irrelivant when you consider the circumstances. To quote the author of that article I linked to:Quote:
Originally Posted by Joust Williams
Quote:
In some of the studies, if the people in the violent game condition have more thoughts of aggression than those playing the non-violent game, this is considered an indication that violent games cause aggression. This interpretation is not justified. After eating a huge meal, you probably are thinking about food - but you are less rather than more likely to want to eat. After watching a war movie, you probably have thoughts of war, but no one would suggest that you are more likely to wage war unless the movie promoted war. After Schindler’s List, I imagine that most people thought about war and torture and violence, but I hope that most people were less likely to be aggressive rather than more likely. Whatever stimulus you are exposed to, you are more likely to have thoughts related to that stimulus, but that does not mean that your behavior has been affected. Indeed, Graybill et al used aggressive thoughts as a manipulation check to see if the aggressive content of the game was salient, not as a measure of aggression.
I think the law is unnecessary because it injects legislation in a place where it is not needed, and the only conceivable reason to do so is to cater to certain interest groups and use it as a step ladder for harsher legislation down the road (ex. banning violent games). The industry CAN self-regulate in this situation.Quote:
Originally Posted by Joust Williams
We're just going to have to agree to disagree here, or else we'll just be going in circles for weeks.
It shouldn't be law because the ESRB is not a government organization.
Neither, for that matter, is the MPAA.
Now, if the government doesn't control how things are rated (or, for that matter, if products even need to be rated) or how these organizations are run, then why would they step in any make it law? That would open a pretty big can of worms, even ignoring any censorship issues.
Exactly what I've been saying. The film industry has been self-regulating violent content in movies for decades with the MPAA without problems. The ESRB is no different. There is no need for legislation.Quote:
Originally Posted by sethsez
"There are studies that show increased 'aggressive cognitions', which are completely different"
Not when kids act on them, which they do all the time. I don't need anyone to tell me this, and if they try to say otherwise, I would discount them immediately. Last time I checked, Schindler's List didn't glorify war.
And again, I see no problem with the government stepping in and taking the place of the industry's rating policy.
Okay, you're beyond reason then. You're taking your own observations and somehow equating that to scientific fact and discounting any evidence to the contrary as wrong.Quote:
Originally Posted by Joust Williams
So kids don't mimic? If you say "They don't", YOU are the one beyond hope.
Man, I hope this passes one day, now.
Your statement is too broad. Do they mimic what? And even so, what's to say the cause is X or Y?Quote:
Originally Posted by Joust Williams
DO they mimic their observations of glorified acts?
Let me answer it for you: yes
I'm done with this. If you don't think it's human nature to do so, then there's no point in this.
I dont care about banning to minors, whatever. What I think sucks is a ratings system, for either movies or games. It forces companies to impede on the works so that they become more marketable.
That depends on a great number of factors. First the age of the child, and second the presence of the parents during the time the child witnessed the media they might emulate. You cannot just simply throw out the blanket statement that all kids do everything they see on TV without exception and be taken seriously.Quote:
Originally Posted by Joust Williams
Yeah, I'll answer questions myself, thanks.Quote:
Originally Posted by Joust Williams
Your 'matter of fact' rationale for all human behavior shows your lack of knowledge in the field.Quote:
Originally Posted by Joust Williams
"You cannot just simply throw out the blanket statement that all kids do everything they see on TV without exception and be taken seriously."
No one said this. Not all kids are going to smoke if it was legal, either. But thanks for putting words in my mouth.
You didn't seem to have a problem doing it to me.Quote:
Originally Posted by Joust Williams
Quote:
Originally Posted by Joust Williams
No, I answered the question. You couldn't have said "no" and be right.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Joust Williams
Okay. Check please. :rolleyes:
OK, so you don't think kids mimic glorified acts.
Now I know who not to get into a discussion with.
