November 2nd. All gamers unite in the Supreme Court.

M

MegaDrive20XX

Segatron Genesis... call me the wizard.
It's been a long road for the California bill backed by Governor Schwarzenegger that seeks to keep violent video games from being sold to minors. But the end is finally in sight: The Entertainment Consumer Association has announced that the case, known as Schwarzenegger vs. EMA (Entertainment Merchants Association), will go before US Supreme Court on November 2.

As an outside party, the ECA will submit an amicus brief in the case and has set up a website for a petition and more information about the pending arguments. So far, lower courts have judged the proposed law, which would set up legal rules and penalties against selling violent video games to minors, to be unconstitutional. Of course, this time around, we're talking about the United States Supreme Court, so any decision in favor of the bill would overturn previous rulings in lesser courts. Take that, Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals!

Oral arguments in the case begin November 2, and the judges should have a decision soon after that. This will be the first time the Supreme Court looks at video games and the First Amendment, so a ruling either way should be pretty historic.

http://www.joystiq.com/2010/08/27/violent-video-game-case-gets-its-date-in-supreme-court-on-nov-2/
 
As a parent I view this as a total insult. >:( There are ratings on the games. I am the one who is responsible for what my child is playing. I don't need the Government raising my child.

Sorry. :)
I know things like this has been discussed before around here, but this just raises the hair on the back of my neck. >:(
 
Why do the rest of us have to take the consequences for stupidity? This is ridiculous. I believe that parents should be a bigger influence in helping children choose games. There has to be a steady trust going on between the parent and the child.
 
There are, however, lazy parents that want everything to be censored--not that it would matter as they don't pay attention to their kids anyhow.

It reminds me of the South Park episode where the parents were off picketing a TV station while the grim reaper was chasing the boys around the town of South Park.
 
I don't get what the big deal is on this issue, one way or another.

If you're a parent and you're 18 or over you can still subject your children to all the violent videogames you want. This bill wouldn't change an adult's ability to buy an adult game, so who cares?

Also, being old enough now to have friends that have kids, I can safely say that I wouldn't always trust other parents to make the right decisions for their child. This is not to say that my friends are bad parents by any means, but making good decisions, even as an adult, can be very difficult. If we can all agree that in general children should not be playing violent videogames, why not make a law about it so that parents who would otherwise make an error in judgement don't have the opportunity to do so?

No matter the outcome, I don't see this bill really affecting anything, but maybe there is more to this whole debacle than I am aware of. I am Canadian, after all, so the bills passed in California don't really affect me much... :D
 
stealth toilet said:
I don't get what the big deal is on this issue, one way or another.

If you're a parent and you're 18 or over you can still subject your children to all the violent videogames you want. This bill wouldn't change an adult's ability to buy an adult game, so who cares?
Click to expand...

Are you familar with the concept of legal precedent once these floods gates are opened it's only a matter of time till Mature rated and maybe even Teen rated games sales are so over regulated by Federal and various state governments that stores and manufacturers won't bother with them much like how the Adult rating is currently the mark of death for video games. Mostly because it's an easy sell to the soccer mom crowd that they're working for them.

Also, being old enough now to have friends that have kids, I can safely say that I wouldn't always trust other parents to make the right decisions for their child. This is not to say that my friends are bad parents by any means, but making good decisions, even as an adult, can be very difficult. If we can all agree that in general children should not be playing violent videogames, why not make a law about it so that parents who would otherwise make an error in judgement don't have the opportunity to do so?
Click to expand...

Because it's very unlikely to make a difference since the games are still out there and the kids are going want them and I don't see irresponsible parents changing there habits no matter what. This legislation however will pave the way very nicely for a complete ban on all games that someone over the age of 10 would find enjoyable in the future.
 
stealth toilet said:
Also, being old enough now to have friends that have kids, I can safely say that I wouldn't always trust other parents to make the right decisions for their child. This is not to say that my friends are bad parents by any means, but making good decisions, even as an adult, can be very difficult. If we can all agree that in general children should not be playing violent videogames, why not make a law about it so that parents who would otherwise make an error in judgement don't have the opportunity to do so?
Click to expand...

