California game law struck down

Ruling barring state's attempt to regulate violent games strikes a far different tone from industry's previous court victories.

The Entertainment Software Association and Entertainment Merchants Association have won a number of lawsuits challenging laws regulating violent or sexually explicit games in states like Illinois, Michigan, and Louisiana in recent years.

Today they won another one, as US District Judge Ronald Whyte sided with the trade groups in their suit to overturn a California game restriction law. The two groups had already been granted a preliminary injunction to keep the law from going into effect in December of 2005.

However, whereas past judges seemed to side enthusiastically with the trade groups and their arguments that games are protected under the First Amendment's right to free speech, Whyte's decision had a very different tone to it.

"The Act regulates video games, which, even though mere entertainment, are nonetheless protected by the First Amendment," Whyte wrote in his decision, adding, "Expression is not outside the protections of the First Amendment 'simply because it is base and malignant.'"

While the judge in the Louisiana case mocked the evidence presented by the state to show that games can have harmful effects on minors (going so far as to put the word "evidence" in quotation marks), Whyte was more swayed by California's argument.

"This court is not as doubtful as other courts have been as to the legislature's power to restrict the access of minors to violent video games or as skeptical of [the state's expert witness] Dr. Anderson's conclusions," Whyte wrote. "The legislature does have the power...to enact legislation that limits a minor's First Amendment rights if the legislation can be shown to truly protect a minor's psychological and physical well-being and is narrowly drafted to pass strict scrutiny."

However, Whyte ultimately ruled that the state's attempt to legislate games was unconstitutional for many of the same reasons as the judges in other cases.

"However, at this point, there has been no showing that violent video games as defined in the Act, in the absence of other violent media [emphasis in original], cause injury to children," he wrote.

He continued, "The court, although sympathetic to what the legislature sought to do by the Act, finds that the evidence does not establish the required nexus between the legislative concerns about the well-being of minors and the restrictions on speech required by the Act."

In a statement on the ruling, EMA president Bo Andersen called the decision a foregone conclusion.

"It was inevitable that the federal district court would find the California video game restriction law unconstitutional," Anderson said, "as eight similar laws around the country have been overturned in the past six years. We informed the legislature that this would be the eventual result when it was considering the law, and it is indeed unfortunate that legislature ignored the prior cases.

"It is now time for the California legislature to move beyond political grandstanding and accept the video game industry's invitation to work with them to educate the public about video game ratings and encourage parents to utilize those ratings when selecting video games for their families."

[UPDATE]: ESA spokesperson Dan Hewitt issued the following statement on the ruling: "The computer and video game industry leads in providing caregivers the most comprehensive and effective information and tools to ensure the entertainment children enjoy is parent-approved. As such, the Entertainment Software Association is pleased with today's permanent injunction ruling as it cements nationwide judicial consensus that our self-regulatory efforts work and attempts to regulate computer and video games are unconstitutional. We look forward to the opportunity this ruling now affords us and invite legislators, community leaders, and family advocates to raise awareness and usage of the resources we provide."

[UPDATE 2]: The bill's original author, former Assemblyman and current state Senator Leland Yee, has also weighed in on the judge's decision.

"I am shocked that the Court struck down this common-sense law," Yee said in a statement. "AB 1179 worked to empower parents by giving them the ultimate decision over whether or not their children should be playing in a world of violence and murder."

Yee also noted the change in tone from previous judicial rulings on the subject, citing the year-plus deliberation time before an opinion was handed down as a sign that "the ever-growing body of evidence that violent video games are harmful to children is getting harder and harder to ignore."

"We simply cannot trust the industry to regulate itself," Yee said. "I strongly urge the Governor and the Attorney General to appeal this decision to a higher court and to the Supreme Court if necessary until our children are protected from excessively violent video games."

403 Comments

  • ARO666666

    Posted Oct 27, 2008 7:37 pm PT

    And by the way does anyone else think that violent video games help you take out your frustrations? I mean its better to kill someone in a game rather than real life thats for sure.

