Howdy, Stranger!
It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!
Quick Links
General: Schwarzenegger vs. EMA II
SBFord
Former Associate EditorMember LegendaryPosts: 33,129
In his latest Free Zone column, MMORPG.com's Richard Aihoshi takes a look at the Schwarzenegger vs. EMA (Entertainment Merchants Association) case now awaiting a decision from the Supreme Court of the United States. Richard offers his perspective about the case and what it means to gamers in California...and everywhere. Check it out and then exercise your Freedom of Speech on our forums.
Last Tuesday, the US Supreme Oral heard oral arguments in the case of Schwarzenegger vs. EMA (Entertainment Merchants Association), which is about the legality of a CA law banning the promotion and sale of violent video games to minors, specifically whether the statute violates the First Amendment right to free speech. The state is appealing after its legislation was not upheld by a lower court. The Governator is certainly and ironically no stranger to violence in the entertainment media himself. I don't know if he had to be named as the petitioner because of his current office or if that was done as some kind of publicity ploy.
Read more Schwarzenegger vs. EMA II.
)
Comments
Dumb law the way it is written, but we should let the courts decide the merits of it.
Everyone wants to scream free speech, but we exclude a lot of things from minors now and rightly so. I can see no reason why this is such a big deal. Some of these developers way overstep the line when it comes to what kids can see and do in these games.
I fail to see how this is different that restricting porn from kids. Or restricting violent movies from kids (Ratings of R, PG, etc?). Or...any of that stuff. If I decide I want to play Mortal Kombat with my kid, that'll be my decision. But I don't think I'd want him to see Mileena eating a man's head after she rips it off unless I gave him that permission, first.
I would, mind you. But yanno...it's the principle of the matter.
It all depends on how far they take the law. Like anything else, things can be taken too far.
"Forums aren't for intelligent discussion; they're for blow-hards with unwavering opinions."
You all should be aware that these laws if passed can seriously errode our person freedoms under the consitution.
The Gov. of CA makes a good point about video games and violence, my cousin who lives in CA says that part of the law came about due to the Player Vs Player Environment in which several dozen teens who committed murders and other violent acts got the idea from playing online games that had player vs player. They named such games as World of Warcraft, Warhammer Online, Everquest 1 and 2 and slew of others.
If the US Supreme Court uphelds the law from CA it could have devasting consequences for the Gaming Industry and could force MMO companies to ban children and teens from playing thier games.
I think i'll decide what games my children can and can't play/buy thank you very much.
Playing: Rift, LotRO
Waiting on: GW2, BP
I do agree with you, Richard.
If this law gets approved, it might start a snowball effect for restricting purchases in the future under more and more criteria, a real danger to freedom and to the entertainment industry.
Parents should be responsible for minors in this case, it seems so clear IMO, they have to know and control what their children purchase.
Government controls too much as is, if this passes this will start a snowball effect. Pretty soon parents wont have to "parent" anymore, let the government do it for you eh?
I read this weeks ago. Don't worry. It won't pass.
Its too vague.
Arnold always win unless he is a clone or a robot.
On one hand is it actually good that parents take interest in their kids and help them select games (even if I think most 15 years old are grown enough to choose for themselves). On the the other hand there is no way this would work anyways, kids will get older friends to buy the game or use their parents credit card on steam.
Parents really should keep an eye on what their kids do and play, why not playing a bit together with them but forcing them by law is probably not the best way (or even practical). Parents can actually decide that their 15 year old is mature enough to handle himself in this way, some 15 years are more mature than other 20 year old.
And the only proof that violent videogames are hurtful is with really young kids, and we are talking under 12 here. Making laws based on guesses by self learned "experts" is never a good idea, Arnie or no Arnie.
I am fine with say 12 year old to buy any computer games, that is fine since there is a limit on other stuff. But deciding that a certain game is fine and another isn't actually require clinical tests, not some PTA watchgroup with a Ned Flanders copy deciding some games are good and others bad. They have the right to decide that for their own kids but for others they actually needs scientific proof.
So I hope it is Arnolds evil clone speaking here...
Entertainment, regardless of form has been blamed for all sorts of horrors for a long time now. Movies, books, music, TV and games have all been blamed at some point or another. Honestly it's the conflict of blame. We have a need to assign blame for every little thing that goes wrong. At the same time though, individually, we largely refuse to accept blame.
There is an entire portion of our legal community dedicated to minimizing if not absolving a person of their actions. Let's face it, it's a lot easier to blame a company for their video game (or other product) than to blame regular people. The product cannot change it's demeanor to look sad and hopeless like a parent can. Mark David Chapman was a withdrawn mess of a person, that a relatively benign book became an obsession that culminated in murder is exactly what we are talking about.
