CA gov to battle game-law ruling

A federal judge declared the California law unconstitutional yesterday, but Governor Schwarzenegger vows to appeal the ruling.

The fight over California's restriction on the sale of violent games to children isn't over yet. While the Entertainment Software Association and the Entertainment Merchants Association claimed victory in a protracted court battle over the law when a federal judge declared it unconstitutional yesterday, elected state representatives aren't going to call it quits without a fight.

The bill's author, California Senator Leland Yee, decried the ruling and implored Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger to appeal the decision all the way to the Supreme Court if need be. Shortly afterward, the governor announced his intention to appeal.

"I signed this important measure to ensure that parents are involved in determining which video games are appropriate for their children," Schwarzenegger said in a brief statement. "The bill I signed would require that violent video games be clearly labeled and not be sold to children under 18 years old. Many of these games are made for adults and choosing games that are appropriate for kids should be a decision made by their parents. I will vigorously defend this law and appeal it to the next level."

Schwarzenegger's advocacy for game restriction is somewhat ironic, given his show-business pedigree. The Austrian-born former movie star made his Hollywood bones in such ultraviolent action films as Predator and The Terminator. However, his game efforts, such as Terminator 3: Rise of the Machines, have been relegated to the T-for-Teen-rated realm.

254 Comments

  • NachoMontana86

    Posted Aug 10, 2007 10:04 am PT

    Seems like Skynet's next mission doesn't involve killing John Conner in the past. Their new mission is to send a T-800 model 101 to prevent the sale of violent video games. (Man, this joke sucks.)

    But in all seriousness, I can't really picture an actor-turned-governor who been in violent movies trying to teach parents on what games their kids should play. The irony is quite clear.

  • Phylyn5151

    Posted Aug 10, 2007 4:39 am PT

    Here is your solution kids: Become 18!

  • DarthRazil

    Posted Aug 9, 2007 9:10 pm PT

    Starbead, do you even know what an AO game entails? It means... OMG! t The games CANNOT BE SOLD! Sony, Nintendo, MS all say, gigagasp!, no AO content on their systems. An AO rating is reserved for extreme cases, such as Manhunt 2, and porn. In fact, Manhunt 2 is the first game to EVER recieve an AO rating strictly based on violent content. And since it cannot, by Sony, MS and Nintendo company policies, be released on their consoles, the game is essentially canceled. So basically, you are saying that the GTA series, one of the most profitable game franchises in existence, should be canned because they all should be rated AO and thus made unsellable? The ESRB rates games well. But maybe they should create another rating in between M and AO. I know there was talk about a 'Hard R' rating for movies, reserved for movies that are more intense than R, but not quite suitable for X. Perhaps an in-between would help. But no game should get hit with the mark of doom that is an AO rating unless it deserves it. I am 20 years old, have been a gamer since the SNES first game out and have played a good deal of violent games. I am not in the least affected by them because, second gigagasp, my PARENTS actually took the time and effort to be PARENTS and explained the difference between fantasy and reality. Of course, it helped that before, during, and forever more, i was read to and read. It is much easier to separate fantasy from reality when you have been trained to from an early age. Frankly, I am disgusted at a large percent of American parents: they are typical of our nation, way too lazy to even take a part in rearing their own damn spawn. There is a rating system, as someone pointed out, at GameStop, if we sell an M rated game to a minor, the associate is canned.... as is the MANAGER, and the DM gets a write up. Thats a pretty good VOLUNTARY policy if you ask me. No one in my store wants to loose their job, nor do we want to get our manager fired, so we all card EVERYONE.

    If the government wants to interfere, interfere with funding for gaming awareness. I still see comercials for the TV ratings system, which really isn't all that new. But everyone seems willing to ignore game ratings.... even though it is now part of GameStop required advertising to display on four different shelves at eye level, a tag with each rating described upon it. That's a tag for each rating mind you: E, E10+, T, M, AO and even RP. There's also, usually, a counter sign that shows the ratings, and we used to have pamphlets we were required to hand out with every purchase in order to better inform customers. We don't need laws restricting sales: we need informed parents.

  • matandmouse

    Posted Aug 9, 2007 5:24 pm PT

    "ultraviolent" - wtf?

