U.S. Supreme Court to hear challenge to California violent video game law

[El Nino]

http://www.mercurynews.com/crime-courts/ci_16486866?source=rss

Excerpts:

Every state in the nation prevents minors from legally buying cigarettes, beer or porn magazines. Now the U.S. Supreme Court must decide whether to add violent video games such as "Postal 2" to the tawdry list.

In a legal showdown set for Tuesday, the justices will hear arguments in a challenge to a 2005 California law that bars the sale or rental of violent video games to minors. They are reviewing two lower-court rulings that put the law on hold, saying it is too vague and runs afoul of the First Amendment.

The case has aroused the passions of both sides, from gamers who want the government to keep its nose out of policing video games to politicians and parents' rights groups that believe states have a right to protect kids from graphic depictions of violence.

The justices have been reviewing more than the usual legal briefs. California sent them a five-minute clip of video game violence, while the video game industry delivered a number of games for them to spark up on PlayStations, including "Medal of Honor" and "Resident Evil 4."

Other states are divided on the issue. Eleven states sided with California's argument that the First Amendment does not apply to government efforts to insulate children from harmful material. But nine states backed the entertainment industry, saying that California's law may be well-intentioned but would force law enforcement to become "culture critics" and "distract from (the) task of policing actual violence."

In last year's ruling, the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals found that regardless of problems with violent video games, California officials did not establish a scientific connection between violent video games and physical and psychological harm to minors.

My opinion:

Considering that Grand Theft Auto IV reportedly sold 609000 copies on the first day it was released, if there were a strong correlation between real life violence and video games, you'd expect a slight jump in the number of violent incidents immediately after a game is put out. To date, I don't think I've seen any statistics that supports that case.

I think people see things like school shootings and they pick the most convenient target to blame. They do it because it's easy. The real roots of violence and crime are too deep for them to tackle, but they want to feel as if they're doing something about it. As a result, they just keep piling on useless legislation in a state that already has a million regulations.

California is such a nanny state at this point that it's become real effing hilarious. Sure, ban the sale of violent games to minors. But tell me what you're gonna do about gang violence and drug addiction. Tell me what you're gonna do about child abuse. Because everything I've seen tells me that children who exhibit violent behavior do so after witnessing or experiencing it firsthand. And that is something no computer animation (no matter how well rendered) could ever do to someone.

 

[Pluvia]

Well, being British, I only recently learned that kids could buy games no matter how old they are there. Over here there's a age limit on computer games.

For example (I just ran upstairs to check my games) you have to be 16 to buy and play Halo: Reach, 16 for Fable 3, 18 for the Fallout games and 18 for the CoD games.

Basically when I go to buy Black Ops on the 9th I'll have to show my ID at the supermarket (I'm 18 so it'll be fine), and if I tried to buy it online it would reject my card if I was underage. It's not a "OMG GAMES CAUSE MURDERS WE MUST CENSOR THEM!!!1!" it's more of a "Hmm, maybe we should frown upon letting 6 year olds blow off peoples heads with shotguns or stab them in the face with knives as being an acceptable daily activity for someone that age" sort of thing. It's for protecting childhood innocence as you'll have plenty of time being an adult and seeing all those things then.

It's like our movies too, kids can go watch Spider-Man fight Doctor Octopus and save New York (Spider-Man 2), but can't go watch a rapist get forced into chains at gunpoint and then have a mini scyth swing into his eye, bloodily blinding him, and watch as he screams in terror right before the chains rip his limbs off whilst the tv shows one of his recordings of him beginning to **** someone (Saw 4. Yes that actually happens in Saw 4). The reason why kids aren't allowed to buy films like that, or be allowed into the cinema to watch films like that, is not because we think they're going to become murderers but because it's better to preserve their innocence and kids don't need to see things like that.

