Eleven States Back California’s Videogame Law
Attorney Generals from eleven states have come out and supported the Californian law which would restrict videogame sales to minors, classing certain violent games on par with pornography in its level of obscenity.
Connecticut, Florida, Hawaii, Illinois, Louisiana, Maryland, Michigan, Minnesota, Mississippi, Texas, and Virginia have all backed the law, which is currently being examined by the Supreme Court who will decide whether it is a breach of the First Amendment, or an effective way to protect children from videogame violence.
In a statement from Attorney General Richard Blumenthal of Connecticut, he notes that it is “consistent with the First Amendment and this Court’s longstanding precedents” to protect children from violence and offensive acts. He does note though that “California’s law doesn’t broadly prohibit minors from buying ‘violent’ games — but a subgenre of games that encourages players to commit graphic acts of homicide, rape, and sadism”. This is a fairly important point, but still begs the question how of these games could be judged.
Curiously, Blumenthal called for the videogame industry to agree to “self-imposed restrictions that block children from buying the most violent games” following “the leadership of the motion picture industry, which sensibly stops unattended children from viewing violent or graphic movies.” This exists already, however, in the form of the ESRB ratings system. The film industry similarly has a voluntary system, whose movies (apart from pornography) are not classed as obscene and thus protected by the First Amendment.
He also notes that while they haven’t yet imposed a law, “it is critical to preserve the state’s right to impose such limits.” (“Protecting State’s right” reads “let us do whatever we want, government is shit” in my opinion, however.)
As I’ve noted before, the 11 state’s intentions seem fairly honest: “protecting the welfare of children and in helping parents raise them.” The problem is the way in which they are classing videogames as separately obscene and not understanding the implications that has on the videogame industry and the medium: effectively making them lesser forms of art or entertainment than movies. The Supreme Court is due to give is decision around October, so I’d imagine plenty more states looking to “protect children” will come and support the law before then.
FFFFUUUUUUUUUUUUUUU! Imma go out and say it: If this happens, the same thing will happen to video games as did to comic books in the 60s and 70s, what with the Comics Code Authority. If this goes through, I swear to fucking christ, I will fight it tooth and goddamn nail.
I just can’t get upset. Maybe it’s being of age but… Maybe ultra violent games suck. Suck suck suck. No one should be playing COD black ops especially kids who may be suckered into thinking COD games are great.
Yeah, actively killing, raping and torturing characters in videogames is as artistic as art can get.
@ParaParaKing
Yes, because Bioshock, which under this law would be under the same scrutiny as GTA or Manhunt, isn’t an artistic work, and neither is the Half Life series. And this law totally wouldn’t cripple the games industry by restricting what types of games developers can make.
Dammit my state is on the list… Minnesota what the hell I thought you were liberal
Let’s cut the “games as art” debate bullshit. It’s getting old enough when it’s on-topic.
And why shouldn’t Bioshock and HL be under the same type of scrutiny as GTA or Manhunt? Kids shouldn’t be buying(or playing) any of those games on a count of the violence within them.
I’m far too lazy to actually do some research in order to have an informed opinion, but I wonder how many of those states have had some sort of school related shooting or act of violence that someone tried to connect to video games.
Also… rape? What over the counter game on a current generation console has the player commit rape?
@Naughton:
No, they shouldn’t. But that doesn’t mean that they’re not appropriate for people of the right age. This law is putting the games ON THE SAME LEVEL AS PORNOGRAPHY. If you believe that Bioshock and Half Life, or GTA and Manhunt for that matter, are on the same level as pornography in terms of offense and obscenity, you are as much of a threat to the games industry as Jack Thompson or Keith Vaz.
Wait a second here, I’m confused. I live in Illinois and I’m 14 and I already can’t buy games that are rated M. What is this changing, exactly?
@joepenn18: Right now, only a voluntary agreement between game companies and stores ensures minors such as yourself can’t buy those games.
This would make it illegal, as in written into law. Only porn has this similar restriction. Check this post for the background.
@Hawkeyed One: Honestly, I think violent games are just as obscene as pornography, and in some cases even more.