  • runstalker

    Posted Aug 9, 2007 12:08 pm PT

    Whatever, that's fine. Mature material should be 18 and up; I won't hold it against law makers to try and make sure that system works. It's a no brainer. What takes brains is determining what kind of rating a game should receive and why. Exhibit A: Manhunt 2. If there's anyone that knows the difference between R and PG-13, it's Arnold. He went through that phase where he wanted to stop making grisly action flicks like Total Recall and Predator, and started to make tame stuff like Last Action Hero and Junior. Then he went back to a couple of violent flicks. He walked the ratings line.

  • car_fanatic

    Posted Aug 9, 2007 10:33 am PT

    damn arnold schwarzenegger.

  • gemineyez420

    Posted Aug 9, 2007 10:13 am PT

    damnit Schwarzenegger we elected you to lead.. not to read!!

  • hyphyxxl

    Posted Aug 9, 2007 10:09 am PT

    i live in norcal and this better not screw up video games in any way or ima go hunt the governator down

  • macperfo

    Posted Aug 9, 2007 9:16 am PT

    In what way is it ironic that he wants to restrict Mature games from kids when he was in movies that restricted kids with an R rating. I don't get the connection.

  • conzar

    Posted Aug 9, 2007 5:30 am PT

    I find it ironic that a society in which thinks war is an acceptable way of solving problems would want to protect their children from "violent" media. All a child needs to do is turn on the news and see the bloodshed in Iraq.

    I guess this means that children wouldn't be allowed to watch News programs either...

  • lycoris_moon29

    Posted Aug 8, 2007 11:12 pm PT

    Since I can't seem to think of any intelligent way of saying this, I'll say it like this:

    This law is stupid and shouldn't even be allowed to make it to the Supreme Court. I don't see why they have to smack some stupid label on the box of a game that is already rated M. And the government shouldn't be allowed to try and parent the nation's children. We don't need it. We know the game is rated M. Our parents know the game is rated M. I'm one person who can say that my mom lets me get rated M games. (Those games being all three DMC's) Let my mother tell me what I can and can't buy. Not some self righteous politicians who think they know best. And once the government can control what games you can play, next they will be telling you what sites you can go on and what tv shows to watch.

  • iliyun

    Posted Aug 8, 2007 11:03 pm PT

    y'aaaouh Y'AAOUH ez time to GIIIIIT DOOOUUUUN on dez sissy girly games !!!!! time to p'aoump it uP!

  • deadmenneverdie

    Posted Aug 8, 2007 9:18 pm PT

    Its pretty strange watching Arnold go from have a baby in Junior, to talking about video game laws

  • deathscythe999

    Posted Aug 8, 2007 9:04 pm PT

    If you think about "gamers" as a whole have been around since '84....I'm 23 so that kinda sets the mark there, but the people who were 6-8 at that time where the REAL gamers and they make the bulk of the creaters of today's games. So it would make sense that as these people grew up that they want to play more mature games.

    So the more mature games come out and when a new gamer comes into our world what can they pick from? Not many games out there cater to the needs of children....as if you could...so they end up playing the mature rated games that the older gamers created. Now you could argue that there are all those remakes out there (like the classic NES titles for the GBA and the old arcade games on XBL) but the only people that ACTUALLY play those are the people who already played them but pawned off their systems LONG ago.

    I don't think it's right for a government to tell me how to raise my kids and what games they can and can not play, but how hard would it be to just have M rated games get you carded at the register? Theaters card at purchase and at entrance and it stops people.

  • Shomb22

    Posted Aug 8, 2007 7:23 pm PT

    Thats okay. Their just stoping the little kids who buy the M rated games at stores. Dosn't bother me one bit.

  • Vihlo

    Posted Aug 8, 2007 6:55 pm PT

    Ya know... Violence made this man to be what he is, and how he is known. I just find it strange...

  • mehoff88

    Posted Aug 8, 2007 5:33 pm PT

    wow rico did u even read the article?? it says california. How would it affect NY?? BADURRRRR!!!!!

  • Alkpaz

    Posted Aug 8, 2007 5:22 pm PT

    "The average game player is 33 years old and has been playing games for 12 years."

    http://www.theesa.com/facts/top_10_facts.php

    Still think this legislation is for the "kids"?

