[Vigilous]

As most of you are well aware, Congressman Leland Yee (D-CA) has put forth legislation in California to ban the sale of M and AO-rated video games to anyone under the age of eighteen, citing "scientific studies" as the need for the bill. However, M and AO-rated games are never actually called out. Rather, Yee wishes to ban any game "in which the range of options available to a player includes killing, maiming, dismembering, or sexually assaulting an image of a human being." Initially, a California ciruit court judge struck down the measure, on the grounds of it being a blatant slap in the face to the First Amendment. Now, Yee wishes to take it to the Supreme Court, after having floundered in the appellate courts.

This move, if successful, has wide-ranging implications. Not just for video games, but all creative industries on an Orwellian scale. All it takes is just one, and any other two-bit politician with an idea will strike at something he feels is "indecent" or "wrong." It gives the government the in they need to control what you watch, hear, and play.

Or maybe not. Just announced, the Comic Book Defense Fund has filed a "friend of the court" brief on behalf of the games industry. A rep from the comics lobby said, "The first amendment is indivisible. If it's weakened for one medium, it's weakened for all. If a precedent is established for the censorship of games, it will be used for everybody else. You'll see a lot of support for our position from different quarters."

And that support has just dropped the hammer. 182 experts and organizations have thrown in their hats with the games industry to challenge the bullshit "think of the children" measure. From the US Chamber of Commerce to the scientific community, all have descended upon Sacramento to point and laugh at Yee's tiny political cock.

"The depth, diversity, and high quality of briefs submitted strengthens our position before the Court," ESA president and CEO Michael Gallagher said in a statement. "These briefs are rooted in virtually every form of expression, commerce, social science, and constitutional jurisprudence imaginable. It is our hope that the Court will uphold an unbroken chain of lower court rulings that affirm video games' First Amendment protections, the rights of consumers' access to speech, and that parents--not government--are the best arbiters in determining what is right for their children."

What really, really grinds my gears about this madness, is the just how ignorant and lazy this proves today's parents to be. That, and this is a complete waste of time and tax payer money. It seems that the "think of the children" assholes have forgotten about the V-Chip. That nice little piece of engineering in TVs that allow parents to block channels and shows they deem inappropriate. What does this have to do with video games? Parents have always demanded a way to control what their kids have access to. And electronics industries have been more than willing to oblige. All current game systems - as well as computers - have parental controls. They can be set to block any game rated any rating. So why must there be a law restricting sale? Why all this fervor? Simply put, parents are fucking stupid. They clamor for more control, then promptly forget it and demand something else. Each system developer has a how-to in the instruction manual as well as FAQs on their Web sites. The ESRB Web site has a tutorial on how to access and set up parental controls for all game consoles. I really wish someone would slap Yee and the Governator. With a fish.

Gamespot: 182 experts, organizations denounce CA game law
Gamespot: Comic lobby rallies against CA game law
Jpystiq: US Supreme Court to weigh CA game law

[treelo]

I'm not concerned, the gaming industry continued to boom during the recent economic maelstrom and most governments where games development is quite prevalent were happy enough to encourage the companies based there. As far as I'm aware, the sale of rated games to minors is already a crime (I'm 90% sure it is here) so it doesn't matter either way.

Games are already subject to quite stringent censorship as it is.

[Corrderio]

I don't know if it was illegal or not, or if you needed the parent's permission first.

Either way, this guy is going to become the next Jack Thompson, just watch.

[renzuko]

admittedly, wikipedia isnt that reliable as a source, but it says that it is not illegal, in the us, to sell an m rated game to a minor. europes version is legally binding, and it is illegal to sell whatever their version of an m rating to a minor.

on the parental controls related note...i dont know how often i would tell parents to not just ignore the parental controls question when i helped them set their wii up -.-;; the wii might not have the most violent games, but still...and i just ABSOLUTELY loved how often kids would call in trying to get me to reset the parental controls on their wii or dsi's...dont know how often they'd just hang up as soon as i asked for a parent, or called them on their bullshit when they forced their own voice down to sound like their parents...it was generally an automatic failure for the call when i would do that, but i had so much fun...OR id forgo asking for the parent, and, as per nintendo's cover our own ass policy, we need to get their info, number, adress, name, email adress, then leave a note saying who asked for the reset. i'd almost never get the phone number...as much as i hated the job, i kinda miss laughing at the little kids as they tried to lie their way to getting to the AWESOME ONLINE FEATURES of the wii or dsi -.-;;

This post has been edited by renzuko: 20 September 2010 - 07:46 PM

[Keylime]

renzuko, on 20 September 2010 - 07:35 PM, said:

admittedly, wikipedia isnt that reliable as a source, but it says that it is not illegal, in the us, to sell an m rated game to a minor. europes version is legally binding, and it is illegal to sell whatever their version of an m rating to a minor.

on the parental controls related note...i dont know how often i would tell parents to not just ignore the parental controls question when i helped them set their wii up -.-;; the wii might not have the most violent games, but still...and i just ABSOLUTELY loved how often kids would call in trying to get me to reset the parental controls on their wii or dsi's...dont know how often they'd just hang up as soon as i asked for a parent, or called them on their bullshit when they forced their own voice down to sound like their parents...it was generally an automatic failure for the call when i would do that, but i had so much fun...OR id forgo asking for the parent, and, as per nintendo's cover our own ass policy, we need to get their info, number, adress, name, email adress, then leave a note saying who asked for the reset. i'd almost never get the phone number...as much as i hated the job, i kinda miss laughing at the little kids as they tried to lie their way to getting to the AWESOME ONLINE FEATURES of the wii or dsi -.-;;

Hush Renzuko, you're making me wish I worked in tech support again.