  • ARO666666

    Posted Oct 27, 2008 7:35 pm PT

    I don't get it, I'm 14 and just because I play a violent video game it doesn't make me want to shoot someone or punch them in the face if a kid (or anyone for that matter) feels the need to do that it's not the game IT'S THEM. Anyone who feels the urge to do that needs some mental help.

  • BDANick

    Posted Aug 29, 2007 6:55 am PT

    I dont think its games that are doing it. Honestly, i think ive become far more desensitized from all of the horror movies i watch then from any of the games. Scenes such as those found in Hostel... they dont do anything for me anymore... i dont cringe, i dont even feel that much compassion for the poor girl... I dunno, im not a very violent person, but i have definitly noticed that it takes far more to motivate me emotionally in those sort of situations, and i have to wonder whether that could stir some people to do, well, very nasty, very imaginative and sick things to others... I love horror, i love violence. Im not a violent person, hell im a veggie... but ive started to feel like maybe, especially for minors, it might not be such a bad idea to at least keep a closer eye on what is exposed to them... my kids sure as hell arent going to see Hostel 4 or whatever it is then... id kill the clerk who let em, in fact, id take a blowtorch to his eyeball and then throw him in front a train for good measure...

  • AngelicChai

    Posted Aug 13, 2007 4:36 am PT

    Its quite simple in my mind. The games that make me/anyone aggressive are the ones that are ridiculously frustrating. Like for example Burnout is rated everyone but I am much more likely to be pissed off crashing .1 seconds before I get a gold metal (in which I ask myself why the hell I play this game) then if I get capped by some digital character. Point I am trying to make is frustration makes people aggressive not the imagery behind seeing digital blood/gun fights. And considering people are aggressive on occasion as a general rule of thumb, this is entire law enforcement is bullsh1t I think parents should be more worried about their kid somehow getting on rotten.com or seeing Hostel, considering I have never seen any game come even close to that level of morbidness.

  • The_Weekend

    Posted Aug 11, 2007 8:46 am PT

    Violence is just a freedom of expression ... just that we need some control for those not ready to embrace it ... ignorance is the real enemy here!!

  • reddington17

    Posted Aug 10, 2007 11:35 pm PT

    "the ever-growing body of evidence that violent video games are harmful to children is getting harder and harder to ignore."

    "We simply cannot trust the industry to regulate itself,"

    Yee must be living in a parallel dimension in order to completely miss whats happening in the gaming industry by so much. On the first point, studies show that violent video games only effect a player for a very short time span. You may be more aggressive and violent after playing a violent video game but that effect lasts for only around ten minutes, it's not a life changing effect. On his second quote, Yee must not at all understand what the gaming industry has contributed to regulating video games. When the ESRB was formed it was not mandatory for companies to submit their games for scrutiny but every single company voluntarily complied with the rating system. When the Hot Coffee mod was found in GTA San Andreas Rockstar didn't fight ESRB to keep the M rating or fight because the mod was not really in the retail version of the game. I think Rockstar got screwed by the AO rating when in order to access the material you have to alter game files which should completely void Rockstar's responsibility. Before politicians and parents try to force regulattion on this industry they should actually take some time to look at the industry their trying to regulate. Instead they cherry-pick scientific studies performed by psychologists who WANT the video games to effect behavior. When the data doesn't support their idea they do another study that does.

    The Penny Arcade Comic from 4-12-06 found a study that tried to show how GTA caused people to use drugs and be more hostile. What the study actually showed was that male college students had a passe attitude towards drugs and alcohol and that they were more competitive after playing GTA as opposed to Simpsons Hit and Run.

    A. They're college students so many of them probably use drugs regularly.
    B. They're college GUYS! Of course they're aggressive and more prone to violence. That's how people act at that age.
    C. They're GUYS! Men have always been aggressive and violent. They study doesn't show that the players hurt anyone after playing GTA, just that they were more competitive and were more accepting of drug use. What kind of scientist would actually consider this study even remotely valid?