  • rico212

    Posted Aug 8, 2007 4:50 pm PT

    This better not affect New York.

  • serieus

    Posted Aug 8, 2007 4:30 pm PT

    So wait, Arnold, The Terminator, Conan the Barbarian is telling us what our kids can and can't play, when he's been sold as an action figure with guns and ammo. How dare Arnold do this to us, go back to making movies, they sucked, but at least I had a choice to not watch them, if Arnold passes this law he wants to fight he's going to affect us all.

    Can I keep going with this...............?

    GIJoe, how is that any better than a violent video game? Oh that's right GIJoe was fighting a red army, hmmm, kind of like the Red Country we called USSR. Propaganda right. So it's OK?

    Start asking yourself why are they trying to enact this law?

    I mean this is the US, a country who wouldn't get up to help Europe or the Jews during WWII until Japan attacked us. A country that has put death squads and dictators in South America. A country who has dropped the only nuclear bomb in the world. A country who fought against repealing child labor laws. Now truly ask yourself, "why would this same country suddenly care about it's children?"

    Could it be that they get more people in jail (the fastest growing business in America), or could it be the money they receive from the fines? Or both???

  • BewilderedRonin

    Posted Aug 8, 2007 3:59 pm PT

    What this all really boils down to is that legislation of this type was deemed unconstitutional in 1968 when it applied to films, and it's no different today. Minors can't see R movies unless they are 18 (even though the rating says "Under 17 requires accompanying parent or adult guardian."), and it that is voluntarily enforced by movie theatres. It should work the same way for video games. Retailers should agree to enforce the rating the system, and most retailers do just that.

    If this legislation goes through, then it should also be illegal for retailers to sell an R rated movie to a minor. And if they do so, it should carry the exact same penalties retailers would face for selling M rated video games. The exact same law should be applied to retailers that would sell "Parental Advisory" music to minors. Adult magazines is already covered as "distribution of indecent materials to minors." And whilst we're at it, why not make it illegal for minors to view M rated TV programs.

    To everyone arguing that this legislation is designed to "make parenting easier for the parents": 1) Where do these kids get the money to buy these games in the first place? A new game costs $45 and up. Parents should keep a better eye on what their children purchase.
    2)Even if the child somehow does purchase an M game, the parent should be paying attention to what their child is playing. If they see their kids playing a violent game, then they should take it from their child.
    3) It is not, nor should it be the government's place to parent your child.

    The true intent of this bill is to strong-arm retailers to not stock "violent" games. Why do I believe that? Let's go ahead and extrapolate this bill, shall we? Retailers would not want to take a risk of selling a "violent" game and face fines. Therefore, retailers would be more reluctant to even stock any such "violent" games.

    What I don't understand is why people are so gung-ho about restricting and fining retailers for violent games. Meanwhilst, child sex-slave rings operate around the world with American and European men traveling to third-world countries like Cambodia and Thailand to engage in child prostitution. What's more important? Protecting kids from violent games or protecting them from a lifetime of sexual abuse?

  • usedtype

    Posted Aug 8, 2007 3:51 pm PT

    I'm glad about this appeal. I am glad, not because I support the law, but I hope that a higher court sides with the ESA and thereby makes it even more likely that all such laws will be easily overturned in the future.

    That said, I do have some words I would like to say on this issue. First off, I would like to point out that there are NO laws in the USA restricting movies rated R and NC-17. None. The restrictions on these are completely volentary. The movie industry themselves are the ones that oversee this. I believe that the video-game industry is doing a pretty good job with reviewing and rating games not ment for those under the age of 17. Rather than pass laws that are unnecessary and unconstitutional, government should work WITH the industry to help parents be informed about the ratings already in place. Further, parents and other informed citizens should work to make sure that stores enforce their already in place policies of not selling M rated games to minors. Information, not legislation, is the answer.

    Also, am I the only one that thinks it a double standard for California to make it illegal for a 16 year old to buy Grand Theft Auto but completely legal to buy the unrated DVD edition of the latest violent slasher film?

  • merch

    Posted Aug 8, 2007 3:40 pm PT

    cause arnold plays games ;P lol.