I don't agree that a 17 year old person shouldn't have the right to buy a violent video game with their own money. I honestly think it's ridiculous to try to make such an act illegal. In truth, this bill isn't a huge deal and won't change much in and of itself, but the ratings system that is currently in place is far too strict in my view and this law would only create and even stricter system that is universal and mandatory. Further, as redneck mentioned, the legal precedent doesn't sit well with me.

stealth toilet said:
No matter the outcome, I don't see this bill really affecting anything, but maybe there is more to this whole debacle than I am aware of. I am Canadian, after all, so the bills passed in California don't really affect me much... :D
Click to expand...

Yeah, that's right, we're not annexing Canada until 2015. :lol
 
redneckgamer 213 said:
Are you familar with the concept of legal precedent once these floods gates are opened it's only a matter of time till Mature rated and maybe even Teen rated games sales are so over regulated by Federal and various state governments that stores and manufacturers won't bother with them much like how the Adult rating is currently the mark of death for video games.
Click to expand...

Stores and manufacturers want to make money. If there's a demand for it, someone will sell it. I don't see the reason behind objecting to one bill because it might hypothetically lead to other bills that are less desirable. Why can't this bill pass and those bills not? Why is this the bill where the line is drawn? Or has the line, in your opinion, already been drawn and crossed?

Homicidal Cherry53 said:
I don't agree that a 17 year old person shouldn't have the right to buy a violent video game with their own money.
Click to expand...

You should meet more 17 year olds... :lol

I guess for me this doesn't really seem like a personal choice issue, because most reasonable people can agree that there is a correct choice that everyone should be making in this situation (buying violent videogames for minors is wrong) and all this bill would really do is create harsher penalties for those that make the wrong choice. It's like, if we can all agree that an act is bad, and no one should do it, why should we maintain that someone ought to have the freedom to do it, even though we all expect them not to? Societies are built around such conventions and common understandings, so why must the gaming community insist on allowing unreasonable behaviour? To me it all just seems kind of overblown, and it ends up making gamers look defensive and irrational.

Perhaps it's my socialist, Canadian environment, but it sounds to me like the root problem is a distrust of politicians, and a lack of faith in the current political system. It's not about violence in games or individual freedom or ethics and morality, its more about people who you didn't vote for trying to tell you what to do, and you don't like it (even if what they're trying to tell you to do you would do of your own accord). It becomes about "the principle" of the whole thing or some such, and if it is indeed smart to pick one's battles this does not seem like a good pick.

Homicidal Cherry53 said:
Yeah, that's right, we're not annexing Canada until 2015. :lol
Click to expand...

Better bring a toque. :D
 
What I take issue with more than anything (which is not to say I don't take issue with the entire concept of legislating just because something is generally viewed as wrong) is that selling violent video games to a minor hasn't been established as being the wrong choice. For the next two days, I'm still 17 and I really don't think it's justified to punish someone for selling me a game. It just makes no sense. It's a ridiculous restriction on my rights that is completely out of place.

stealth toilet said:
Perhaps it's my socialist, Canadian environment
Click to expand...
Yes it is, but it's ok. It isn't your fault you were raised to hate freedom. :lol :lol :lol
 
stealth toilet said:
I guess for me this doesn't really seem like a personal choice issue, because most reasonable people can agree that there is a correct choice that everyone should be making in this situation (buying violent videogames for minors is wrong) and all this bill would really do is create harsher penalties for those that make the wrong choice. It's like, if we can all agree that an act is bad, and no one should do it, why should we maintain that someone ought to have the freedom to do it, even though we all expect them not to? Societies are built around such conventions and common understandings, so why must the gaming community insist on allowing unreasonable behaviour? To me it all just seems kind of overblown, and it ends up making gamers look defensive and irrational.
Click to expand...

that is exactly the reason why this angers me so much.... just because a majority believes it is wrong the freedom to make that choice is taken away. If i think my 16 year old friend/son is mature enough to handle a game like persona or metal gear solid then i will buy that game for him, it is my freedom and my choice, because i do not think this is wrong.....its my life why should the majority tell me how i should live it?
 
For the next two days, I'm still 17 and I really don't think it's justified to punish someone for selling me a game.
Click to expand...