Near the end of Modern Warfare 2, there’s a section where you repel down a rock wall and stab an enemy in the neck. What follows is an excruciatingly slow(and wholly unnecessary) visual of blood spraying out of his neck, and his eyes rolling back in his head as he dies in a convincingly lifelike and brutal manner.
When I compare that to two people having consensual sex(which human being are wired to do, as compared to being wired towards committing gruesome acts of violence) on film, it makes my answer kind of easy.
Maybe being a parent makes me look at this stuff differently, but I think it’s worse for children to be repeatedly seeing images of gratuitous violence, most of which is caused by their own input.
I guess that makes me a “threat to the games industry.”
I think SCOTUS will find against CA. Don’t blame the industry for parents not being… well… parents.
@Naughton: Here’s an idea there sport. If parents don’t want their kids to see violent content like MW2, then maybe they should get off their asses and do it themselves and not try and make the government parent for them. Kids getting M rated games is the fault of the parent and not the government/publisher/developer/ESRB and there are tonnes of ways competent parents can check for use of these games. Save files, achievements, and a copy of the actual game need to go ignored IF the parent has not actually become a willing accessory to the child’s access to the game out of shoddy parenting.
If an adult wants access to violent entertainment such as this, he or she has the right to purchase it if someone has the satisfactory product with as little interference as possible, just like violent films. Games are in a unique position where the general public treats them as toys for children while the majority of the market is produced for adults so if this law were to be passed this would criminally punish companies for neglectful parenting when cases are levied against them in court.
Just a question: Why is kids not being allowed to play violent games a bad thing?
@Spann: It’s not. However, I don’t see it as being an issue that requires legislation. If parents would smarten the hell up and act like parents, this kind of stuff would not be discussed.
@Naughton: All well and good, however, it’s up to the PARENT to control the content that their children watch, not the government.
@Torinir: See, I think what they’ve done is perfectly fair. Essentially, they’ve given adults the opportunity to act like adults and parent their children properly, and when that hasn’t happened, they’ve made it law. So far as I’m aware, the BBFC ratings on games here in the UK makes it illegal to sell games to people below the mentioned age (I used to work for GAME, and I believe there was a huge fine if caught doing so), and we manage. At the end of the day, it’s like everything else; if people can’t be trusted to just NOT DO IT, punishment should be put in place. Unfortunately most ‘grown ups’ don’t deserve the title.
In my opinion, kids shouldn’t be allowed to play GTA or other games until they’re emotionally responsible and formed. My parents, who were very strict about this sort of stuff, let me watch films and play games that were above my age because in their opinion I was ready and fine to do so. The ratings are there to *help* parents judge, not the final and total decision.
Parents should judge what they think is appropriate for their kids, and laws like this in the UK only limit the sales – it’s not illegal for children to actually watch the films/play games.
The problem with this law is that it’s picking out games as more evil than other forms of entertainment. For better or worse, the First Amendment protects this sort of thing. (Although how totally absolutist Americans are about the Constitution is another issue..)
@P Marsh: I’m not trying to say that parents aren’t responsible for what their kids are playing. But anyone who’s played a round of MW2 over XBL knows they’re failing at an alarming rate. Hell, I went to see Predators the day it came out, and some jackass had a 2 year old with him in the theater.
In a perfect world, everyone would be an informed, caring parent, but that’s not the world we live in. The stupid people fuck everything up for the rest of us.
And don’t call people “sport”, it makes you look like an ass.
The gaming industry’s dealt with this issue for decades now and in response to being told, “How about you make less violent games?” the industry thumbs its nose at anyone who dare tell it what to do and kept popping out the same shit stacks with better graphics. Fuck that. There’s been ample warning to games companies who rely on selling these games to 14 and 15 year olds that they need to get their shit together or else.
I’m all for informing parents and keeping games like GTA out of the hands of kids (…even though I was playing GTA3 at 13), but in this argument Hawkeyed One’s point about video games having the same restrictions as pornography is the key. Specifically going after video games in this manner is worrying as it could affect what types of games are made and. like most of you, I like blowing things up and killing people. I enjoyed Manhunt immensely (despite the fact it was eventually banned here in Australia) and I would hate to think a game that presents a similar experience would never be made because of these laws. These kinds of restrictions won’t be on any other form of media other than video games and pornography.
That’s fucked.