  • oogieboogiemanj

    Posted Aug 8, 2007 2:49 pm PT

    army_man14:

    The ONLY thing you said that is somewhat intelligent is, "...so don't blame anyone but the parents if your kid is a nutcase." And even that is pushing it.

    This is a VERY important topic. What it all boils down to is this. If the government passes a law that allows them to label any game as "too violent" that they see fit, where does it stop?

    If you don't see why THAT is a bad idea? Think about this. The majority of game developers want to make games that sell to as broad of an audience as possible. Some dev's don't care about the broader audience, and just want to make the games they want to make. Well, if the government is now able to step in and supercede any rating the ESRB gives the game and says, "This game is too violent. It must be labeled with this SPECIAL label now to reflect that." Then less and less stores will stock said game. ALL because the government doesn't like it.

    Still don't see a problem? Maybe you just aren't opening your eyes then.

  • army_man14

    Posted Aug 8, 2007 2:19 pm PT

    I still don't understand what the fuss is about! If youre over 17 year old, you couldnt give a shi* about these types of news. However, if youre a 13 year old youll be pissed as hell because your mom and dad wont buy you a game. There should be no discussions about this stupid topic, if your parents let you get a m rated game when youre underage, then you should be able to if they buy it. it should be as it always was, no need to change it. although parents these days will buy anything to make their kids stop screaming, so dont blame anyone but the parents if your kid is a nutcase.

  • Autolycus

    Posted Aug 8, 2007 1:37 pm PT

    jdeigs21:

    "I mean if your under 17 its illegal to buy an M rated game."
    -----
    its not against the law. Its just a rule that retailers "say" they will follow by. there is no penalty if i see some 12 year old Grand theft lame...

  • Autolycus

    Posted Aug 8, 2007 1:36 pm PT

    PR stunt. I wonder how many people will vote for him just because of this stupid thing. Wake up, the two party system is all ONE system of lies...that steps on the people and gives control to greedy people.

  • xTreasonerx

    Posted Aug 8, 2007 1:11 pm PT

    Tsk......its only a matter of time till we're like China....Told what we can and can't watch and do.....

  • lilmp89

    Posted Aug 8, 2007 12:55 pm PT

    hm....they can't restrict the sale of games at all to minors, and aren't M rated games for 17+ ? AO starts at 18, right? and those aren't even sold at most all retailers. Making a clear sign in front of games is ok I guess, but taking up so much space on the cover just detracts from the game's visual appeal from the start. The rating is big and noticeable enough as it is. However, Schwarzenegger has the right intent. "I signed this important measure to ensure that parents are involved in determining which video games are appropriate for their children." The government just needs to figure out how to do that. Then, they can finally get a legal win. TV campaigns, like those 'don't smoke/drink/do drugs' type ads, to encourage parents to moniter their child's gaming would be much more effective than trying to limit the rights of the citizens.

  • wild_world_girl

    Posted Aug 8, 2007 12:55 pm PT

    jdeigs21:

    "I mean if your under 17 its illegal to buy an M rated game."

    No it isn't.

  • pyrobrand

    Posted Aug 8, 2007 12:53 pm PT

    Look, the answer to this is to realize that game companies are out there to make money, and to entertain by doing so. If we wanted realistic games, GTA would involve staying in the hospital for about a week each time you get killed, or having to put the game down for a few years if you get busted, as you simulate a prison sentence. That wouldn't be entertaining though, would it? So teach children that real life and video games are clearly different, and show them that there aren't any old gangsters, because they all OD or get shot young. Who's up for dying before they hit 40?

  • mellowguero

    Posted Aug 8, 2007 12:51 pm PT

    The days of free learning are over. Back in the day I watched my media and separated fact from fiction. Why do people think kids cant do the same now? Why do they think putting a blinding eye on this piece of media will make them more innocent? All the while we shun sex and violence, we all market the **** out of it and sell it to our children. Are we going to silence Sporting events because on a rare basis they riot? One of the most amazing phenomenon's in human history is mans creation of art and social understanding. In video games you can be sucked in for many reasons , they being Rage, Boredom, Emotion and competition. Why take that away from anybody? In order to raise our children and future right you have to simply be with your children and teach them right from wrong. Not taking them into the living room and turning on the TV. As Americans we feel the need to have the Government and Media raise our children, so we can carry on doing what we need to do.