But it already is, regardless of the outcome of this particular bill of legislation. If this is at the heart of your argument then you're a few years late to the discussion. Even if this bill is overturned, or ruled unconstitutional, or whatever, it won't make selling M rated games to minors any more legal or illegal. Again, I don't think the issue you have is with this bill, it's with a system that has already let you down.

Zidart said:
its my life why should the majority tell me how i should live it?
Click to expand...

Because you live in a democracy, where the majority rules. If you don't like it: 1) vote, and hope that someone who better represents your interests in the next election gets elected, or 2) leave the country.

I'm not saying that as an inflammatory statement. In a democracy, the majority rules, period. If you don't like that system of government, then get busy overthrowing it, or whatever, but in the meantime, don't expect it to conform to your marginal wishes and desires (which I also wish it would, sometimes).

And for the record, I happen to believe games shouldn't be sold to minors. Yes the age limit is arbitrary, yes I believe there are exceptions to the rule, but for every homicidal cherry that exists (someone who can handle and contextualize violence in videogames without negative side effects) there are at least two delinquents who cannot. In the end, I believe it is to the benefit of society to enforce such legislation, and to it's detriment if it is not.
 
stealth toilet said:
But it already is, regardless of the outcome of this particular bill of legislation. If this is at the heart of your argument then you're a few years late to the discussion. Even if this bill is overturned, or ruled unconstitutional, or whatever, it won't make selling M rated games to minors any more legal or illegal. Again, I don't think the issue you have is with this bill, it's with a system that has already let you down.

Because you live in a democracy, where the majority rules. If you don't like it: 1) vote, and hope that someone who better represents your interests in the next election gets elected, or 2) leave the country.

I'm not saying that as an inflammatory statement. In a democracy, the majority rules, period. If you don't like that system of government, then get busy overthrowing it, or whatever, but in the meantime, don't expect it to conform to your marginal wishes and desires (which I also wish it would, sometimes).

And for the record, I happen to believe games shouldn't be sold to minors. Yes the age limit is arbitrary, yes I believe there are exceptions to the rule, but for every homicidal cherry that exists (someone who can handle and contextualize violence in videogames without negative side effects) there are at least two delinquents who cannot. In the end, I believe it is to the benefit of society to enforce such legislation, and to it's detriment if it is not.
Click to expand...

I honestly cannot agree with you... sorry but i do believe that this sort of decision is in the individual's hands not the government....and you know it is probably because i hate certain parts of socialism with a passion (after all my family and i escaped my country for such reasons), so I had to pick option 2 before and it is not a pretty one, it should not even be an option.

i can understand the point that selling god of war to a 10 year old is the worst decision a parent could choose to do. But since the age minimum it is so arbitrary they should let the parents take that decision. I know there are parents out there that are also irresponsible but at that point i highly doubt their kids will end up being delinquents just because of the games they played.

and yes you are right i am more angry at the system than the law itself, after all i am no longer 17 years old, I am just sick and tired of this butchering of our rights, I am aware that democracy is not perfect but nowadays the majority is going pretty insane with the things they can enforce (such as this law and banning gay marriage...which does affect me but i don't want to get into that)
 
stealth toilet said:
Stores and manufacturers want to make money. If there's a demand for it, someone will sell it. I don't see the reason behind objecting to one bill because it might hypothetically lead to other bills that are less desirable.
Click to expand...

It's not really hypothetical it's enviable course of action if you look at how politicians keep railing on video games it's clearly a favorite whipping boy of both the right and left wing.

Why can't this bill pass and those bills not? Why is this the bill where the line is drawn? Or has the line, in your opinion, already been drawn and crossed?
Click to expand...

Because if you wait until it's that far we won't be able to stop no ifs, ands, or buts about it politically speaking the gaming community is weak unorganized compared to those that oppose it if we wait until they're right up on the line in the sand we are going to lose.

As far as this bill go it does cross line has for excessive parental interference by the government what video games they play, movies and TV shows they watch and music they listen to should be left up to the parents to decided not some jack booted nanny state.
 
Zidart said:
i can understand the point that selling god of war to a 10 year old is the worst decision a parent could choose to do. But since the age minimum it is so arbitrary they should let the parents take that decision. I know there are parents out there that are also irresponsible but at that point i highly doubt their kids will end up being delinquents just because of the games they played.
Click to expand...