@Naughton:
If your issue is with the realistic violence, then you should have the same problem with movies as you seem to with violent video games, if not more. I have seen movies, mostly the SAW series, that involve particularly gruesome scenes of murder, seemingly carried out on ACTUAL HUMAN BEINGS. A video game is totally different. In a game, you’re cutting up something that may be recognisably human, but looks far from photorealistic. No imagery in videogames is perfect. So if you have no problem with the way R rated movies restrict children, the same should go for video games. End of story.
Also, I have no problem with restricting M rated games from kids. I have actually instructed inquiring family friends (I’m the only one in my family/social circle who plays games) to specifically not buy games like GTA, MW2, or any M rated game, for their kids, at least untill they’re 16, and at that point it should be up to them. Still, this law is essentially putting M rated games on the same pedestal as porn, something that would harm the industry itself. As a future game designer, I’m am oppossed to ANYTHING that could harm my future career. As I’ve said before, I will not tolerate any form of ignorance or discrimination against my career and passion. I also will NEVER accept or tolerate ANYONE equating videogames to pornography. I consider it a personal insult, unless of course the games in question are of an actual pornographic nature, for anyone to claim they are anywhere near as offensive as pornography.
@Naughton: So you’re saying that the government should absolve parents of their responsibilities if they are incompetent? A government should not have to be an organization devoted to absorbing the responsibilities and covering for those who chose to accept and create duties for themselves that they were clearly unable to handle.
You’re right about stupid people fucking it up but the thing is, this is how they do it. When those who don’t want to accept their shortcomings are confronted by a trumped up “social issue” like this they try and get the government to do the work for them and in turn start ruining the ride for those who can handle these things.
@Hawkeyed One: True, movies do show violent acts carried out on what appear to be actual human beings, sometimes in a very realistic fashion, but there’s no user input involved, and I think that’s a very important distinction. Realism aside, there’s a difference in seeing something happen on a screen in comparison to making something happen on a screen. I’ve seen tons of characters in movies get their throats slit and forgot about it 5 minutes later, the only time it’s really stuck with me is when it happened because I made it happen.
I do actually have a problem with the way R-rated movies restrict children. The only part of Predators I found to be obscene was the guy who brought his two year old.
I admire your passion, but let me just tell you that no matter what you do, or how good you do it, you’re going to run in to people who are ignorant as well as discriminant toward your profession. You just have to let that shit roll off your back. Just ask Bobby Kotick.
Just to clear the air, I have no problem with violent video games(some parts of MW2 not withstanding). I’ve been playing the shit out of Red Dead for the past two months, and it’s the most fun I’ve had in a good long while. I also like drinking beer, and occasionally smoking a cigar at a poker game, but I’m all for restricting access of all of those things from minors, because I believe they can be damaging to them in various ways. Do I think that no person under the age of 18 should be able to play an M-rated game? Of course not. If the parents think their kid is ready for it, then by all means, let him play.
And lets be honest, whether the kid is mentally ready to play Modern Warfare 3 or not, the parents are still going to buy him the damn thing, which is why the industry will be fine regardless of this bill.
@Naughton: The point isn’t whether it’s wrong for children to have access to these materials such as violent video games, I’m pretty sure everyone is in agreement that it is. The argument is whether or selling video games to a minor or someone who openly intends to grant access to a minor is a justifiably criminal felony such as exposing citizens who are underage to pornography.
If a minor sneaks into an “R” rated film with what would be deemed obscene content such as violence, nudity, and course language, the owners or company have committed no reasonably criminal act. But if a minor gained access to this game, under this act those who sold him this game would be criminally responsible and be prosecuted as if he was sold pornographic material.
The point is that do you think that selling something like MW2 not only to children that are 9-13 but also to teens around the age of 15-17 (depending on the location) is a felony in ALL cases that may be.
@Naughton:
Agreed that the big issue is keeping kids who aren’t mature enough for these games from getting them. In my perfect world, kids under the age of 16 would never got on their hands on GTA, Modern Warfare, L4D, or any other M rated game, but unfortunately that doesn’t happen. Personally, I have never gone to a game-selling establishment that did not card for ID when someone wanted to buy an M rated game. And to be honest, I have obtained an M rated game through a gamestop, even though I didn’t have my ID on me at the time (a friend with ID bought the game with my money). They’ve even carded my dad twice, each time he tried to buy them. In my experience, Gamestop employees are incredibly responsible, and I think that they do the most they can to keep M rated games away from kids. Unfortunately, it doesn’t always happen.