The whole thing is Dan White's defense made backwards. The actual "Twinkie defense" was that he was deeply depressed and twinkies were a signal of this. That is the junk food binge was a symptom, albeit a symptom that could have exacerbated the condition. At their worst, video games (and entertainment in general) are this junk food binge. The addiction to escapist worlds, with a loss of that real/pretend barrier is a symptom of some larger issue.
My last little point is how badly this legislation would be likely to play out. In the end it will make AO rated games more popular, bought by less supervised "college aged" kids. IMO we can consider this dynamic similar to alcohol, highly prized by underaged kids and now done in secret. That is the perfect storm of conditions to amplify the problem.
If you get the idea to kill ppl from video games like WoW and WAR or any other vidoe game, then chance is that you where not sane from the start, and that you hade kill someone even without ever playing a video game in the first place.
just look at how many ppl play WoW or mmorpgs, or just video games, and then how few of them have ever kill someone and blame video games, if vidoe games was the reson for them to kill more ppl whoud kill other ppl.
Well listening to arguments from both sides and from the justices, it sounds like California didn't establish itself in it's arguement but it also sounded like the justices may let them try to narrow the scope of what constitutes their argument.
Here is the audo file of the arguments:
http://www.c-spanvideo.org/program/296438-1
Seriously publicity stunt. Also at most game stores its company policy to card all adults buying games over the m rating. so the parents just dont want to take blame for buying lets say modern warfare for there 8 year old kid. Cause there guardian got carded before they bought it so they darn well knew better Its like saying an adult movie store cant sell porn with humans because teenagers keep getting ahold of it some sonome should dress up like a cyborg or alien to get drilled before they can sell it. The awnsere is easy let the parents take the blame for buying a little child what they want because there friend at school has it.
I personally hire mystery shoppers to fire companies that do not enforce the laws.
sorry you cant fire a company only fine them. the company then fires the sales clerk and pays the fine.
[Mod Edit]
... Developer's overstepping the line? Seriously? First and foremost the buck stops at the parents. Period. Anyone who says any different is selling something, and your best interest is not in the foremost of their mind.
I agree with everything you wrote, except how you wrote it.
Cali. is a little funny anyway, I mean they boycott AZ for a law that is breaking the State then, Arnold (of all people) who made his big bucks on violent movies suddenly has a change of heart and wants to ban games? While I agree that there should be a limit of what kids should do/see/hear in game, I would say that it is the parents job of making sure they play what is appropriate...not the Governators. The parents pay the price of what their kids do, let them decide what the kids...play.
I see a lot of people arguing for the decision on what the children see and do resting on the parents' shoulders and, in theory, I agree entirely. In practice, however, that would require all parents to be responsible and mature - and, at that point, things pretty much fall over.
Far too many parents, these days, have absolutely no intention of ever taking any blame for anything they might possibly be responsible for (whether relating to their children or not) and don't, in general, give a damn what their kids are doing or playing, so long as they keep quiet and out of their space. The number of parents I've seen (and know) that don't even know what sites their kids visit regularly (or don't care), is downright appauling. The fact that most kids don't want their parents knowing what they're doing online (because they probably shouldn't be doing it :P) just compounds the issue.
I sometimes find myself idly pondering how the numbers of "parents who don't care" compare to "accidental and unwanted pregnancies," though... but I'm cynical, like that. :P
And how exactly will legislation prevent Susie Soccermom from biying GTA5 for her precious child so he/she will shut up about it already?
If I recall, there has been murder ever since even the first family on earth. (Bible). And more and more killing even after that. Wars and revolutions and just plain murders. Thousands and thousands and yes even millions of people have been killed, tortured maimed raped beaten and more ..... ever since people began.
I cannot believe that anyone obliterating a bunch of pixels in a make believe world (no matter what their age) is going to be "changed" into a murderer. I mean lets ban all the books and magazines and tv and internet and computers. and accomplish nothing.
Before books and tv and computers and internet and magazines were even around there was lots of murder, rape, beating maiming enslaving and worse. In fact I would not be surprised if there wasn't a lot more before all that stuff than there is now.
Geeze don't these smart people have anything better to do than tilt at pixelated fantasy.
Bad stuff happens .... has always happened and will continue to happen til someone with unlimited and unresistable power takes over. And we all know who that would have to be.
Sorry, but this whole legislating storytelling just seems pretty pointless and silly to me.
Just my opinion.
PS. We should ban GI Joe (a cold blooded killer) and even Barbie who I am sure has been in thousands of fatal accidents. And you should be jailed if you let your kids play Cowboys and Indians (racist as well as murderous) .... or war with toy guns.
If Ya Ain't Dyin, Ya Ain't Tryin
Next we ban HAPPY MEAL TOYS IN AMERICA!!!!!
