News Governator to defend California game law

http://www.bit-tech.net/news/2007/08/08/governator_to_defend_california_game_law/1

The California game law, which would fine retailers $1000 for selling violent games to minors, was recently rejected by US courts. Schwarzenegger isn’t happy and is appealing.

 

wellll honestly, a 13 year-old doesn't need to be playing man-hunt, doom 3, or some other incredibly gory, realistic games. If they can't get into movies at that age, why should they be able to play something that is so much more interactive.

Of course, there shouldn't need to be laws for this, parents should be censoring what their children watch/play

 

I certainly think games should be regulated and properly so, The media is very quick to blame violent games for all the ills of society. Parents of kids need to take responsibility for what their hellspawn er I mean children play and do in their formative years.
One rating system to rule them all. legally and sensibly enforced.

 

c**p, games are already given a rating, whats the point??

 

the ESRB rating is an voluntary industry rating system, it's not required by the game makers to give their game a rating. This rating that Arnie wants to put in is a legal rating system with penalties

 

Which is what the UK has with the BBFC.

Oh, and it's what Jack Thompson has been campaigning for.

 

Just out of interest, what's the penalty for selling ciggies/booze to minors?

$1000 seems a bit steep...I mean come on, they're only games.
No doubt JT is loving the idea of this...

WHAT!? You're kidding right? Ok, so the 'story' is crap, but the one-liners are brilliant!

 

I think it's not a bad idea. Some of these games are really filthy, and that's ok but most parents don't realize what their kids play. Yes it is their fault if their kids play games that are not suitable for them, but I think regulation like this is a good step towards better parental control, which many kids need tbh. It will ensure that parents look into the games their kids play, and the games that will get these ratings will be the ones they really should make a decision for.
I know I'll be really looking over my childrens shoulder (whenever I get them (A) ) to make sure they won't play Soldier of Fortune with full gore from age 13 like I did

 

It's a shame that JT is such a jackass though.

 

I agree fully with the first part. The problem, however, is any definitions will likely be abused (don't like blood, ok, we'll make a game exactly like manhunt 2 with all the sadism but no blood). Also, children are effected differently by cartoon violence than by that from or to realistic looking people - but where is that line of realism crossed? (earlier games with people look almost cartoonish by today's standards).

As for the hypocrisy charge that was my first thought too. I wonder how much of this comes form his own beliefs - though it is highly possible that his have changed from when he was younger. It is also possible that he may acknowledge his past work as violent and claim that it was intended only for an adult audience thus there would be no hypocrisy in his stance.

 

True, but it's only because everyone else screams "You're persecuting the common man!"

 

That film is great, full of comedy.

 

Very good point. Censorship usually runs into problems when censorship boards go into paranoia overdrive. It's the equivalent of someone going all Enforcer as soon as he joins Mall Security --the badge, uniform and maglite sort of go to his head.

As a result censorship boards see problems everywhere:

And Censorship Boards also tend to exceed their remit:

Interestingly, I see the same with Research Ethics boards --they often overstep their remit to comment on technical issues such as research method and statistics of which they have no real understanding... Actually understanding seems to be lacking on all levels: one colleague who wanted to develop a sex education programme for adults with learning disabilities (which helps protect them from becoming victims of sexual abuse and teaches them how to behave appropriately sexually) was told that he was not allowed to use the words "penis" or "vagina" but had to use euphemisms like "willy". Talk about infantilising... Needless to say he had to abandon the project.

I think Arnie's relationship to his violent action hero work is a bit complex. If you watch Last Action Hero you'll know what I mean. But the message in that film went totally over the head of the audience, which proves once again that when you try to appeal to the common denominator, you can never aim low enough.

 

I need to use an acronym i seldom use.. WTF

 

I totally forgot about that one (something about blocking bad memories I think). I didn't see it in the theaters and have only seen parts of it on TV. Now you're almost making me want to watch it.

 

I stand behind it 100%, in fact even when I use to work at GameCrazy I would stick to the rating system, lol there was one time a Mother came in saying I wouldnt sell her sun GTA San Andreas to her 12 year old son and she was u set, I told her it had severe language, sex, blood and gore, and other excessive violence and has a mature rating, she was like uh huh right, so she buys the game and then the next day comes into our store to chew me out about how bad this game is for kids, I flat out laughed my ass off and even my manager was there and was like NO **** thats what we tried telling you yesterday lol she was like well I will listen better next time, it was such a OMG you shouldnt breed kind of moments. =p

 

I imagine that's all too common. The art of conversation seems to be lost to many. What's these things on the side of my head again..oh yes ears.

 

Hence the issue with "activist judges" - those who attempt to legislate from the bench by drawing their own definitions to terms used in moral issues. As Tynisar said, the definitions could be abused...that's why we need clear, codified definitions rather than the nebulous ones. We need to avoid the idea of "I can't define obscenity, but I know it when I see it." THAT can then make a system like this work.

The thing that drives me crazy about it - they can do that for dog breeds, so why not this? The whole Kennel Club idea is drawn upon the "written breed standard." If someone (like a show judge) bases a decision on that but deviates from an expected outcome, the reasoning is clearly laid out. Surely there can be clearer ideas in this definition than "a properly sharp snout."

 

I think 1,000 is a bit much