  • jbuttell

    Posted Aug 8, 2007 12:37 pm PT

    As I live near the stomping grounds of California Senator Leland Yee, I find it interesting that he wishes to stand up and soap box on the video game issue (a high profile issue to make him look better as a politician); yet he's also working to increase the amount of gambling allowed at Bay Meadows in San Mateo, CA... He moved ahead with this plan without even consulting the City Council of San Mateo:

    http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qn4176/is_20060628/ai_n16501244

    Seems to me that there's quite the discrepancy in his two actions...On one hand he stands up to defend the "poor younger children" who might get their hands on a violent video game (a problem which already has a working policy in place); on the other he authors a law to increase gambling in a community without even consulting that community, to see if they even WANT increased gambling in their City. If he such a staunch supporter of the moral right and health of the community, then why is he not even representing the wishes of his community - why is he moving forward on a law which is own City Council apposes? And why as his City Council cries foul, does he focus on an issue (a nation wide - high profile issue) which does not really concern the community he was elected to represent?
    Why?
    Because he a grand standing hypocrite....
    A media seeking Politician with plans of notoriety and grandeur.
    I wish someone in the gaming media would interview him and call him on this...

    And as for Arnold... Don't even get me started... He was bought and paid for a long time ago... A recognizable face to represent the part... The next Reagan.... Now there's a scary though. "SchwarzenNomics" anyone?

  • dbirlew

    Posted Aug 8, 2007 12:32 pm PT

    Pure hypocrisy. How much did Schwarz make off Terminator 2 arcade/console games? Does he think only adults played that game? That was a highly violent game at the time. Typical Republicans, foot in mouth as usual.

  • flyshearn

    Posted Aug 8, 2007 12:27 pm PT

    Got to give kudos to WeWerePirates, I'm a manager of a UK games retailer and the BBFC system works really well. Its applied to all media, and it makes it nice and simple for both parents, retailers and the public in general.
    We have BBFC ratings starting at 12 going to 15 and finally the highest rating 18, it provides good benchmarks for allowing appropriate content to age groups. The BBFC are a very open organisation that give clear guidelines on its rating system.
    There are heavy penalties handed out to retailers that supply underage kids with restricted products (unlimited fine and a possible prison sentence) and it certainly makes the retailer think twice ('Have you got ID' being a familiar sound in my shop)... People should be less worried that their 'rights' are being infringed upon and let kids try and enjoy the more innocent things in life....before they get old and jaded like this aging gamer....GTA and Manhunt will be playable in 10 years time....go outside, climb and tree....then dare your friend to jump out, I promise the end result is far more fun then most videogames.

  • guppieface

    Posted Aug 8, 2007 12:22 pm PT

    judging from the gamertags people choose on xbox live as well as listening to what these kids say (im 29 yrs old) while you play games like shadowrun or gears makes me think that the over-18 restriction is important, but not more so than it is for movies. i remember in the late 80's and early 90's when i was forced to sign a sheet stating i was over 18 (i was more like 13 at the time) in order to buy NWA's "efil4zaggin" tape at the record store. Now, you can buy any music with no restrictions. I guess the only way we can truly protect kids from the self-destructive behavior exemplified in all media is to show them that being a successful family man is way cooler than trying to be a "gangsta". As usual though, education is more of an effective solution than punishment. Maybe if these kids see that GTA style behavior=prison time theyll realize that unneccessary violence and drug use perhaps do not equal success. Its too bad the media romanticizes criminals, because many of the people in jail and prison are some of the most fake, useless, struggling geeks you will ever meet, and theyre marked for life with criminal charges. The GTA series should get more realistic: instead of just being stripped of weapons and charged money when arrested, you should have to live in a walk in closet-sized room 22 hours a day, be exposed to a virtual staph infecton, experience pointless, dumb conversations and people, eat awful "food", and be forced to contact your parole or probation officer regularly after release and ask permission for just about everything you do. Now THAT would take the appeal out of imitating criminal behavior as well as educate the youth.

  • lamprey263

    Posted Aug 8, 2007 12:09 pm PT

    Actually, games are more clearly labeled than movies, so I don't know what all the fuss is about.