I'm saying it's not that simple. Which it isn't.Quote:
Originally Posted by Joust Williams
Actually, I thought this debate went pretty well until you decided everything had to be in stark terms and that any deviation from your POV was wrong. Although, I guess I should've expected that.Quote:
Originally Posted by Joust Williams
I have never met, nor will ever meet, a kid that has not mimicked any glorified act. That makes the answer between "yes" and "no" to "Do kids mimic glorified acts?" a very simple one.
This argument became silly once "GOVERNMENT CONTROL = BAD BAD BAD" was part of it, because nothing good can come of arguments after that because of the polarized opinion.
This is where the problem lies. You're taking your own personal experience and saying that's the be all end all. It's not. One of the first movies I ever watched as a kid was Predator and not long after that Aliens. Now, after seeing those I didn't automatically try to skin my parents alive and hang them from the rafters, nor did I attack them with heavy duty weapons thinking they were an alien horde.Quote:
Originally Posted by Joust Williams
So you can't just say every kid is going to emulate every violent act they see on television in every circumstance without exception. It's not a valid argument nor even a feasible one.
And on this we agree, though obviously from opposite sides of the issue.Quote:
Originally Posted by Joust Williams
"So you can't just say every kid is going to emulate every violent act they see on television in every circumstance without exception. "
Yeah but I didn't say that. I said that everyone mimics, and helping parents out isn't such a bad thing (or a big deal, to me).
Did you use those words exactly? No. However, you did say that you would never meet a child that didn't emulate 'glorified acts'. Which is the same thing. Even if you never meet such a child, that in no way means they do not exist.Quote:
Originally Posted by Joust Williams
Once again, too broad a statement.Quote:
Originally Posted by Joust Williams
To you, no. To me, yes. I think this is a circumstance where the parents should take responsibility themselves rather than have the government step in (ugh, now I sound like a Republican).Quote:
Originally Posted by Joust Williams
"However, you did say that you would never meet a child that didn't emulate 'glorified acts'"
I won't though. The severity of the act and the act will be different. You never wrestled with people? Some kids just take it too far, and with worse acts.
Do I wish that parents would be more responsible? Yes. This law isn't a substitute.
I would submit that horseplay and such like that are biological rather than a learned or emulated behavior. It's something seen countless times in the animal kingdom, particularly among mammals. You show the wolf cub that had to watch a WWE Pay-Per-View before it decided to rough house with its siblings, and I'll concede the argument.Quote:
Originally Posted by Joust Williams
So you never played guns or anything that you saw on TV? I'd find that hard to believe.
I'll bet there's more deaths related to children emulating wrestlers than those emulating video games, because the out come of violence in a videogame is death - something which, to any person who isn't already a sociopath or newborn, is considered bad - generally. Wrestling is in more dire need of regulation. Horseplay is the usual and typically healthy result of emulation from movies or videogames. Largely because they don't encourage hate or physical competition on any regular basis. If the kid was stomping on frogs and shooting the neighbors dog with a pelet gun before playing games then violent games aren't going to help him, but not playing them won't change his already inherent sociopathic personallity.
Guns? No, not really. Lasers, perhaps, but not really guns. I did play alot with sticks and such as swords and axes. However, my parents made it clear that under no circumstances was I to hurt anyone while playing, and that doing so was bad and would lead to punishment.Quote:
Originally Posted by Joust Williams
Also, I didn't play with the swords and axes because I wanted to hurt people or that I thought hurting people was 'fun'.
"However, my parents made it clear that under no circumstances was I to hurt anyone while playing, and that doing so was bad and would lead to punishment"
Did they also make it clear that smoknig was bad and would lead to punishment too? If so, then why have that law? Good parenting is great, but a law in place as backup that doesn't prohibit free expression is nice.