  • Panther023

    Posted Aug 10, 2007 7:23 am PT

    Ronin

    That is an excellent point that had not considered. While I would want to think it through more for myself, I'm glad you brought it up. Thank you, as well, for the manner in which you addressed it.

    Question for you - would you say that at some point the violence in a video game can impact a person (a child or an adult) in a mental or emotional way (beyond the physical response you mentioned)?

  • NachoMontana86

    Posted Aug 9, 2007 8:42 pm PT

    "AB 1179 worked to empower parents by giving them the ultimate decision over whether or not their children should be playing in a world of violence and murder."

    I seriously believe parents do not need some law to tell them what games they should allow their children to play. These parents need to check these games first. Simple as that.

    As for Leland Yee, he needs to focus on other issues that are more important instead of trying to convince the world that video games are more dangerous than anything else in life.

  • Williedude87

    Posted Aug 9, 2007 1:37 pm PT

    "Cobra5

    That's how it is where I live- they ask for my ID when I want to buy an M-Rated game (I'm 21). They also ask for my ID to see rated R movies. I need my driver's license to get to the mall or theater anyway, so its not that big of a deal..."

    I see our point, but the thing is both of those a policies. There is no law preventing a minor from seeing a R rated movie, or even NC-17. It is the choice of the theater whether or not to see the ticket. By consumer demand though, pretty much every theater in US does it. Same goes with the video games. So ask again, do we really need a law for this? Let consumer demand decide what the stores will do. Extranous laws just make it harder on everybody, drives up prices, and could result in access into what you are allowed to see and do.

    I wouldn't sell a extremely violent video game to a minor without direct parental consent. Would you? Whatever the laws say, or the big corporations want, its regular people behind the counters. It's regular people buying the games. Ultimately, it isn't and should never be the Gov's decision.

  • Williedude87

    Posted Aug 9, 2007 1:22 pm PT

    "I am shocked that the Court struck down this common-sense law," Yee said in a statement. "AB 1179 worked to empower parents by giving them the ultimate decision over whether or not their children should be playing in a world of violence and murder."

    Yeah right.. politic whore. Sick of these liars. "What to you mean the 3000th attempt to impose a unfair law against video games was turned down? I really thought this one would pass, and wasn't just trying to do it to curry favor while spending your money."

  • peyo670

    Posted Aug 9, 2007 11:45 am PT

    just put the violent game jus 18 + and demand license to verify age like tabacco here in canada. this way you are sure and stores that sold to minor get big $$$$ tiket

  • hyphyxxl

    Posted Aug 9, 2007 10:06 am PT

    its too long

  • BewilderedRonin

    Posted Aug 9, 2007 12:11 am PT

    funtanas32Good argument Ronin but when i was a kid i didnt take out my access adrenalin on my parents and become more agressive to them afte playing goldeneye and perfect dark and neither did my friends. like i said some teenagers cant handel it. now if you want to go to extreams, playing paintball and really shooting people think about that for a while.

    You misunderstand what I'm saying. I'm not saying video games cause violence, what I'm saying is that playing an FPS can cause an excess of adrenaline in your adrenal glands. So much so that some excess may not be able to be properly stored in your adrenal glands. This is known and proven. And I'm saying that children who play such fast-paced games need to be able to release such adrenaline. In which method the child acts out, whether violently (hitting others, breaking things, etc) or in a reasonable manner (running around the neighborhood, riding a bike, etc.), is directly related to how that child is taught to act. If left to their own devices, a child will simply "figure out" a good method to release their adrenaline, which may include violent tendencies.

    Studies have shown that those who reasonably deal with adrenal buildups are much better socially and mentally than those who burn of adrenaline by acting in agressive behaviours.