  • sacredBed

    Posted Aug 8, 2007 11:56 am PT

    oogieboogiemanj is kinda right. ESRB is way better than the government. I'm betting at least quite a few or alot of ESRB staff members actually play games and know what make them good: Gameplay, story, emotion, Graphics, music, etc. The government does not know or give a crap about these things in games. They just want to see if there's human vs. human action and/or depictions of blood. Ask yourself, could GTA, this "murder simulator", survive as a great series if you couldn't kill people? Isn't it a crime game? Aren't you gonna have to do that occasionally? Would the game end or keep going if you were about to carelessly run over someone while driving your car around. I'm sure since GTA is so popular that it's getting all the heat, despite other games doing the same or even more more violent actions. I wouldn't be surprised if you showed the government The GODFATHER game, and they didn't call it a murder simulator because they know and respect the multimedia Godfather franchise as a crime series that has to do with gangsters. However I do agree with Starbeard about the distinction of games between GTA-like games and Halo-like games. GTA is to the movie GOODFELLAS what HALO is to the movie THE MATRIX. Would I let my 11 year old watch the R-rated, ultraviolent bloody goodfellas? NO. Would I let him watch the R-rated, Action packed Matrix where there' even more deaths? Yes. Some parents wouldn't allow either, but that doesn't change the fact that the two are different enough from eachother to be put at separate levels of violence. You can't be shallow when judging these games guys. The parents make the decisons with the games and kids, not the government with their singular opinion. It's almost like these people don't know that the themes "dark and gritty" mean the same to games like Manhunt as they do to movies like Saw. HURRY PEOPLE PULL MANHUNT 2 OFF SHELVES! OH SAW? Oh WELL THAT"S A TYPICAL HORROR MOVIE, WHAT ABOUT IT?

    One thing no one should ever do is show Bioshock to the government. I'm betting as soon as they see the players choosing to harm the little sisters, they'll freak out and call it child murder without realizing that the designers put the moral choice to hurt them or not for emotional purposes related to the progression of the game.

  • glycer67

    Posted Aug 8, 2007 11:54 am PT

    sircyrus: "What's the point of a rating system if it's not enforced?"

    I think you misunderstand what I'm saying. I think the rating system should be enforced, but it should be enforced by the ESRB and the retailers that sell the games, not the government. I don't think kids should be able to buy M rated games, but that should be decided and enforced by the industry, not by the government. That is how the movie industry works; there is no laws against kids seeing an R rated movie, instead the MPAA and theater owners voluntarily enforce the rating system. The government does not have a place in these matters, and should leave it to the industry to police itself.

    So yes, I think the rating system should be enforced, just not by the government.

  • wild_world_girl

    Posted Aug 8, 2007 11:53 am PT

    Arnold's argument is contradictory. He says that he is pro-game restrictions because he thinks that the choice of whether to buy a game for a kid should be up to the parents. He is, in fact, putting the government in that role.

    Please - let's leave it to parents what kids can play, keep the government out of our living rooms. If enough of these go through, watch for TV and movies next. Will people be so "ho-hum" when a senator decides that their favorite TV show doesn't belong on the air? Or what hours certain shows are legally allowed to be broadcast?

  • jrwcmj

    Posted Aug 8, 2007 11:47 am PT

    i say scrap rating games and movies its pointless people have got to learn about the real world and having age restriction's is ageist its saying children can not handle the real world. face it the world is full of horrible people and letting children play games with a violent nature does not harm them i have played violent games all my life and i am a part of society playing these games has told me that violent people exist in the world

  • Alkpaz

    Posted Aug 8, 2007 11:47 am PT

    Well, Cymartin I guess we don't see eye to eye on this one.. maybe because I don't have kids myself.. (possible reason) BTW, thanks for the title of that flick! I guess sending a 17yr old to bootcamp to learn to kill for one's country is okay.. But that same 17yr old can't buy a AO rated game.. That's just screwed up IMHO. How can a 17yr old go kill actual human beings for a government and that same government restricts him from basic "rights" to purchase things that, for all intents and purposes, is harmless for a person his/her age. I am So very sorry that YOU don't get that.

