Schwarzenegger vs. Interactivity

 Pages 1 2 3 NEXT
 

Schwarzenegger vs. Interactivity

How the Supreme Court could kill the future by leaving interactive speech unprotected.

Read Full Article

Nice article. I found this bit particularly on-point.

"The California law could be found unconstitutional simply because it could lead to "chilling effects" on free speech. In legal terms, a "chilling effect" occurs when speech or conduct is suppressed by fear of penalization. For instance, traditional "brick and mortar" businesses, such as GameStop and Wal-mart will have to restructure their entire business model to ensure minors are not sold games to avoid liability of $1,000 per sale. Additionally, those in best control of the point-of-sale (sales clerks) are specifically exempt from liability, shifting a burden of increased training, supervision, and thus higher costs. These businesses may decide that it is more cost effective to not stock and sell these games all together, effectively chilling speech to all members of the community."

This is precisely why from the moment I read that it's "Schwarzenegger vs. anything" I had a gut feeling that the real drive behind this is not so much around freedom of speech, but rather the movie industry versus the videogame industry. Granted this is merely conjecture but...that's my feeling about all of this. More corporate influence over the law disguising itself as waxing philosophical on "protecting our youth from violence" tbh.

It's nice to see that in the US freedom of speech is such a big deal,I just hope it isn't used as an excuse by others to protect stupid laws.

Sad, but doesn't surprise me one bit. I know someone who's got a legitimate business (non-gaming) in California and he's being put through the legal wringer because a lobbyist group has pushed for laws that hurt everyone in the industry (except them) under the guise of stopping shady fly-by-night operations. You know, the ones that don't care about the laws they're already breaking.

The more I hear about California politics the more I decide the state's entire legal and lawmaking structure is screwed up.

California has always been known as the crazy state...I suppose they have to live up to the name somehow...but, really. They need to take a step back at times to look at issues larger than just the state

I can't help but think it's a reasonable idea to prevent sales to minors of M rated games, and as for training, surely 'Hey guys, you know how you card people for Mature rated movies? do the same for video games please'. That's not $1000s of training to me.

I just think because people are crazy about the idea the kids playing violent games, if we don't as an industry keep them away from kids, the world will just go nuts and try to get them banned altogether.

Again tho, I think the main problem is parental responsibility, you buy GTA for your wailing 8 year old to shut him up, despite the clerk's desperate attempts to educate you about the games content, then you don't get to run off to FOX news because it taught him to call the family pet a motherfucker, and reply to 'tidy your room' with 'what up, bitch?'

SenseOfTumour:
I can't help but think it's a reasonable idea to prevent sales to minors of M rated games, and as for training, surely 'Hey guys, you know how you card people for Mature rated movies? do the same for video games please'. That's not $1000s of training to me.

I just think because people are crazy about the idea the kids playing violent games, if we don't as an industry keep them away from kids, the world will just go nuts and try to get them banned altogether.

Again tho, I think the main problem is parental responsibility, you buy GTA for your wailing 8 year old to shut him up, despite the clerk's desperate attempts to educate you about the games content, then you don't get to run off to FOX news because it taught him to call the family pet a motherfucker, and reply to 'tidy your room' with 'what up, bitch?'

The thing is, every game store that sells video games already cards people if they wish to buy M games. I know I've been carded multiple times after I turned 18 for buying an M game. Putting a law on it is a kick to the balls of all video gamers with a heavy, steel-toed boot with spikes on it.

This also opens the door for government to put laws on movies and stores. And it gets worse. What's to stop them from banning violence in all video games? What about political ideals? Heck, they could ban swear words from games.

That's why I like what the ECA/EMA is doing by fighting this. Our rights as citizens (Of the States since this is where it's happening), are being shot by a law like this.

Once again that "Free Speech" is just some kind of utopia. It is never 100% and some people from the U.S. cannot handle me pointing it out. Seems Europe has it's benefits too, huh? We didn't suffered at all. Nor have we a channel like Fox News inspiring terror into parents who cannot parrent.