  • Miltonelite

    Posted Aug 8, 2007 7:17 pm PT

    Many of us (including myself) have made the argument that it's up to parents to raise kids, and pointed out the difference between causation and co-relation (just because violent people like violent video games, doesn't mean the video games made them that way. That's just the type of games they are drawn to), but the reason our arguments fall on deaf ears is because the Video Game industry is a relatively young and still misunderstood form of entertainment, and as such is an easy target for polititions to exploit in an attempt to give the generally naive public the impression that they are being protected. This is no different than the early days of Rock and Roll, Rap, and even Jazz music to name a few.

  • DrRoliePolie

    Posted Aug 8, 2007 4:45 pm PT

    With My Kids I Find That When They Play Less Agressive Games Such As Strategy Based Games They Lean More Towards The Aggressive Culture. This Is Because When Playing More Aggressive Games They Use It As A Way To Let Out Their Anger.

    However The Games Where You Have A Puzzle In Front Of You And Fail If You Dont Get It Right, Thats When They Start Getting Annoyed.

  • funtanas32

    Posted Aug 8, 2007 4:29 pm PT

    Good argument Ronin but when i was a kid i didnt take out my access adrenalin on my parents and become more agressive to them afte playing goldeneye and perfect dark and neither did my friends. like i said some teenagers cant handel it. now if you want to go to extreams, playing paintball and really shooting people think about that for a while.

  • trunksjimmy71

    Posted Aug 8, 2007 4:26 pm PT

    Too much reading for a simple minded person like me... Me brain hurt.

  • BewilderedRonin

    Posted Aug 8, 2007 4:23 pm PT

    Panther023:Concerning the[e]ffect violent video games have on children...I have two kids. When my son REPEATEDLY plays games with shooting (like, Star Wars Battlefront for example) he becomes more aggressive. Is he attempting to shoot people in real life? No. But I can see the difference in his behavior.

    Firstly, let me say that I agree with your position and the means in which you limit and control your child's behaviour. However, the reason a shooter game will get your child more "ramped up" than, say, Final Fantasy is because of adrenaline. The FPS requires quick reflexes, the ability to quickly discern targets and then act against them. These forms of quick-response thinking causes the brain to release adrenaline so that it may better focus, make decisions quicker, fuel the body, and stave off pain reception in the brain (so muscle fatigue does not impede functionality). The problem is that since your child is not actively moving whilst playing this video game, this adrenaline wells up and needs to be properly released. Hence, your child becomes overtly rambunctious and agressive. The best way for the child to "burn off" this excess adrenaline is to go out and play. Ride their bike, run around, do whatever. This is also good as it teaches, at an ingrained, subliminal level, a good, healthy way to burn off adrenaline.

  • funtanas32

    Posted Aug 8, 2007 4:23 pm PT

    Dark_phoenix you are truly stupid and nieve with your view on government control. Do you actually want the government to enact more laws then they already have controllng people and how they live and what they see. You seem to not grasp the simple concept that parents have to do their job and actually raise their kids. Where is your proof that games really do cause mass amounts of underage kids to go out and think they are in the GTA world. The key word is mass amounts. the answer is there are a minute amount of teenagers who were not taught game world from real world and they are making the teenagers who have learned the difference suffer. Now for your information im 19 and in college at FSU. history does not prove anything. If you are saying that if video game laws are not enacted and people are alowed to expierence whatever they want and that will make civilazations fall you are stupid cause there are many other things that politicians should worry about that can acuse serious problems for Humanity then the video game industry. I would guess that your a father and by that you have your own opinion and dont want your kids to play thoes violent games. just make sure they know the difference between the real world and the game world. If they can't make that contrast then take the games away from them, Simple solution. think about this for awhile and come up with a better argument seeing as how you have some intelligence about you.

  • UnrealPro

    Posted Aug 8, 2007 3:27 pm PT

    Damn Yee, just give up already. Haven't you wasted enough tax dollars trying to violate the First Amendment? Our founding fathers are frowning down upon you right now.

  • 2611mp

    Posted Aug 8, 2007 2:43 pm PT

    Reading the quotes makes my brain hurt...