    Pearceshea nicely stated. I myself have been more heavily influenced through books than movies/games. But even books have been banned.. some are even on the "greatest books" list.. One such book is "Catcher and the Rye".

  • WeWerePirates

    Posted Aug 8, 2007 11:28 am PT

    I live in the UK and we have an advisory rating system for games (PEGI which covers europe) and an enforced rating system for films (BBFC). Games are normally exempt from needing a BBFC unless it contains adult content in which case it is the publishers responsibility to submit it for rating. A publisher may opt to submit a game for rating. So for example all the GTA games have received an 18 rating meaning they can't be sold to persons under 18. This system has more or less been in place since the mid 80s (though with no advisory system before the UK only ELEPSA was formed in 89) and has worked fine. On the other hand there are advantages, for example while Manhunt 2 was refused a rating (a de facto ban) the decision has been appealed and it is reasonably likely the decision will be over turned; the grounds on which the BBFC may refuse a rating are very specific and it is unlikely Manhunt 2 really does meet those criteria. Either way though the point is the BBFC is accountable for its decisions.

    The problem I see with the proposed legislation for the US is that it is a little on the reactionary side. The BBFC was formed more than 70 years before it rated a game, adding video games to its responsibilities was relatively painless. On the other hand implementing this legislation will not be easy and probably more effort than it is actually worth. If games should fall under an enforced rating then why not other media? In the long term it would be better and more even handed to form a body like the BBFC with wider responsibilities than video games.

  • jdiegs21

    Posted Aug 8, 2007 11:17 am PT

    Isnt that already a law. I mean if your under 17 its illegal to buy an M rated game. I dont get what they are trying to do.

  • pearceshea

    Posted Aug 8, 2007 11:14 am PT

    To Starebead:

    I take exception to " You can't simultaneously blame the parents and argue against a law that would put the decision in the parents' hands," because of course you very well can make such an argument.

    It's the same argument that is made for selling a violent movie to someone under 17 (incidentally, my younger brother and his friends have no problem buying r-rated movies -they are well under the minimum age- but can't get a copy of anything with an M-rating on it without my parent's approval): with few exceptions, it simply isn't the onus of "the market" to make sure the goods are appropriate to the consumer. That many retailers (I would hazard a guess and say "all major retailers") activly chose to regulate themselves is an indication that such a law is: 1. probably unnecessary, and 2. opens the door to punishing the retailer that already volunteered to "do the right thing" for a slip-up.

    And given that most retailers are carding for M-rated games why does this law even exist? The law, as it's written outsources all responsibility; the whole thing stinks of political grandstanding.

    I'm also sick of how everyone talks about how video games cause violence, etc. One would think that the state of CA, being as determined as it is to get this law passed, would have presented as strong a case as possible, yet the judge in this case mocks the lack of any real evidence.

    I've seen scientific reports as to how video games affect the mind (that is, they do) and how this effect is dfferent from watching a movie or reading a book (again, the study only concludes that "they are different"). I've never actually seen a scientific study (to be fair, it would have to be a theory based on a whole raft of studies, given how broad the statement is) to the effect that video games and specifically video games have a causal relationship with violent behavior. And here comes that old dead horse: how is this different from suggesting that libraries should regulate what books they lend? What is the difference between the Clockwork Orange (the book) and GTA? Even presuming you have the version of Clockwork Orange with the "happy ending" how is the book less engaging (doesn't it require more engagement from the reader?) than GTA? The general argument here is that a book with violent themes comes packaged with a moral lesson (a big presumption); we are putting a lot of faith in the capacity for kids to read and discern the moral lesson in a book whereas we think them completly incapable of distinguishing between the "real world" and the "game world."

    Come on.

  • Tungsten88

    Posted Aug 8, 2007 11:09 am PT

    Jeez, I live in California and I didn't even know this was going through. What the hell? Why did my parents even vote for these guys.

  • BaronPwent

    Posted Aug 8, 2007 11:06 am PT

    Games are already clearly labeled and if parents aren't involved with monitoring what their children play, a law isn't going to change that.

  • ControllerLord

    Posted Aug 8, 2007 11:06 am PT

    Amen to what pred_dachande said.

advertisement

Hot Stories

Newsmakers

Featured Stories

Submit News

Got tips? Send them in!