Either way, GOOD LUCK out there!

Sorry Mister, but you're a tad bit late to the party-- they already have this where I live, and frankly I'm just fine with it. It means we don't get squeakers on Modern Warfare, and we don't have kids running about and screaming about how they're going to blow you away with the BFG9K or whatever. I'm hardly supporting censorship as a whole, but I know I wouldn't want my kid playing Criminal Origins; and that brings us to the heart of the matter: at the end of the day, it's the parents--not the retailers, developers, or publishers-- that are responsible for what their kids see. Many of them want to pin the blame on someone else, and that's why this bill is clogging up the California legal system.
It's a lot like Jack Thompson-- the end goal (making sure minors don't get their mitts on overly violent video games)is just fine, but the methods are questionable.

I have faith the Justices know the letter of the law (amendments) that this case will be ruled as unconstitutional. its struck out 9 times already, this time should be for good :D

Actually the politicians of California aren't regressive as they are Progressive. By Progressives I mean they are actively wanting to control every aspect of our lives, telling us what we can and can't watch, what kind of vehicles we can drive, where we can work, where we should live and how much money we should have. They are wanting to implement Socialism in small doses so that you don't notice it until you wake up one day to find us all calling each other comrade and waiting in the bread line.

Before people start blaming Fox News (which always happens here), look at the people behind these laws and find the ones that Fox News agrees with, then look at which ones are in lockstep with Obama, MSNBC, ABC, CBS and NBC. You'll find that 95% of these things are brought to you courtesy of your friendly neighborhood Democrat or RINO (Such as Schwarzanegger who claims to be a Republican but has never done anything more than be a Kennedy Democrat since becoming govenor), but for some reason it's FOx's fault.

Maybe if more people spent a little less time playing games and spent a bit more time actually following issues that concern how the country is going down the shitter instead of just saying "Yeah, I like John Johnson so whatever he says is right" , we wouldn't be in the shape we are.

Really? There are already enough procedures in place to make sure that minors don't get their hands on games their not supposed to. The 18+ and 15+ ratings, for example, make it very clear that these games are not indended for those below that age. Also, people on the tills are supposed to ask for ID for these games anyway, so introducing this penalty theroretically shouldn't make that much difference.

HT_Black:
It means we don't get squeakers on Modern Warfare

It does NOT mean no squeakers. The bad parents that let there kids play violent video games for 15 hours a day are buying the for them any ways. The stores are already not selling to children. The law won't stop underage use, just remove products from the shelf for fear of liability. Look at pot. Have really harsh laws reduced teenage pot use?

Why must I live in this state? :(

This is the problem I have had with fence walkers. I agree with Arnie on a lot of things but he's been a social liberal and hypocrit on subjects like this for a long time. Very quick to jump on the "protect the children" bandwagon and attack free speech, and one of the Repblicans that seems to go consistantly cross party for this kind of thing. This makes him a hypocrit because he obtained his fame and fortune through very violent action movies, and many of those action movies had video game tie ins (albiet usually bad ones). I seriously doubt he ever turned down his share of a video game's sales based on one of his movies because it included violent content.

That said we've been here before. There is always a scapegoat for society's ills and right now it's the turn of video games. In previous generations people have argued that comic books needed special treatment (leading to the comics code authority) due to the visual nature of the medium as opposed to simply reading something. The argument being that while say "Tales From The Crypt" might tread the same material as text based media, you actually SAW the monsters and people dying. Then of couse we had attacks on movies which were considered worse because they involved actual people acting things out and special effects that made the violence look real. "Interactivity" is simply the latest in a series of excuses for censorship taking the same role as the other reasons, and being backed by the same basic arguements by what amounts to the same (or very similar) people.

That said I am a big believer in state rights, to be honest for something like this I more or less support California being able to set it's own policies even if I don't agree with them. Given the extreme leftward leanings of that state (and it's the left who pushes more for the 'protect the children' censorship which is why this has this kind of intertia there) I figure if anyone is likely to pass this kind of a law it's California despite the political label worn by it's Governor.