I suppose I put more faith in politicians, representatives of the people who in general have a decent education and background, and who are in the public eye and accountable to the people they represent if they screw up, than I do other parents, who more often then not have an inadequate educational background, and are not accountable to anyone if they screw up their kids. I am assuming you would choose personal freedom over collective decision making, even though that could (and most likely will) result in negative consequences for other children, families, and by virtue of working and living with these people, your own children and family. Whereas I would choose collective decision making, even though it may be a bit arbitrary and would cut into one's own perceived freedom (though really, the right to make a wrong choice still seems a silly right to uphold), to protect not only my own children and family, but those others around me who would otherwise be too incapable or irresponsible to make a healthy decision.

Idiocracy (the comedy movie) really makes a good point about where the first option can lead us, and so far it seems to proving true.

redneckgamer 213 said:
As far as this bill go it does cross line has for excessive parental interference by the government what video games they play, movies and TV shows they watch and music they listen to should be left up to the parents to decided not some jack booted nanny state.
Click to expand...

This idea of "up to the parents" is a common rally cry amongst gamers whenever violent videogames get tangled into a news story involving some aggressive crime. "Where were the parents... it's the parent's fault... if the parents were more responsible, if they would have known, they could have seen the writing on the wall... if they payed attention to the warnings on the box..." all of these observations are simply excuses without merit if we don't take any action based off of them. So if violent videogames are not at the heart of the problem of these delinquent cases, as any gamer will tell you they are not, and if it is most often seen to be the parent's neglect that is the problem, then this bill is actually solving the problem identified by gamers. Its not the games, its the parents, and since that's the source of the problem, let's make it easier for all parents to become better parents.

I guess to me you can't have it both ways. As a gaming community we all recognize that parents have a huge influence on how their children contextualize violence in videogames, but no one in the gaming community seems to be willing to actually do anything about that. So the politicians have to step in. We can either continue the illusionary fantasy world where the majority of individual, freedom-loving parents are all making the same good decisions of their own accord, and only a few bad apples slip through the cracks, or we cover up the cracks with legislation, and keep what is realistically an abundance of bad apples from slipping there, because we know for a fact that without it they will.

But this bill is not even intended to do that, not even close, so I still don't get why it's such a big deal. Give'em an inch and they take a mile is one theory, but that seems paranoid as the difference between an inch and a mile is still really big, and I'm sure there will be lots of opportunities along the way to stop it.
 
well this is where i might step out of this discussion because. you keep calling it "the right to make a wrong choice" whether it is right or wrong it is for us individuals to decide. How is it wrong to let a 16 or 17 year old experiment or watch the magnificent storyline of the metal gear solid series, how is it wrong to let a 16 or 17 year old play around with the fun and fast paced battle system of Persona, how is it wrong to let a 16 or 17 year old get a scare out of any of the Resident evil/silent hill games? most of the people I know have played these games at or before this age range, and i have not experienced a columbine incident or anything of the sort. Of course i do have to agree it would be wrong to let a 16 or 17 year old who is failing school, and who might be doing drugs to play M rated games...but at that point that child is already screwed up.

There will always be children who will grow up to be delinquents, regardless of whether or not buying M rated games is legal or not, just look at my own country. Venezuela has the highest homicide rate in the world right now, and M rated games are outright banned there, it is not making a bit of difference, there are a lot of other factors in this world that can rot a kid other than videogames.
 
stealth toilet said:
But it already is, regardless of the outcome of this particular bill of legislation. If this is at the heart of your argument then you're a few years late to the discussion. Even if this bill is overturned, or ruled unconstitutional, or whatever, it won't make selling M rated games to minors any more legal or illegal. Again, I don't think the issue you have is with this bill, it's with a system that has already let you down.
Click to expand...
But it will. The ESRB isn't a government ratings system. There are no legal ramifications for selling an M-rated game to a minor. Stores are not required to follow ESRB guidelines and if someone sells a game to a minor, it is the employer that decides the punishment. There is a very very big difference between a voluntary ratings system that is completely outside of government control and making selling M-rated games to minors explicitly illegal. I don't like the current system, but this law would be another big step in the wrong direction.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top