(

Spoiler

Though, as long as they're 12, or accompanied by an adult if they're under 12, they can watch decapitated heads be flung over a wall by a catapult onto screaming civilians in LoTR, or they can watch Kick-*** if they're 15. Seriously, I loved Kick-*** but how the hell is that not an 18?!?

)

 

[Grandeza]

Gamestop doesn't allow you to buy rated M games here if you're under 18 without a guardian, at least in New York.

 

[El Nino]

It's for protecting childhood innocence as you'll have plenty of time being an adult and seeing all those things then.

It's a Western concept, and one that I was slightly removed from in terms of media while growing up because my parents didn't really care too much what I watched, played, or read. The only exception was explicit sexuality.

My father dropped out of school in the 8th grade (around 14 years old). He went to work on a farm and traveled the country with his friends. In his country, in that time, no one really babied their kids for too long. Everyone had to grow up fast.

But I was born in the U.S., and by the time I was 12, I had already gotten my hands on explicit pornography in books. Some of the things I read during that time were adult books involving all manner of violence and sex. My brother and I got our hands on rated R movies all the time. It didn't ruin us psychologically. If anything, since we had not witnessed real violence firsthand, we didn't fully comprehend the things we saw on the screen, not enough to make it real in our minds. Even in the visual format, whether pixelated or with live actors, it was always fake to us.

I also remember playing war, and it always involved exploding heads and people being lowered into pools of larva. And I wrote stories that usually included rampant violence. And my teachers read them and graded them based on technique, rather than content. This was before the age of 14.

I think people overestimate the power of media. I don't know what they are afraid of, but somewhere along the line, as media has increased in presence in our lives, we've somehow lost touch of what is real and what isn't. That seems to me to be the only reason why we go so far to protect our children from imaginary monsters. Maybe we do it because the real monsters are harder to face.

 

[Pluvia]

Yeah nobody here abides by the laws when it comes to DVDs etc. When I really young I saw a lot of films I wasn't meant to at that age (Terminator films, Alien films, Die Hard films) but everyone does. I can honestly say I don't know anyone who hasn't seen films that they're technically not allowed to. Everyone does it, nobody cares. Same with games, everyone had GTA, everyone has MW2 (heck they even made a joke about it on Xbox Live Dashboard when one of the editors said "MW2 is out! And it seems to be full of people who must be 18 seeing as though they bought the game but who sound like they're 12") and yet again nobody cares.

The age rating system is more like guidance than anything, you still cant buy 18 games if you're under 18 or go into the cinema to watch 18 rated films, but if you play an 18 rated game or watch an 18 rated film its not the governments fault, its your parents for buying it for you.

So basically I don't see this California thing as a "nanny move", more of a "We say you're not allowed to do this, but if you do (and it's incredibly likely that you will) it's not our fault". People will have to look to the parents when they make the blame game now, not CA, and that's all CA cares about.

 

[Wrath`]

Gamestop doesn't allow you to buy rated M games here if you're under 18 without a guardian, at least in New York.

Although it is probably the law, about two days after Halo reach came out I was at my Local NY Gamestop looking through used PS2 games and a group of 4 10-15 yearolds came in and bout 3 copies of Halo, no ID's necessary or anything. So It all depends on who is working the store also. So even if this law is passed, it wont be enforce 100% of the time.

 

[Mic_128]

We've had this over here for years without any issues. Little Jonny wants Postal 2? Sure, but he has to buy it with a parent present. What's that Jonny? Mummy's not here? Tough luck kid. We've got the same law also covering movies. Billy can't go and watch Saw 7 without an adult with him.

I really don't see the big issue tbh.

 

[Maniclysane]

I really don't see the big issue tbh.

The problem is do we want the government to decide what games are too violent for those under 18.

I think the best example is M rated games would instead be treated like AO games; too objectionable to be worth stocking. This is all speculation though. If you read even the first few pages of the transcript you will see why it's as bad as it is.

 

[Pluvia]

Chances are M rated games will turn into adult only games. This only affects kids and keeps the blame off the government, and there's nothing wrong with that.