  • serieus

    Posted Aug 8, 2007 2:15 pm PT

    respessz, you commented on how i never should fear my government, well obviously you haven't read your history books or know much about the truth of what's going on in this world. Try looking up imperialism and globalization and 3rd worldization and realize that control over us is what our government want, and they are slowly getting it, ever heard of the patriot act?

    As for me, i've been fighting the government since i was young, and will continue to fight it at an extreme level when i get my law degree. In my hometown here, cops have murdered 4 civilians while civilians have murdered only 1 other civilian. I've been fighting the police/sheriff/etc to stop their violent campaign and yet no results at all. Why do we use plastic bullets for jail (where people are supposedly guilty of a crime), but we use live ammunition outside of jail (where all are presumed innocent until proven guilty). For some reason that argument leads me nowhere? Or why a 9mm (standard police weapon) can kill a human being, but they still find the money to get AR-57 (assault rifle-57, weapon of choice of those in the military), and yet keep saying buget cuts are hindering their ability to protect us.

    Maybe the cops should stop playing video games, they are killing too many of my people out here on the streets. SO maybe you should start fearing your government instead of sitting on your a$$ doing nothing about what they do thinking their actions are mundane, cause believe me their actions overall have a great plan, and this plan includes the full control of you and I.

  • dual_barrel

    Posted Aug 8, 2007 12:36 pm PT

    yea right but what about violent movies, you sic ****!

  • magusat999

    Posted Aug 8, 2007 11:39 am PT

    I would simply say to this - the Videgame industry went as far as - no even further than - the movie industry to "protect minors'. The system did not, and does not need new "laws", what it needs is for parents to take responsibility. They already have the tools - I'd say a simple warning sticker should be enough! If the parents, living in a FREE SOCIETY, choose otherwise, then that should be thier right. Who are we, or the "Government" think we are to force our opinions on them by further enacting laws that serve only to circumvent parental choices of how to raise thier families??? I applaud the California court's decision - but I still think they should come a little bit further and fully agree that the action and intention of the lawmakers in this case were completely wrong and self-serving.

    We may be Americans - but that don't mean we is stupid...

  • reckeweg

    Posted Aug 8, 2007 11:20 am PT

    I agree with dark_phoenix2, this isn't some regulation where the government is deliberately trying to annoy its citizens. If the industry or the government deem a games material too violent or sexual in nature and prevent the stores from selling to minors, SO what! No one saying minors can't play said games but they are saying that if a minor is going to play this then the parent will have to buy it for them. Honestly I am way past being a minor, and the most violent game I probably had to deal with at the time was Battle Toads, (what a great game). I don't see any harm in this type of regulation, now once the government starts saying no one at any age can buy this type of material that's a different story.

  • ollie_sr

    Posted Aug 8, 2007 11:08 am PT

    I do not understand why they are fighting against something they have no idea about. Do you think these lawyers are hardcore gamers? Do they even know that not ALL games are bad? Do they realize that games are no different from movies, tv, or radio? These people make me furious. If you want to change the way games are sold, ASK THE GAMERS. ASK THE PEOPLE THESE LAWYERS WANT TO "REPRESENT" ---

    I'm done shouting now.

  • lonelygamer360

    Posted Aug 8, 2007 11:07 am PT

    pidow is absolutely right

  • mikemetroid5565

    Posted Aug 8, 2007 11:03 am PT

    My Mom may buy me violent games. But she taught me something...
    COMMON SENSE

  • pidow

    Posted Aug 8, 2007 11:03 am PT

    The real issue is a unstable child, not a game. Games do not make people do anything, the person must have a violent tendency in the first place in order to carry out an act of violance. We can kick this thing around for ever and get no place. Parents MUST be able to parent . People who carry out acts of violance MUST be held accountable for their actions, no more excuses about childhood, social standing, environment, games,color of skin, NOTHING can justify a sick person(s) actions for harming another person. Put the blame were it lies.

