The CA Legislature Strikes Back

[g0zen]

Well, then make a law that requires parents to be good.

Response:

Maybe there should be. Just because one doesn't exist doesn't mean that's the way it should be.

What does this have to do with free expression? Nothing.

I disagree. Many videogames of today, like any other entertainment medium, are vehicles for artistic expression as well as entertainment.

[Joust Williams]

Yeah, and why should it be subjected to MINORS?

This law doesn't say anything about creation of free expression.

[g0zen]

Yeah, and why should they be subjected to MINORS?

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.

This law doesn't say anything about creation of free expression.

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.

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?

[Joust Williams]

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".

[g0zen]

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.

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.

[Joust Williams]

Show me the difference. You have to prove that violent videogames have no effect on someone's psyche.

[g0zen]

Show me the difference.

It's very simple.

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.

You have to prove that violent videogames have no effect on someone's psyche.

There is no credible evidence that proves it does in any measurable way.

[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.

[g0zen]

Then why can adults drink and smoke?

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.

You're wrong.

Please show it to me.

[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.