For me it's a touchy subject because I really don't like censorship, and while I understand federal principles, I also believe strongly in people's right to set policies (within reason) in their back yard. Arguements can be made about the letter vs. the spirit of the laws in cases like this (and which you prefer depends on what you personally want). I am a supporter of things like a town being able to decide to use the local tax money to put up Christmas decorations, or have a tree lighting ceremony on the town green if the majority of people living there want it and agree to have their money used for that. Every year we see attacks on various places trying to keep traditions like this due to "seperation of church and state" and the arguement that religious/christmas decorations and things like a star or angel on top of a tree violate this and the rights of perhaps a couple of families in a region who don't like it for religious reasons. Ironically I can't defend an east coast tree lighting ceremony that might have been going on in a town since before the US was officially it's own country, and seriously oppose California's right to dig their own grave here... as much as I really wish I could.

That said I do sort of hope the Supreme Court strikes this down, but at the same time a lot of my other principles want to see State rights upheld.

Personally I'm a bit irritated that Arnie is creating such a mess of an issue to begin with. If there is anyone who doesn't have the right to make this case, it's him. As I've said before, he's been the protaganist/hero of a number of violent video games, and the inspiration for many more. As far as I'm concerned when he cashed the check for his image being used to sell games like the tie ins for "Predator", "Eraser", and others he lost the right to champion a cause like this and be taken seriously. Oh sure, now that he's ridiculously rich from this kind of stuff and a governor he can say "well I've changed my mind, I was obviously wrong" for political capitol.... as much as I want to respect him, I can't respect a position like this.

What's more with this "The Expendables" movie coming out where he has a bit part, I can't help but wonder if there will be a tie in video game. Even if his image/character isn't in it, I will find it the height of irony for him to be associated with it (the movie being promoted by showing him in the pre-views and the success of the video game if there is one being dependant on that movie).

All of this aside, I will mention that on the law itself (all high and mighty principles aside) they do manage to still sell Cigarettes and Alcohol with age limitations on them. Kids still get these things anyway, but not in the numbers they would without the laws. Messed up things are always going to happen. In neither case have those industries been forced to not sell their product outright due tot he law and the fines that most people carrying that stuff are eventually going to get slapped with as a cost of doing business.

It's not good, but well... it can be livable.

I do want to see Arnie claiming none of the games with him involved were aimed at children though (given that a lot of them were like SNES level and seemed to be designed and marketed that way... which was less of an issue at the time, but still a factor). I think that would be comedy gold if my points occur to anyone else and he's ever forced to address it.

SpamNEggs:

HT_Black:
It means we don't get squeakers on Modern Warfare

It does NOT mean no squeakers. The bad parents that let there kids play violent video games for 15 hours a day are buying the for them any ways. The stores are already not selling to children. The law won't stop underage use, just remove products from the shelf for fear of liability. Look at pot. Have really harsh laws reduced teenage pot use?

I said "we don't get squakers around here". To this very day, I've met a grand total of maybe two squeakers on the XBLA reigonals. I know this probably won't be the case everywhere, but that's definitely how it works around here...

I must say I completely agree with Senseofthumour. The key to killing these laws is to have more parental responsibilty. I truly believe there is nothing wrong with telling a clerk hey don't sell this to kids. You do, you're fired! Hey that training was so difficult. But also if the games industry wants to prove a point to California about trying to pass laws like this then they should leave CA for more hospitable climes. Let Californians Bleat like the Goats they are about how they are gonna save the world from itself. Screw them and there over inflated egos come to Colorado we'll take better care of you industry workers and your rights.

SenseOfTumour:
I can't help but think it's a reasonable idea to prevent sales to minors of M rated games, and as for training, surely 'Hey guys, you know how you card people for Mature rated movies? do the same for video games please'. That's not $1000s of training to me.

Except there's no law on R rated movies.

So they already are doing the same for video games. Voluntarily refusing to sell to minors.

Making it a law is worrisome, especially when sales to minors are down according to the FTC. I'd rather regulation go to some place where self regulation isn't working.