 

[El Nino]

Chances are M rated games will turn into adult only games. This only affects kids and keeps the blame off the government, and there's nothing wrong with that.

I don't think the government was ever held directly responsible for violence committed by minors, certainly not if the violence was thought to be inspired by video games, considering that the government doesn't produce or distribute video games. Banning the sale of violent games to minors takes the blame off of the game industry, if anything. The government is just there to enforce laws.

If anything, you'd think that the game companies would welcome the ban because they wouldn't have to answer to anything, but it seems that they don't support it, most likely because it interferes with business.

We've had this over here for years without any issues. Little Jonny wants Postal 2? Sure, but he has to buy it with a parent present. What's that Jonny? Mummy's not here? Tough luck kid. We've got the same law also covering movies. Billy can't go and watch Saw 7 without an adult with him.

I really don't see the big issue tbh.

At most, this can be viewed as an annoyance, but I dislike the mentality and the reasoning behind it. I don't like the way my country and my state handles, or attempts to handle, problems involving kids and violence. People get so passionate about banning something (be it tobacco, marijuana, or violent media), but I don't see any changes after the ban is put into place. I don't think violence committed by minors has gone down and I don't think it will go down if the ban is maintained, which begs the question of why we have the ban in the first place.

I get the distinct impression that we waste so much time on useless legislation that has to be written and enforced, and it ultimately has an impact on the economy. I don't like that my tax dollars go into stuff like this. On top of that, the mentality behind it makes no sense, but we keep using that mentality to try to "fix" problems in society. I don't think it's working, and if we keep it up, we'll never be able to do anything about the problems in our communities. It's just be the same bull**** cycling through for generations.

 

[Pluvia]

Interferes with business in what way? It doesn't drive down sales, a fact that you can check by studying the game sales in countries with this already enforced. Halo: Reach Legendary was sold out on the 2 biggest game selling websites here before it was even released, and even in my small town (the closest city is over 100 miles away) we sold out of MW2 within an hour after its release. 80 copies of a game that only adults can buy in under an hour is insane.

And you seem to be seeing this as an attempt to stop violence in minors when all the article says is "rights groups that believe states have a right to protect kids from graphic depictions of violence."

So it falls in line with what I've been saying, this ban isn't about blaming games for violence in kids, it's more about protecting kids innocence.

 

[Poltergust]

I don't think that people realize what the main problem is here. It's not that video games shouldn't be sold to minors, but that the government would be able to regulate video games if the Supreme Court goes in favor of the California law.

Hm, where is that video that explains everything? (in a humorous manner, too)

...

Here we go. Watch this: http://www.escapistmagazine.com/videos/view/extra-credits/1961-Free-Speech

 

[El Nino]

Interferes with business in what way?

The game industry has recently also taken measures to restrict the sale of used games. It seems that there is concern about profits. Furthermore, any restriction on the sale of a product has an impact on the overall numbers sold. You may sell a million copies under the ban, but could you have sold 1.1 million without the ban? Why do companies care about the 0.1 million? That depends on their own costs of production.

My point isn't that people ought to support these companies. My point is that this is the reason why the entertainment industry wants the ban removed. Logically, it does make sense from a business perspective.

So the question is: Will the loss to the overall state economy caused by the ban be balanced out by some sort of benefit to society? That's the part I question.

And you seem to be seeing this as an attempt to stop violence in minors when all the article says is "rights groups that believe states have a right to protect kids from graphic depictions of violence."

So it falls in line with what I've been saying, this ban isn't about blaming games for violence in kids, it's more about protecting kids innocence.

Also from the article:

But nine states backed the entertainment industry, saying that California's law may be well-intentioned but would force law enforcement to become "culture critics" and "distract from (the) task of policing actual violence."