  • ur2fat

    Posted Aug 8, 2007 10:47 am PT

    i think the only thing thats wrong about violent games being sold to minors is the parents. think about it their the ones who have to buy the game for them because they have the money. but even if the child gets an allowance when the go to buy a game thats over their age limit the sales person "should" saythat they cant buy it without their parents. and so they kids go to their parents and ask them to buy it for them and being the parents they are they will either check the game for if its appropriate for their child or they wont and just buy it for them so really its up to the parents not the goverment to stop the kids from getting these games their its as easy as that no one else just the parents

  • theone86

    Posted Aug 8, 2007 10:00 am PT

    I've always been opposed to regulation for minors and for a ratings system, but there is a flip side to it. First off, ratings. They serve a good purpose, but sometimes they take it too far. Take Manhunt 2, I would have no problem with the game being rated AO, but that effectively bans it from being made because the companies that manufacture the systems won't liscence an AO game. It's the same thing with NC-17 movies, if they get that rating most theaters won't carry the movie, and most movie stores won't carry the DVD. I like the idea of ratings, but the fact is that people use the rating system to edit movies, which I think is B.S. Second, minors. I do think that society places too much responsibility in the hands of industries and the government, but there has to be some limit. A parent can supervise their child to the best of their ability, but if there were no age limit on, say, alcohol, an 8 year old could probably get away with buying a 40 and downing it without their parents finding out. Personally, I think 17 is a perfectly reasonable age to be able to BUY mature games. Maybe a year or two younger, very tops, but still pretty reasonable. The foil to that is that parents should be able to buy those games should they feel that their child (hardly a child at that age) is mature enough to handle them. The problem is that most parents don't pay enough attention to their kids to make that determination. They either buy the game regardless of the child's maturity or they decide that maturity can be arbitrarily determined by age. At any rate, I think the legislation we have now, barring some recent extreme legislation, is fine. It serves its purpose, and the burden is now on the parents to take a more active role in their childrens' lives. The legislation that takes it too far is the kind that makes it a felony to sell these games to minors or that tries to ban them altogether. I call it Word Life, Thompson style.

  • jord121290

    Posted Aug 8, 2007 9:57 am PT

    All these bills and things that the US tries to bring in, and gets everyone really angry - am I right in thinking that this is what the UK already has, where you can't buy the game if you're below the PEGI or BBFC rating?

    If so, what's the big deal? If it's been rated by professionals as unsuitable for people of those ages, they shouldn't be playing them, so what's wrong with preventing sale to them?

    If I've got this wrong and this bill means something else, then please correct me.

  • dark_phoenix21

    Posted Aug 8, 2007 9:49 am PT

    Funtanas32, what are you? Like 13? There has to be some control somewhere along the line, and sometimes the governments have a moral obligation to protect their citizens from harm, intentional or not (thats the law buddy, not just goverments being annoying for the sake of it). And if you use the argument that people should be allowed to experience what they want when they want, then check your ancient history files and see what happened to great cities/countries/empires when that happened.

  • Mustang92382

    Posted Aug 8, 2007 9:42 am PT

    I'm sure all this has been said thousands of times (especially by me), but there's really one easy solution......

    Parents.....SHOULD ACTUALLY RAISE THEIR KIDS!!!!

    I know.....utter blasphemy these days.....

  • funtanas32

    Posted Aug 8, 2007 9:16 am PT

    This is geting out of hand with the gaming industry and the law. Im sick of hearing the politicians trying to limit acces to games for minors and now you hear the politicians are trying to give them access to the games. WTF this is some bull **** the government needs to stay out of the gaming industry they have no right to attempt to regulate the industy. I Have a good idia we should enact a law that requires all politicians who oppose the gaming industy to be drug out into the street and shot.

    The problem is the parents and what they let their kids be exposed to and thats the bottom line. You can not blame the industy period its first ammendment rights.

  • L1qu1dSword

    Posted Aug 8, 2007 9:13 am PT

    okassar you can't be sure that it has had no effect on you unless you could go back in time and never expose yourself to those games.