I can understand the point trying to be made here, but I think the spokesman was the wrong choice from the start. Someone who made their living from depicting violence probably isn't the role model you want to keep kids from wanting to reenact that violence in a virtual format.

So let me play devil's advocate here. Suppose we say we kept all kids out of video game stores and aisles. Just wall it off, make it so you have to show a legal ID before you can even enter that part of a store. Great. No kids getting in, and they can't get access to the games. So what? Advertising and online videos will still show anyone the violence in the game, so kids will still be exposed, regardless of whether they control it or not. But advertising and video formats are protected. So if the kid wants to play the games bad enough, they will just hound their parent(s) to go out and buy the game for some holiday or birthday, and they will have access to it anyway.

I am on-board with this being a parenting issue, not a marketing issue. There is no concrete answer to solve this problem, short of just not making violent video games. Then that punishes everyone, regardless of the effect that the games have on them. Parents will bitch and moan day in and day out about how the world just isn't safe for their kids, and they can't listen to violent music or play violent video games or watch violent movies because it influences them to repeat all that IRL. And? This shit was going on way before we had such media formats, because people were actually doing this stuff to each other in person. So why don't we just keep kids away from television and movies and music as well? This bullshit excuse of saying "all other types of media aren't interactive" is a thin line that can't carry the weight in my book. If you say that your child watched the original Predator, then crafted some goofy costume and hid in the tree in the front yard and captured the neighbor's cat and skinned it and hung it upside down in the tree, that it's ok because the movie has freedom of speech? If your child can't tell the difference between fantasy and reality, and you aren't there to hold their hand about the issues to tell them the difference, then take the personal responsibility instead of passing the burden on to the rest of us. I don't have kids because I enjoy the freedoms I have as an adult, and I don't need my entertainment handicapped because someone has a problem with telling their spoiled kid "no".

S.O.T.: So how many parents are getting arrested for allowing their kids to play these "adult themed" video games anyway? If you give a kid alcohol, you get arrested. If you give a kid cigarettes, you get arrested. So why aren't parents who buy GTA for their 8 year old kid under the same punishment? This should really be something that CPS should be responsible for.

Just a quick point it is already against the law in the UK to sell games to underage people. Maximum punishment is 5000 fine, 6 month prison sentence and a criminal record to the person selling the title. Everywhere still sells them, to me this seems like making a mountain out of a molehill.

RowdyRodimus:

Maybe if more people spent a little less time playing games and spent a bit more time...

Just gotta point out that that's a very bold statement to say on a gaming site, just because we're all gamers doesn't mean we're so stuck in our hobby that we don't know what's going on. The only time Fox news was brought up was some one saying that they're glad they didn't have that where they lived. If anything, if some one did try to throw blame to Fox news on this one, they obviously didn't read the OP correctly.

The rest of your post is fine, that last bit just seemed like an unnecessary stab at the community.

On the bright side, California doesn't have enough money to pay anyone to enforce this law.

rembrandtqeinstein:
On the bright side, California doesn't have enough money to pay anyone to enforce this law.

If Meg Whitman becomes governor there will be. She is now stated to cut 40,000 state jobs across the board and legislate to stop the construction of high speed rail in california. Also she is for more deregulation of manufacturing industry, support private industry jobs(which is odd because should she become governor her business should be the state and not private businesses) and for tougher boarder control. Honestly right now it seems that on both the state and national level we are having the GOP follow Hoover for a recovery and the Democrats follow FDR for a recovery.

Oh please, how about a little less fear mongering? In effect, all the Cali law is trying to do is add a fine to the selling of "M" and "violent" games to minors; calling that a chilling effect is plain and simple exaggeration.

Stores like Wall-mart "will have to restructure their entire business model" to abide this law? give me a break, all they will have to do is actually make sure their employees ask for IDs before selling any M games, like they are already supposed to do in many places.
Also, do you think games stores are actually going to stop selling M rated games instead of just asking for IDs? Seriously?