And from movie studios to media organizations, lawyers have warned the Supreme Court that regulating video game violence could spill into all forms of artistic expression that depict violence in story lines, whether the movie "Saving Private Ryan" or the "Harry Potter" series. Even the Comic Book Legal Defense Fund has weighed in.

I would classify "preserving innocence" as an act of "cultural criticism," unless you can provide an explanation to the contrary. This raises the question about the purpose of law enforcement and government. Is it the role of the government to "preseve innocence"? Or is the role of the government more limited to things like public safety?

As far as I can tell, public safety is a primary function of the government, whereas cultural criticism and "preserving innocence" are not. And if this legislation has no impact on public safety, then I see little justification for it being enforced. "Preserving innocence" is a subjective notion that parents are responsible for.

 

[Life]

If you can't tell the difference between red pixels and human blood, whose fault is that?

Just sayin'.

 

[The Drifter]

What's considered, "too adult" for consumers is, for the most part, based on the mindset of the consumer themselves. We have people who have been exposed to violence from a young age (and not because of life circumstances, but because of literature choice etc) and some that are sheltered from violence. This is exactly what happens when sees something that doesn't effect everyone "violence in video games", the government makes a generalization, in this case it's "violence among youth is on the rise because of these video games", points the finger of blame at something, video games, and then makes a law such as "banning violent games"

 

[GoldShadow]

Interferes with business in what way? It doesn't drive down sales, a fact that you can check by studying the game sales in countries with this already enforced. Halo: Reach Legendary was sold out on the 2 biggest game selling websites here before it was even released, and even in my small town (the closest city is over 100 miles away) we sold out of MW2 within an hour after its release. 80 copies of a game that only adults can buy in under an hour is insane.

Halo and Modern Warfare are poor examples. These are extraordinarily popular games. Of course they will sell out very quickly, regardless of the circumstances.

You should be looking at lesser-known or lower-selling games or originals, which comprise the vast, vast, vast majority of the market. It's these games and these companies that will be affected. Not the Halos and CoDs of the gaming world.

 

[Pluvia]

Games such as? I'm raking my brain to find good, small games which hold an 18 or 16 rating and have been affected badly by this.

Edit:

To elaborate a bit, games are expensive and cost money that kids will more than likely not have. Kids have to ask their parents to buy games for them anyway because they don't have the money, so they're not going to go buy some random lesser known game, they're going to go buy COD, Bioshock, Mass Effect, RE5, Halo or other big games.

If they do manage to (somehow) get the money for games, through birthdays or whatever, but notice that they can't buy it because it's an 18, the conversation usually goes "Mum will you get me this game I'll give you the money for it". Problem solved.

So in conclusion, lesser known or lower selling games don't get bought by kids anyway, because kids can't afford them.

 

[Lore]

Games such as? I'm raking my brain to find good, small games which hold an 18 or 16 rating and have been affected badly by this.

Persona 3 and 4, two games which have been rated 13+ in most countries but are rated M here, would like to say hello.

What we need is more of a clarification of what makes a game rated M, a rating between M and T, or a completely redone rating system. Heck, the first Halo should have been rated T, but it was rated M.

The current "system" of not selling games to minors unless a parent is present is perfectly fine; it puts the control of the situation in the hands of a parent, where it should be up to a point. What we don't need is an extremely vague law that is difficult to enforce.

Edit: Oh, and @ your edit, kids these days usually get allowance and have access to the internet, where they can find reviews and headlining previews (like on IGN) of lesser known games. Try again.

 

[Pluvia]

Try again? The kids that have the kind of parents who give them allowances are more than likely going to have the kind of parents who'll buy them games if they asked, and/or used their allowance money to pay for it.

My best friends brother, who is 12, has access to the Internet and has no lesser known games. I'm 18 and have never heard of Persona so kids under the age of 13 aren't going to have heard about it/care about it.

 

[El Nino]

Try again? The kids that have the kind of parents who give them allowances are more than likely going to have the kind of parents who'll buy them games if they asked, and/or used their allowance money to pay for it.