Personally, I don’t think an actual law would change how many kids got their hands on M rated games; actually, I take that back. The Striesand Effect would come into play, and more kids would get their hands on games. My main problem is that the law would be redundant and ineffectual, and potentially damaging to the industry. Also, I legitimately feel that the government has no right to interfere with any form of non-pornographic entertainment, but that’s a political opinion. I think the best is to keep a very wary eye on the subject.
@Hawkeyed One: Fun Fact: Most kids get their hands on M+ rated games through their parents.
@P Marsh:@P Marsh:
Actually, this is why we have Foster Care.
Some parents will realize they fucked up and try to get their kids out of Fuck-up Hock, some don’t. Either way, the state does actually determine that you are fucking up your kid and takes them into custody. Look into Child Protective Services. No kid should ever have to go through it. Ever.
So between that and all sorts of regulation on the products your kids are exposed to, yes, it’s not unprecedented for the Government to step in in place of parents. Mostly because parents aren’t omnipresent and know what exactly’s going on. If I were a parent, I’d make sure I paid close attention to what games my kids played to make sure they weren’t being suckered into playing shit like GTA and Halo, but I’m not even a parent much less a typical case.
@Hawkeyed One: In a perfect world, minors also would never get their hands on pornography, tobacco, or alcohol. But, since that isn’t reality, there have to be rules to make sure that minors can’t buy any of those things, even if it is the responsibility of the parents to keep their children away from them. P Marsh actually justified the entire purpose of the bill by bringing up the fact that “Games are in a unique position where the general public treats them as toys for children while the majority of the market is produced for adults.” BAM.
I’m wondering what part of this whole thing is detrimental to the industry. How would this bill be “restricting what types of games developers can make?” Activision will still be able to make MW3, and there will still be millions of pre-pubescent little fuckers on XBL making it near unplayable for any of the actual adults that the game is made for.
Maybe I don’t get it because I don’t get why people are so anti-pornography while simultaneously being fine with violence. In the immortal words of Jeff Anderson, “it’s just shit going into other shit.”
@Naughton:
And what about the idea of games being toys for children not true? At least for the E10+ and under games, but I doubt that’s your point. I totally agree that kid’s shouldn’t get their hands on M rated games. I just don’t think this law will help in that matter.
The reason I think this law can be detrimental to the industry is because violent games will be put on a comparison to porn. When this happens, those games are much more likely to get a bad rap in the media. It will create an anti-gaming sentiment with the public, which I don’t think the industry can afford.
@Hawkeyed One: I meant that gaming as a whole is still regarded by a large amount of the population as being “for kids.” Look at the Mass Effect debacle with Fox News a few years ago. The sexual content in Mass Effect was relatively tame, but Fox News jumped all over it because they associate video games with children. Now maybe I’m crazy, but I believe that by classifying M-rated games as media that is explicitly for adults, the bad media they get right now will actually be lessened.
When’s the last time you saw a news report about the newest pornographic film where the media outlet was up in arms because it showed people *gasp* having sex?
I’m not saying all games are nesecarilly toys for kids, it’s a lot of the opposite if I’m being fair. I was only making the point that some games are. But you are right about Mass Effect, and if we can encourage the general public that game’s aren’t just toys for kids, we’d all be better off. However, I think there are probably better ways to do it than explicitly saying it in a law.
For the record, I have nothing against pornography. It can be very, ahem, enjoyable, if you’re into that sort of thing. The reason I have a problem with videogames being compared to porn is because the sex in pornography is mostly gratuitous and doesn’t mean shit. I don’t think I’ve seen or heard of a piece of pornographic media that anyone has claimed is “artistic”. Games on the otherhand, have been compared as art (Before you say the games as art debate is off topic, it isn’t. One of the major issues is whether the games are protected under the first ammendment, as an artfuorm and therefor a type of expression.) such as Bioshock or Half Life. Personally, I think you technically *could* make a piece of pornographic art “artistic”, but it would kinda lose the point of being porn…