[Vigilous]

Quote

I'm not concerned, the gaming industry continued to boom during the recent economic maelstrom and most governments where games development is quite prevalent were happy enough to encourage the companies based there. As far as I'm aware, the sale of rated games to minors is already a crime (I'm 90% sure it is here) so it doesn't matter either way.

Games are already subject to quite stringent censorship as it is.

Actually, the games industry has been slowly proving it is not safe against the recession (or whatever hell we're in now). Every month, there's news about how much sales have slipped over the previous year. The problem I am really bring up, in addition to the stupidity of modern parents, is that American law has this great way of using precedence in future proceedings. Case law essentially means if a law was made for one thing, it can be applied to another. It is still up to a court, but the lawyer presenting the case for the new law will have an edge because someone else already made a similar ruling.

One of the main arguments for this law in California, is that there is a ban on selling porn to minors.

[Cruzandercerberus]

California needs to be nuked before the infection gets out of control.

[MrReinhardt]

Quote

California needs to fall into the ocean before the infection gets out of control.

FTFY

[treelo]

Vigilous, on 21 September 2010 - 11:42 AM, said:

Actually, the games industry has been slowly proving it is not safe against the recession (or whatever hell we're in now). Every month, there's news about how much sales have slipped over the previous year. The problem I am really bring up, in addition to the stupidity of modern parents, is that American law has this great way of using precedence in future proceedings. Case law essentially means if a law was made for one thing, it can be applied to another. It is still up to a court, but the lawyer presenting the case for the new law will have an edge because someone else already made a similar ruling.

One of the main arguments for this law in California, is that there is a ban on selling porn to minors.

All law is based upon precedent, not just American law. "Thou shalt not kill" being a perfect example.

I mentioned the economy becuase that's the major reason why it'll never happen. You don't blanket ban violent games for exactly the same reason you don't ban all violent movies. That's where all the money is. I wasn't attempting to claim the gaming industry was recession proof, though it certainly grew during the initial stages of the prior upset, just that the revenue involved is phenomenal and that for tax reasons alone you'd be bonkers to try and cripple them like this. That's without considering the political backlash such an action would invoke.

Prohibiting the sale of 18-rated games to minors is perfectly fine, because most parents don't know how to raise their kids.

[treelo]

On a related note, the new Medal of Honor (sic) game is causing some controversy over here. Defence Minister calls for ban as players take on the role of Taliban insurgents.

Now we all remember the shitstorm that ensued when MW2 was released due to the Airport level. Yet nothing was said of the fact players run around shouting in arabic and gunning down American SpecOps in the multiplayer mode, which is precisely what this dumb fuck is complaining about here. It seems our glorious leaders would rather encourage a multiplayer mode where American and British troops face off in a lethal game of frenetic fratricide instead of assuming the role of our "enemies". Fucking ridiculous. That's without taking into account that by EA's own admission the game features no British soldiers at all, but don't even get me started on that shit...

[Arkley]

Quote

That's without taking into account that by EA's own admission the game features no British soldiers at all, but don't even get me started on that shit...

Well, what do you expect? It's an American made game aimed at a largely American audience. Couple that with the fact that it'll sell like cheap cider in a working class neighbourhood over here since 90% of the media we consume is entirely American anyway, and there's just no reason for the devs to confuse their primary audience with another group of funny-accented NPCs. Yeah, it's quite unrealistic that a game taking place primarily in Helmand would feature no British soldiers, but where would you have them crowbar in realism? Between surviving three bullets to the head, and hiding behind an invincible wooden door while the head-holes heal?

You're like, the fifth Brit I've encountered who has a problem with the absence of British troops in this game, and I just can't see why anyone would give a shit.

This post has been edited by Arkley: 23 September 2010 - 05:49 PM

[treelo]

Oh I have a problem with it in any game. It's simple pedantry, of which I am overwhelmingly guilty of in any format, not just games. It depends entirely on the plot I suppose, yet to completely gloss over the fact that the British are even there is a joke. You'd wonder what the fuck was going on if someone released a game set in Vietnam with a British protagonist, I fail to see how this is any different. It's ignorant, and quite insulting to the people fighting out there to just dismiss them entirely, regardless of whether it's "just a game." I have no problem with there being no Brits involved, providing it fits with the context and setting of the game, which quite clearly isn't the case here.

I'm used to it, and it won't really influence my decision of whether I buy the game or not (I probably will, I fondly remember the original MoH and some of the sequels) but it doesn't stop me from being pissed off about it.

[Irvine666]

Jack Thompson has tried this exact same crap. He was a lawyer in Florida and the bum was eventually disbarred. I highly doubt this Chinese-American politician can pull off this crap.