Tobacco is pretty much a narcotic, videogames are not. The laws that ARE there are lax. Smoking, given the weight of evidence against it, should be illegal. It would help more than harm, so why not? However, the phsyiological effects of videogames are neither as intense or even factually proven to be a root of violence amongst youths (and I'd see this law passed to help prove that point). Smoking is understood to be detrimental to the users and others as well as the environment and provides no signifigant reward to the user (and I smoke actually). Videogames do not. Nor do movies, nor books nor music. Violence in its depiction in anyway will affect those already prone to violence. The affects to others are inconsequential.Quote:
Originally Posted by Joust Williams
Violent videogames don't have any benefit on impressionable youth, though.
"Smoking, given the weight of evidence against it, should be illegal."
I agree...but since it isn't, the reason why it's illegal for kids is the issue here. The argument against this law: "parents need to be responsible". So what really is the difference? Responsible parents teach kids about violence and not smoking.
I can agree to this. This being the first line.
The let the parents parent argument isn't a terrible one but it's not one to base against this particular legislature. I'm argueing that the same standards for substances should not be the same standard for media, since it's entirely diffrent on a fundamental level. I have no beef with not selling M-Rated games to minors. Not from the point of view of someone interested in the growth of the industry or from care for the well being of kids (on the whole).*
My only complaint is the reasoning for it. It's not sound. "I don't have to smoke cigerretes to know it's not heathy," for starters is inane - the man has an agenda methinks and it's not to save the kiddies from the brainwashstation 64.
*Kids on the whole, I belive with some exceptions, aren't adversely effected one way or another by violent videogames.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Joust Williams
Video games do not equal smoking. Any comparission is rediculous. Show me the thousands of people dying from video games. In fact, who me 10.
I'm not saying they are equal. But you can either look at the smoking law two ways:
a) Kids with responsible parents might want to smoke, and the law is a back-up
b) We want taxpayer money, so we need you to get old so you can pay them
"the man has an agenda"
With me, though, the agenda is irrelevant. The end result is what I care about. And when there's a law proposed that I don't agree with, I'll put my foot down.
Yeah, and are argument is that video games are not harmful enough to warrant being backed up by the goverement.
If that's the case, this will pass eventually.
There is proof that cigarettes are harmful, and there's no grey area about this. There are no cigarettes that only imply smoke, cigarettes that deal with tobacco in a mature and intelligent manner, or cigarettes that have gratuitous tar for satirical purposes.
"Huh, that doesnt make any sense."
Yes it does. A few more copy-cat acts and this will pass if the argument is simply "they aren't dangerous enough".
Quote:
Originally Posted by Joust Williams
Im not sure how CA legislature works. Is this going to be voted on as an initiative by the general public?
I don't think so, but it's probably not going to matter. Depending on the state, anyway.
The agenda suggest that this legislation isn't nessiarly a single means to a single end. I hate to sound paranoid, but if he's willing to equate them to ciggerettes on the case to not sell them to minors, he might make the case, as anyone could with ciggerettes, that they can be justifyably regulated further, using moreorless the same grounds.Quote:
Originally Posted by Joust Williams
"The agenda suggest that this legislation isn't nessiarly a single means to a single end."
True, but nothing ever is. It's like this: I'm sacrificing nothing but a small step closer to the lack of free expression at worst (non-issue for me), and nothing at best.
...and our paths diverged suddenly. The inherent ideological diffrence here (shown in bold) between you and I cannot be readily or relyably argued, proven or disproven. At this point there's nothing more to say, on the issue at hand of introduceing legislature to ban the sale of mature rated videogames to minors. We've concluded (as I understand) that at best, we get little from this that isn't already somewhat provided by industry regulation and at worst, an infringement on free expression in reguards to videogames. Whether or not the worst-case-senario is really all that bad or not is another debate. What I can conclude from this is that there's better chance of this being adverse to some or many whilst being ideologically beneficial to very few and thus - legislation is not required. If the argument is "the worst-case isn't all that bad," is a topic for another debate. One which I belive will go absolutely nowhere.Quote:
Originally Posted by Joust Williams
And you, personally, aren't gaining anything either.Quote:
Originally Posted by Joust Williams
Other than a lower chance of a copycat act of violence being committed against me or a loved one...which I value more than a higher chance of lack of free expression to glorify bad acts.