  • ChickenHounk911

    Posted Aug 8, 2007 8:56 am PT

    thats one for the gamers! politicians will not rest though...

  • okassar

    Posted Aug 8, 2007 8:55 am PT

    Umm...their parents will get them the games?What ever happened to realizing that,it's such a waste of time righting those stupid laws...anyway,kids can't get violent videogames in videogame stores,it's in their own policies.Personally,I don't think the sight of blood would change a kid.I played Halo when I was 9,it's rated M,no affect on me.Halo 2,no affect on me.Gears of War,most violent of all,no affect on me.GTA?Hmmmm...American culture already tilts people towards the minor change the game does give.Personally,it didn't affect me,even when I was smaller and GTA 3 launched.IT'S NOT A BIG DEAL!!!!!!!!!Do they think that kids are going to go shoot someone or hitch a ride to a strip club after playing GTA if,they were not,somehow,already those kind of people.

  • Melchia3113

    Posted Aug 8, 2007 8:52 am PT

    quite simply, government should not, AT ANY TIME, have to do a parent's job for them. Instead of trying to punish a clerk, who makes minumim wage. They should campain to raise awareness with the current rating system and parental controls that are commonplace with most consoles today. If you can vote go to www.videogamevoters.org, write you congressman to let them know we won't take any infringment on our first admendment rights. And don't encourage lazy parenting.

  • quietguy

    Posted Aug 8, 2007 8:30 am PT

    loporina

    So....the gaming industry WANTS to market violent and sexual games to minors???? i mean, that's what it sounds like to me. Granted, all the major game stores won't sell M rated games to minors anyway, and have time and time again expressed that they can't stop parents from coming in and purchasing such games for their kids, but to actually want to expose kids to violence and sex is a little pushing it.

    That is what the Act was trying to protect: The sale of violent and sexual games from minors, and the ESA and EMA are both fighting it? I mean you know the world's gone to hell in a handbasket when we actually WANT are kids to grow up and being murders and strippers. Because, there is evidence that exposer to violence and sexuality without anything to tell a kid what's right and wrong, and to send that message home, then they do become violent and sexually active. I mean, common sense people, look around you, talk to the murders and teens today if you want proof.

    "And the sons of God saw the daughters of men were beautiful and slept with them, and had children by them.... The Lord saw how great man's wickedness had become, and every inclination of the thoughts of his heart was only evil all the time." Genesis 6:2a, 4b and 5
    =======================================================
    I had to logon and say this....

    Loporina, as a follower of the psuedo-Christian faith... And I know the mods will probably delete this because it's flaming... you're an idiot.

    There are a lot of variables one must consider before the cause for assumption. (I take it that you've never visited the ESRB's web site before have you?) That said, I think I'm a little late to say the whole thing because Panther023 below me has already expressed the very statement that I wanted to make.

    Props and applauds for Panther please people.

  • Panther023

    Posted Aug 8, 2007 8:14 am PT

    I noticed the responses to Laporina's quote and wanted to respond as well.

    My concern with Laporina's comment is the presumption that the video game makers want to market their more violent products specifically to children. To quote the Scriptures you quoted "Don't judge lest you be judged." None of us, unless we personally know these people, can say they want to market these games to children. I would be more apt to think that they want to take something they personally enjoy and make as much money as possible off of it. But I can't presume they purposely want to corrupt a child. Having said that, are there people out there that want to target children with violent / sexually explicit video games? I'm sure there are, but we can't presume all of them are like that.

    Concerning the affect violent video games have on children...I have two kids. When my son REPEATEDLY plays games with shooting (like, Star Wars Battlefront for example) he becomes more aggressive. Is he attempting to shoot people in real life? No. But I can see the difference in his behavior. So what do I do as a parent? I don't let him play it for a while. I'm not waiting for the courts to say to me we won't let your kid play this game. Yes, I think there is a strong argument that video games affect their users, but there are many more factors involved that aid in a person lashing out violent tendencies. If video games tend to lead a particular person toward violence, then they should stop playing them. For other people, those type of games don't affect them. They can look at a game objectively that it is not real but a fake world.

