Eleven U.S. state attorneys general have formed a coalition to support the California game legislation currently under review by the Supreme Court. The law intends to restrict the sale of violent video games to minors, but was stuck down by an appeals court previously. The attorneys general from Connecticut, Florida, Hawaii, Illinois, Louisiana, Maryland, Michigan, Minnesota, Mississippi, Texas, and Virginia have submitted an amicus brief to the Supreme Court in order provide arguments for the law.
The brief says each state is "vitally interested in protecting the welfare of children and in helping parents raise them," and they argue that the appeals court’s decision to strike down the law "unreasonably restricts their authority to do that."
Despite the fact that similar laws have been dismissed on constitutional grounds, the states insist that the law is "consistent with the First Amendment and this Court’s longstanding precedents" and the law should constitutionally "prevent minors from buying or renting without parental approval a defined class of video games which invite players to commit digital homicide, torture, and rape."
"Protecting children from digital danger requires proactive parents -- but they need and deserve help," said Connecticut attorney general Richard Blumenthal in press release after submission of the brief. "The video game industry should act responsibly -- play nice, not nasty -- and agree to sensible self-imposed restrictions that block children from buying the most violent games. I am calling on the video game industry to follow the leadership of the motion picture industry, which sensibly stops unattended children from viewing violent or graphic movies."
Blumenthal is incorrect as the industry already has “self-imposed restrictions” put forth by the Entertainment Software Rating Board. According to the Federal Trade Commission, the "video game industry outpaces the movie and music industries" when it comes to "restricting target-marketing of mature-rated products to children, clearly and prominently disclosing rating information, and restricting children's access to mature-rated products at retail."
10 Comments
July 20, 2010
You idiots!! What happend to making your own choices. Choosing what a kid can play isn't a responsibility for the court! It is a parents problem! Get a fricking LIFE!!!!!
July 20, 2010
Uh, Ecalb, you're not helping by responding with childish, vulgar and insulting comments. You are, however, on the mark: parents are the first, last and best line of defense.
No one in the industry nor any gamer denies that certain content should not be viewed or experienced by children. The problem is, though, that legislation should not be employed as the gatekeeper for this type of media when music and movies are free to produce whatever they want under an umbrella of self-rating is 100% wrong in both spirit and practice. Creating a law that attempts to categorize and corral something as varied in scope and implementation as video games is like tying to lasso water. Who will be in charge of ensuring that a game is classified in accordance with any law that may be passed? The developers? The publishers? A self-styled "watchdog" group? Certainly not the government; they already have too much to do as it is.
Education of parents, and more importantly, education of NON GAMERS to the reality of the "gaming ecosystem" is the only way to go. Attempts to regulate gaming are borne out of gross ignorance about the gaming culture. Everyone likes movies, or has at least seen movies of their own volition. Everyone likes music, and no doubt enjoys music on a daily basis. Yet those who would pass these laws rely on second hand accounts or biased clinical studies to tell that that "games are bad for our children and must be regulated". Most (if not all) wouldn't even CONSIDER spending a WHOLE MONTH immersed in all that the gaming industry has to offer. Instead, they refer to the same tired whipping-boys of the industry as if they were somehow elected as representing the body as a whole. We wouldn't stand for this kind of discrimination in ANY other reference, and we shouldn't stand for it now.
July 20, 2010
Don't they have better things to do, like balancing budgets and, this is a radical idea, trying to reduce taxes for once? Why is the video game industry singled out when all media (print, music, film) has comparable content? Games are clearly labeled with ratings and content descriptors, Parents' ignorance is no reason for govermnets to step in and take over. Just this weekend, I saw the movie 'Predators' (good film), and definitely not intended for younger viewers. And yet, I saw several people bring their kids, as young as 8-10 years old to see it. These are the same kind of people that buy M-rated games for their kids, and then they complain that they are too violent. This whole thing is a big joke, a waste of time, a waste of taxpayers' money.