I agree that interactive media should be protected like all other kinds of media, but to claim that a law trying to uphold game ratings and their purpose is censoring is ridiculous.
What's next? Claiming that not selling porn to children is unconstitutional and that it uses a 'chilling effect' to oppress the people?

Therumancer:
Paraphrase: Arny is a hypocrite

Just because someone is a hypocrite doesn't make their points invalid. In fact, Arnold might be doing this BECAUSE he's portrayed the violent role many times before and now wants to make sure children aren't the target of such films/videogames (or that's what he would say if pressed on the matter).

Zachary Amaranth:

Except there's no law on R rated movies.

If there is no law against R rated movies being sold/rented then they should be pushing for that as well as there is little difference between a violent videogame and a violent movie. Again, I am in full support of treating all media equally, regardless of their nature(interactive or not).

Tenmar:

rembrandtqeinstein:
On the bright side, California doesn't have enough money to pay anyone to enforce this law.

If Meg Whitman becomes governor there will be. She is now stated to cut 40,000 state jobs across the board and legislate to stop the construction of high speed rail in california. Also she is for more deregulation of manufacturing industry, support private industry jobs(which is odd because should she become governor her business should be the state and not private businesses) and for tougher boarder control. Honestly right now it seems that on both the state and national level we are having the GOP follow Hoover for a recovery and the Democrats follow FDR for a recovery.

I don't know which one of those you think is good but food for thought: FDR
Prolonged the depression
Had fore-knowledge of Pearl Harbor and did nothing to stop it because he WANTED to go to war
Attemted to dictatorially pack the supreme court who previously declared unconstitutional almost all "new deal" legislation

LordOfInsanity:

SenseOfTumour:
I can't help but think it's a reasonable idea to prevent sales to minors of M rated games, and as for training, surely 'Hey guys, you know how you card people for Mature rated movies? do the same for video games please'. That's not $1000s of training to me.

I just think because people are crazy about the idea the kids playing violent games, if we don't as an industry keep them away from kids, the world will just go nuts and try to get them banned altogether.

Again tho, I think the main problem is parental responsibility, you buy GTA for your wailing 8 year old to shut him up, despite the clerk's desperate attempts to educate you about the games content, then you don't get to run off to FOX news because it taught him to call the family pet a motherfucker, and reply to 'tidy your room' with 'what up, bitch?'

The thing is, every game store that sells video games already cards people if they wish to buy M games. I know I've been carded multiple times after I turned 18 for buying an M game. Putting a law on it is a kick to the balls of all video gamers with a heavy, steel-toed boot with spikes on it.

This also opens the door for government to put laws on movies and stores. And it gets worse. What's to stop them from banning violence in all video games? What about political ideals? Heck, they could ban swear words from games.

That's why I like what the ECA/EMA is doing by fighting this. Our rights as citizens (Of the States since this is where it's happening), are being shot by a law like this.

I would suggest that simply making the guidelines about age restricted games a law would not in fact be a step down a terrible road, but a simple case of saying 'look, we're doing our part, we're being responsible, we're labelling and rating our entertainment products, we're restricting the sale to minors, we're done all we can'. If parent then go on to ignore all that and still buy mature rated games for their kids, the industry has legally covered its own back, instead of leaving it open to blame.
'My son played Modern Warfare and shot the pet cat, I demand compensation!'
'How did he get the game when it's illegal for him to buy it?'
'Um, I bought it for him because he was whining in walmart and he shuts up when I buy him things he isn't allowed'
'Well, I fail to see how it's entirely the video game industry's fault, ma'am.'

*case dismissed*

LordOfInsanity:
This also opens the door for government to put laws on movies and stores. And it gets worse. What's to stop them from banning violence in all video games? What about political ideals? Heck, they could ban swear words from games.

Slippery slope fallacy bub. Just because someone takes action in a certain direction doesn't meant you can extend and exaggerate to prove a point.
There would have some serious changes to both state and federal law before any state could even begin to THINK of banning all violence from any media and even more to actually implement changes like that. Banning political ideas or certain words is the same thing.