    Bottom line for me - we're responsible for our own actions and as parents for the actions of our kids. I don't need the government to tell me how to raise my kids. There are bigger fish to fry in this world.

  • zero_snake99

    Posted Aug 8, 2007 7:54 am PT

    It's nice to see these days that people can think for themselves in a non ignorant ways. Video games have no "evidence" of causing harm. In fact, more teens are affected directly from school and peer environments in negative ways than in any other environment. People should be cracking down on drug possession and use and not the "potential" drug and violence use. Get rid of what is there before you try to get rid of something that is not...

  • Panther023

    Posted Aug 8, 2007 7:43 am PT

    While I'm not a supporter of extremely violent or sexually explicit video games, I have not agree with ulrikz. As a parent, if I can't control what video games my kids are playing, I'm not doing my job, and I would have bigger issues in my household than video games. TAKE RESPONSIBILITY FOR YOUR OWN ACTIONS, PARENTS. If our country gets to the point where we have to have the government regulate everything, we're in sad shape! "Train up a child in the way he should go and he will not depart from it."

  • y-style

    Posted Aug 8, 2007 7:33 am PT

    All through history people have been violent because thats what we are, violent beings with an appetite for violence. What worries me is the people supposedly in charge want to limit an outlet for this violence in harmless entertainment but are hipocritically sending thousands of soldiers out to kill/maim other soldiers!

  • ulrikz

    Posted Aug 8, 2007 7:23 am PT

    I'm glad I don't live in the US when I hear stuff like this. Since when should the goverment decide on how you raise children? It's up to the parents. If there is a nice +18 sign on a video game case, don't give it to your 8 year old son. It's not much harder than that.

  • Sypher213

    Posted Aug 8, 2007 7:11 am PT

    I completely agree. We *NEED* to ban video games! Did you see that game Bioshock? It got blood! And Gore! And killing of innocent children! It's affecting our youth more than you think!
    I mean just look outside! There's a tank parked right outside my front yard, nuclear missile flying left and right, and children shooting each other for the past 2 weeks! Just a few minutes ago three minors landed a helicopter on my roof, then gave me the finger!
    This is an outrage!
    As responsible parents we must band together and ban all video games from being sold everywhere.

  • gzaneski

    Posted Aug 8, 2007 6:54 am PT

    Scooder is right, why the heck are people trying to ban video games when there are more dangerous and important problems that need to be taken care of (tobacco, gangs, the KKK, drug dealing) . But video games will never be banned completely, it's just like cigarettes, too many people will get angry and too many people will lose their jobs. Banning video games will eliminate thousands of job opportunities and think of all the people who went to colleges to major in game designing, they'd be screwed (or they would have to make Elmo Happy Gay Fun Fun Adventure games)

    Good luck to those ignorants who don't even have a study to back them up or even see the real problem. GG, we win.

  • invictuslemming

    Posted Aug 8, 2007 6:48 am PT

    Honestly when will people take responsibility. The parent are the ones who control the media their children are subjected to. Its no different than buying an 'R' rated movie and letting your kid watch it. Most game stores wont sell 'M' rated games to minors anyway, this legislation isn't going to stop misinformed (or just not willing to inform themselves) parents from buying content not appropriate for their children. The video game industry keeps getting flak from the politicians about violent games, interesting that the movie industry isn't having this problem... (The MPAA must be paying off the right people lol)

  • CorporalKane

    Posted Aug 8, 2007 6:34 am PT

    infestedcyborg1, lord-of-gamers and dnazboy are all totally correct.

  • StevenHawking

    Posted Aug 8, 2007 6:29 am PT

    lord of gamers, that's exactly my point! Why should politicians make the decision when it's the parents responsibility?!

advertisement

Hot Stories

Newsmakers

Featured Stories

Submit News

Got tips? Send them in!