Well, that kind of depends. In my experience, allowances were given for doing chores. Parents who use this method don't usually just buy their kids whatever they want. They make their kids work for their money. I'm sure that's not the only way it's done, but just wanted to bring it up.

My best friends brother, who is 12, has access to the Internet and has no lesser known games. I'm 18 and have never heard of Persona so kids under the age of 13 aren't going to have heard about it/care about it.

I've heard of Persona. But the issue isn't about whether or not kids "care" about it. We'll assume that you're right and most kids under 13 haven't heard about Persona. Wouldn't that scenario back the argument that age restrictions on the sales of games have a negative effect on overall sales? And wouldn't that mean that game developers have an invested interest in removing the restrictions so they can pull in higher profits?

 

[Pluvia]

Working for your allowance only makes the chances of them buying a game for you bigger.

A quick Google search and I can't find anything about games developers wanting age restrictions removed in countries that have age restrictions. Black Ops was released last night at midnight, it's an 18 rating, and it sold out here.

Age restrictions don't affect sales in any way, it doesn't matter how big or small the games is.

 

[El Nino]

Working for your allowance only makes the chances of them buying a game for you bigger.

Not in my household. But now I'm curious. How does that work?

A quick Google search and I can't find anything about games developers wanting age restrictions removed in countries that have age restrictions.

Game developers are the ones spearheading the challenge to the violent game law in CA:

'Nationally, industry officials are speaking out about the issue. “As a game developer, I am disheartened and a little perplexed to see my art and passion lumped in with cigarettes and booze,” Daniel Greenberg, a Washington-based video game writer and designer, wrote in a recent Washington Post op-ed.'

Source: http://www.sltrib.com/sltrib/entertainment/50609423-81/games-video-game-violent.html.csp

Age restrictions don't affect sales in any way, it doesn't matter how big or small the games is.

The concept-people behind the games may be artists, but the executives above them are business people. If an industry is speaking out about something (and spending money on court cases), there's a financial benefit to be had.

Think of it this way. We'll say that age restrictions don't bring down sales. But lifting those restrictions will most likely increase sales.

 

[Pluvia]

This isn't the debate hall, nor do I really care that much if you believe me.

I really can't be arsed writing a response as you've split it up into 3 sections now, which will mean that I'll have to reply to each section separately, making a really long post which will just make longer and longer posts between us all just for us to eventually come to the conclusion that neither of us agree with each other.

So basically we'll leave it here. You thinking that the government trying to protect kids from scenes of brutal violence, murder and possibly sex and drugs will lead to a bankrupt gaming industry and a slippery slope to The Thought Police (presumably), and me trying to point out that , no, that's not the case, as you'd be able to tell if you researched countries with age ratings already in place.

 

[Budget Player Cadet_]

Just thought I'd throw in... Am I the only one who sees issue with making laws based on a decision which is not made by a government organ, and which is completely subjective? I mean, Melee and Brawl are both rated T. Why? Who the **** knows, but they're on the same level as Halo or Unreal Tournament. Makes very little sense.

 

[El Nino]

I really can't be arsed writing a response as you've split it up into 3 sections now, which will mean that I'll have to reply to each section separately, making a really long post which will just make longer and longer posts between us all just for us to eventually come to the conclusion that neither of us agree with each other.

Debate and discussion just come with the territory when you have a room dedicated to current events. The way I see it, anyone can back out of a discussion for any reason. You don't owe me any explanations, or anything.

 

[T.testLP]

Ban every game except Brawl. Children will camp all day. No violence. Problem solved!

 

[Colonel Cuddles]

I don't like the way they use Postal 2 as an example. I'm not sure if this was very popular, but for all I know it is a little known game that just happens to be very violent. If it is overly violent, it still isn't hurting much, as people really don't know about it. Call of Duty or Halo would be a better example, as they are both violent and popular.