Well, in that case I'm glad you're not in a position of power anywhere.
You do know, of course, that unstable adults imitate art too, right? What should be the limits there?
Copycat violence doesn't come from videogames exclusively, nor is violence in general exclusively a side effect of violent media and copycat violence is likely to be commited by indivisuals who are already prone to violence in the first place. The net result is one has a conveinient scape goat, when it is deemed "copycat."
Adults are less impressionable. We have laws on everything else to make it harder for such people to affect society: fully-automatic weapons, etc etc.
Secondly, no one has said this law was the be- and end-all of such acts. There is no such thing.
Well, kids reasonably shouldn't commit the actual violent act. If a kid does so then his parents have dropped the ball somewhere. On the other hand, fake mimicry (e.g. playing "Cops & Robbers") is OK within limits. To draw the line, kids should be told by their parents that more than a few of the WWE/Tekken/Street Fighter moves are dangerous if performed in real life.Quote:
Originally Posted by Joust Williams
If two kids engage in a mock duel with toy Star Wars lightsabers after playing some game with sword fighting scenes, it's fine as long as they have been informed beforehand that they aren't supposed to strike with them. The parents should probably supervise this type of play. In the event that things get out of hand, the parents should take away the toy lightsabers.
Responsible parents would teach kids that violence is not acceptable IRL. So let's leave the decision to the parents- a kid who has been properly raised will know that he's not to perform the ingame violent acts in real life. I'm all for a retailer who voluntarily establishes their own policy of not selling M titles to minors. Government enforcement of this issue is needless and would be akin to letting the fox stand within 50 yards of the henhouse.
I agree with everything you said...up until the end.
There is no point to this legislation, I have decided. It's passing would be irrelevant untill proven otherwise for better or worse. Since, I BELIVE, violence is not begat from media in general then I BELIVE the legislation is useless and there's no signifigant gain or benefit from it and a risk of harm theoretically. My mind, I think, is made - against the legislation.
So basically we're all in agreement with eachother and disagreement with Joust:
Minors should not be allowed to play M-rated games, but the barriers that prevent them should come from the parents and the industry, not the government.
Anyone who thinks such a law,' "isn't that big a deal," or, "is a good thing," is ridiculously ignorant about the First Amendment.
You can't ban the sale of any medium to anyone unless it's pornography. End of story.
hey, remember when conservatives used to fight against laws that gave the government more power?
yeah... those were the days..
and if i'm not mistaken, it wasn't that long ago that parents used to have the responsibility for parenting their own kids.
This isn't about freedom of expression, since no one is stopping developers from making violent games.. I don't think we have to worry about any sort of precedent, either, since the First Amendment will always be there to smack down stupid laws.
This is about the government taking away the parents' right to parent - that is, to teach their own kids the difference between right and wrong, and to show them the difference between what is done tastefully and what isn't.
To that, I say, stop taking the parents' job away from the parents.
If I lived in CA, I'd be pissed as hell about this. You guys get to pay the tab for your government trying to take your consumer rights away.
In the grand scheme of things that's not really a lot of money, but yeah, it's ridiculous.
It is my sincerest hope that a kid in one of those after-school programs eventually goes on to develop Bukkake Adventure 2: Snowball Surprise Edition.
I'm both LOLing at and pissed at CA. States need to give it up in this matter. The ESA will just keep on terminating their attempts to make the ratings system legally binding. We don't need something like Japan's CERO Z shit, where it's against the law to sell Z rated games (Z is a hard M, like Mortal Kombat, Soldier of Fortune, or CoD Black Ops) to minors. Let retailers voluntarily card for M rated titles.
Parents should be the only ones to decide whether or not their kids ultimately play M-rated games. You can be 14 and mature enough for a certain game, or 17 and not.