People just love to live in fear eh?

The way this article is written, I find it to ring of propaganda . The way the article is written, it sounds like the author is trying to say that excessively violent games SHOULD be allowed to be sold to minors(so the game development community can make more money). I don't think that is the exact sentiment the author "wishes" to convey, but that's how it comes across to me. It is not unreasonable to restrict minors' access to extreme media, in much the same way as with R-rated movies, and it is not unreasonable to have some enforcement of that restriction as long as it is being applied universally to all media. But the way the article is written, it comes across to me as "mean ol' California/Schwarzanegger wants keep us from selling violent games to anyone, and so we can't make a lot of money."

Probably more what the author "wants" to say(or perhaps the way the author should have made the case) is that such additional laws as California are proposing are really unnecessary because a sufficient system and set of laws already exists to inform people of the content of games and restrict minors' access to the more extreme productions. The information exists both online and on the game box itself, if people would take the 2 seconds required to turn the box over and see the very prominent rating and content label. For many games, a big age-appropriateness label is already also printed on the front of the box. There is no need to encumber businesses with further restrictions beyond what would normally be done for any other media, such as movies, nor is there a need to apply further labeling(if people aren't going to pay attention to the big labels on games now, adding more is not going to do anything).

Also, restricting sales is not the same as restricting production, and this idea of a "chilling" effect on free speech is bogus because the only "chilling" effect there will be is on the sales figures each quarter(instead of being able to sell Hyper-Violent Head Rippers to everyone age 5+, Hyper-Violent Head Rippers can only be sold to those 17+ in age, in accordance with the already existent MC-17 or AO rating such a game would be given).

Therumancer:
This is the problem I have had with fence walkers. I agree with Arnie on a lot of things but he's been a social liberal and hypocrit on subjects like this for a long time. Very quick to jump on the "protect the children" bandwagon and attack free speech, and one of the Repblicans that seems to go consistantly cross party for this kind of thing. This makes him a hypocrit because he obtained his fame and fortune through very violent action movies, and many of those action movies had video game tie ins (albiet usually bad ones). I seriously doubt he ever turned down his share of a video game's sales based on one of his movies because it included violent content.

the protect the children bs is a socially conservative ideology not a liberal one

Definitely a good read. Well thought out and very to-the-point.

You are preaching to the choir a bit, but its a good read all the same.

Well said.

fundayz:

LordOfInsanity:
This also opens the door for government to put laws on movies and stores. And it gets worse. What's to stop them from banning violence in all video games? What about political ideals? Heck, they could ban swear words from games.

Slippery slope fallacy bub. Just because someone takes action in a certain direction doesn't meant you can extend and exaggerate to prove a point.
There would have some serious changes to both state and federal law before any state could even begin to THINK of banning all violence from any media and even more to actually implement changes like that. Banning political ideas or certain words is the same thing.

People just love to live in fear eh?

How I live in fear when I expect such stupidity of the government? History class has taught me how our government can do horrible things. Just look to the McCarthy Era that sprung up after WW2. That was against mostly the movie industry, in which if you liked a movie of some sorts, or even did something that was labelled 'Pro-Commi' you'd be blacklisted, interrogated, etc.

As of now, video games really aren't considered protected under the First Amendment and until we have the higher tiers of the Supreme Court specifically say (And it gets recorded) that video games are protected, it gives officials in office the ability to bring in laws and such that can do to us like what happened in the McCarthy Era.

I for one do not want to lose my job because I enjoy playing video games.

Here's the link to McCarthyism: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/McCarthyism

Forgive me for not quoting people, but there's so much to get to here and quoting would make this very messy.

It's popular to blame Fox News for the problem of the poor image of gaming in this country, and they well deserve a fair share of that blame. But seriously, when have you heard any media outlet approach the subject of gaming when it didn't involve clock-tower shootings or childhood obesity? The entire news media goes apeshit painting a disturbing image of gaming because those kind of stories generate RATINGS! It's a big lookit' me ploy, which is common in every aspect of television. No intention of excusing Fox News for their bullshit, I'm just saying the rest of the media is guilty of this too.