July 20, 2010
Fight the power! This battle has been going on for a very long time in other places trying to regulate and even ban certain games. Should a game or movie or a song be banned anywhere? No fracking way. But for kids under 18 it should be the parents who decide what their children are exposed to. Grumpy old men bickering against anything below their incredibly strict moral values as much as they possibly can.
A top 10 list of banned games from: http://news.filefront.com/top-ten-banned-video-games
10. 50-Cent Bulletproof – Banned in Australia
9. Commandos Behind Enemy Lines – Banned in Germany
8. Pokemon Emerald Version – Banned in Saudi Arabia
7. The Guy Game - Banned in the USA
6. Mercenaries – Banned in South Korea
5. Command and Conquer: Generals - Banned in China
4. Graw 2 - Banned in Mexico
3. Reservoir Dogs – Banned in New Zealand
2. Marc Ecko’s Contents Under Pressure – Banned in Australia
1. Postal – Banned in 13 Countries
Wiki has a big list of them: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_banned_video_games
July 20, 2010
I agree, the ESRB works fine and I'd say 90 - 95% of retailers do not sell M rated titles to underage consumers. Education of parents is the key, more should be spent on that as opposed to bringing in this law and the wouldbe countless $$ spent enforcing it.
Just a quick note to the banned list, the only reason the Guy Game was Banned was because one of the girl actors in the game lied about her age.
July 20, 2010
I'm so ashamed of my state right now. But I suppose this ultimately doesn't matter. When this goes before the supreme court they will (hopefuly) shoot it down as they(the smaller courts) always have.
July 20, 2010
Well they already do not allow the sale or porn, liquor and smokes to kids so I am not seeing what a big deal in that light. I actually got carded buying a rated R movie at WallMart a few months back. And I will be turning 40 this year. Did I freak out and start swearing about my rights? Nah would have been a waste of time I just flashed the ID and was out of there in less than a min. No big deal at all.
As far as that silly list of banned games, look at it and ask yourself why those games might have been banned. The Guy Game had under age girls naked in it so it was child porn. The maker of the game could have fixed that game and re-released it but they did not as it was not worth the money.
Yes the gov't should not be getting so involved in our daily lives but if they are making laws to stop stupid people from doing stupid things we could help stop that trend by stopping our stupid friends and family from being stupid before they do it and a law is made to protect themselves from there own stupidity. It all comes down to all the people being personally responsible for them selves or forcing the gov't to do it for them. If it was up to me I say the people should be responsible and can all these silly laws and regulations.
July 20, 2010
This reminds me of a South Park episode I watched yesterday. The parents forced the schools to start teaching Sex Education to the 4th graders because they were too embarrassed to talk to the kids themselves. The school ended up doing a horrible job with teaching the kids about the subject and eventually the boys and girls went to war. In the end, the parents realized that it's their responsibility to teach their children about this awkward subject, not the schools.
This is similar to this law because the parents are just trying to put this important job off on the government. Its the parents' responsibility to monitor what their kids are doing, not the law. I know many kids who have been playing games like Grand Theft Auto and vile games like that for years, including my 10-year-old brother. I just really think its the parent's issue to deal with.
July 20, 2010
I thought it was comon sense to not sell M-rated games to children. In Norway you must show an ID card like a drivers license or VISA card if the clerk asks for it. It's the same for every game and film and other rated stuff in Norway.
July 23, 2010
pawwof, there is a difference between retailers choosing not to sell something to minors and it being illegal. Most retailers CHOOSE not to sell R-rated movies to kids, but legally they can. The same thing with M-rated games, retailers choose not to sell them to minors, but these attorneys general want to make it illegal. Maybe parents should stop asking TV and politicians to raise their children, the parents should be more active. The parent should decide what their kid plays or watches, and the video game industry does a hell of a better job educating parents about games than the movie industry does about movies. All of the major retailers like GameStop, Best Buy, and Walmart require an adult to purchase games that are rated M (Walmart even stops you from using the self-checkout line, if you try to buy a R-rated movie the machine will tell you to get a employee to help). I think voters should be pissed that their elected officials are wasting tax dollars by trying to pass and enforce unconstitutional laws like this.