I hate it when violent games and movies are directed towards children. I remember as a good watching comedies for kids, I saw horror movie ads and had nightmares about them. Similarly, I managed to play Doom 3 in a computer store that was supposed to be kid-friendly, and got nauseous seeing NPCs kill by aliens.
I've met 5-year-olds that can kill me in Halo and use the f-word more fluently than most of my friends. I don't see why a 10-year-old can't play something like Super Smash Brothers, however, and I don't always agree with the ratings.
But I think if this law were better written it wouldn't be a bad thing.
Freedom of speech came when America was founded, which meant the worst speech that could happen was hate talk. There were no moving pictures, communist threats, or world wars. The constitution is meant to be changed. I don't see why nothing is happening yet. Exposure is a much bigger thing now than it was back then; even if people should have the right to "say" what they want, the US should limit the right to depict it.
Guess what they are banning that in San Franciso.
Read the first line
Its about "minors."
I actually do approve of games under violent ratings to be banned to minors. Games like Rated M and AO...I mean seriously, it may be up to the parent, but this will prove that kids will just bittorent every PC game that is violent out there...or get someone to buy a rated M/AO game. It will prove that bad parenting is rampart.
I approve of having a way to BAN all the idiotic minors out of every game they are NOT supposed to be playing. I approve of not HAVING MY GAMING EXPERIENCE ruined by kids spamming tons on Xbox Live or Online Forumboards...to games they shouldnt be playing.
I approve because the time as minor has is very sensitive and its not about "Playing games" for 10+ hours a day and shouting swears over a microphone. That is not "FREEDOM OF SPEECH" but plain ignorance. The 1st amendment does not protect against profanity or clear and present danger. So please keep the U.S Constitution.
California is a super-boring state. So boring that advertisements everywhere exist of "Come to California and see what we are all about" but what you get when you spend time with people there is this boring, uneducated population that has to look into the online world for entertainment due to the fact people won't do anything to improve the quality of life.
Children are supposed to grow during their teenage years. Their job is to get educated. Obviously there is a lot of failure on that part....and a lot of failure on the parent. Parents already have taken the blame on many things. It would be great for the LAW to slap something on minors to give parents ammunition to prevent children from doing the entire "Oh he did X, let me threaten with DSS or some other services" which children are excellent manipulators.
I love how everyone says "Its always about the parents" as if kids don't lie, manipulate or have to be taught right from wrong. It would be NICE to stick a few laws up their ass in order to have those little buggers suffer like the rest of us and learn that they dont have a FREE RIDE at commiting acts up to the age of 18 while the rest of us now are PUNISHED for the crimes of children. It would be great to make them ACCOUNTABLE for something as while raising children is the responsibility of parents, the accountability of parents has to be proven at every single turn.
Seriously...It would be great if Children and Teenagers were made Accountable for their actions instead of them commiting an act and finding their parents always face charges. The United States remains one of the few nations on the planet where if a Child goes out and kills 10 people, the parent can get a lethal injection. No, thats right! Children aren't violent...Please go to Israel or Iraq, or Saudi Arabia where children as young as eight years old are trained killers.
The only thing deadlier than drugs, alcohol and all the violence out there to the quality of life is American Ignorance!
BEFORE YOU INSULT ME and give me some IDIOTIC SPEECH about how I am "right" or "wrong" please sit down as adults and tell me with a straight face that in analyzing the entire situation that you don't feel that kids should have some form of accountability to the law itself.
The most sensible, and likely, reason the Supreme Court saw this case, one of hundreds they accept out of thousands of applications, is to shut people the f*** up about it. How many cases are brought up against the game industry for these reasons? More than enough that it is wasting both time and money, our money, for it. A supreme court ruling is more than enough to make others stop bringing it up.
There is no evidence of violent games being directly linked to violence towards others. In the rare cases it occurs, its more likely attributed to mental instability, which has been found in every case of "video-game inspired" violent acts. Parents, too, are a good factor in it, or rather, the complete and utter lack of responsibility they show before, during, and after for their child and the childs actions.
Violent games can be linked, in some slight regard, to the acts, but only as much as mountain dew, cheetos, DnD, books, movies, overbearing parents, parents never there, parents there just right, drawing, drinking, smoking, weed, paint, watching television, and well... every other variable that fills nanoseconds of our lives.
And Shin, sorry to say, but you are, indeed, wrong.
The law isn't about getting kids in trouble, its targeting stores. It wants to ban stores from selling the games. Games are already banned to minors, its called the ESRB, and it already is used to keep M rated games out of their hands. Parents buy it for them though, they provide the credit cards, among other things.
If they do indeed kill 10 people, they are treated as adults. I'd love to see a case where parents got the Death Sentence because of their kid going on a murder spree though, because its just doesn't exist. Yet there are cases where a kid kills someone, and gets thrown in jail for 10-15 years, even more. And yes, I'm an adult, you however are the idiot trying to insult others just for having a different opinion.