Now, I live in California. And I can say with all honesty, and I have, that this state does not run on any sort of logistical model. IMHO, you can tell how poorly run a state is by taking a look at the state of repair of it's highways. Every now and then I travel from California to Nevada. When I'm in Nevada, I notice that the highway upkeep there is top notch. Roads are clean, sturdy, almost manicured. But as soon as you pass through Primm and get to California, the roads are crumbling and full of potholes.

The point I'm trying to get to is that California takes in huge amounts of money in taxes from it's constituents and businesses and the pisses it away on stupid things. It's not a state that runs on common sense. The almond farming industry in this state was killed off in order to protect a small inland minnow from supposed extinction. The egg farm industry was also recently run out of state, by a poorly written law that forced all farms to have free-range chickens. These may seem like unrelated examples, but this is the kind of stupidity you're dealing with when you deal with the government of California.

And that brings me to Schwarzenegger. What a fuckin' asshole... When he came in to this state, he told everyone here that he was going to govern intelligently. That he would listen to the people and not pull the kind of bullshit that I alluded previously. He lied... He's a Kennedy progressive, married to a Kennedy for christ's sake. We probably should have foreseen the endless fuck-ups that occured out here, but then I remember all the other candidates he ran against were publicly declared uber-liberal progressives who would have probably fucked things up just as bad.

This is why I hate Obama so much. Everything that Obama is doing nationally has already been done here, and failed miserably. So how does this all relate to the topic at hand? Because this is what people like Obama and Schwarzenegger do. They ignore the real problems and focus on pointless crap at the behest of people who donate campaign dollars. More than likely, there's probably a very high desire in Hollywood that the Supreme Court of the U.S. upholds the anti-gaming law. It would knock the gaming industry out of the box in this state. It would also set a precedent which would hold back interactive media, which is mostly sent to your home or personal devices.

But most importantly, it strangles Hollywood's competition. And would allow them to produce a lower quality product, which is funneled through outdated, brick-and-mortar theaters. Theaters that charge $10 for a bag of popcorn, $6 for a soda(Extra ice, of course) and $7 for a bag of Raisinets. That's after you pay $15 for the privilege to enter the door. And yes, this is a strangling of our first amendment rights. But do any research on modern progressive politics and you'll find out that your rights are the last thing any of these assholes give a shit about.

If the state of California really wanted to keep violent games out of the hands of children they would do a damn PSA campaign explaining the ESRB rating system to retarded parents who somehow don't seem to understand what this means
image
and buy the game for their 7 year old son in the first place.

The thing I hate most about any censorship argument is the duplicitous and often subjective nature of censorship. The tenets of law provide us with the freedom to choose what media we enjoy and yet there are those that actively seek to subvert that freedom based on their personal moral views.

Reducing or preventing crime is a very noble cause but to actively attempt linking media (in any form) to actual real-world crime is not only heinously ignorant, but seems to actually run counter to the progress of finding the root cause. Correlation does not imply causation, and yet there are (undereducated?) people who fail to grasp this concept.

Well I live in Canada and the law here is minors are not allowed to buy M games without a parent or gaurdian, and its been this way for quite a while now and I'm fairly ceetain our government isn't trying to ban all violence or curse words on video games. What I don't understand is how everyone seems to be against restricting the sale of games that were designed to be played by adults to kids under 18. I can understand that a full out ban wouldn't be right, given the diversity of the M rating (ie: Modern Warfare 2 to God of War 3)as for the online business you use a credit card or similar forms of payment so that is dependent on the parent. Telling people to check ID doesn't seem like 1000's of dollars in training to me does it?

 Pages 1 2 3 NEXT

Reply to Thread

Log in or Register to Comment
Have an account? Login below:
With Facebook:Login With Facebook
or
Username:  
Password:  
  
Not registered? To sign up for an account with The Escapist:
Register With Facebook
Register With Facebook
or
Registered for a free account here