California passes violent game restriction legislation
 

http://www.gamesindustry.biz/content_page.php?aid=11455

Rob Fahey 16:23 12/09/2005

Controversial bill goes to Schwarznegger to be signed into law

The state of California looks set to become the second US state to pass laws restricting the sale of violent videogames to minors, after the California state senate and assembly both overwhelmingly voted in favour of AB1179.

The bill, which began life as AB450 and has suffered multiple defeats and redraftings on the road to acceptance, has been proposed by assemblyman Leland Yee, an outspoken critic of the videogames industry's adult products.

It includes provisions for a $1000 fine for any retailer who sells a violent game to a minor, and for a large "18" sticker to be applied to the box of any violent title, which would be significantly more visible than the current ESRB ratings.

One final step exists before the bill enters law - it must be signed by Californian governor Arnold Schwarznegger, himself the star of several violent movies and games. Schwarznegger has 30 days in which to either sign or veto the bill.

Earlier this summer, a similar piece of legislation was passed in the state of Illinois and has been signed into law there; it will come into effect on January 1st, 2006, which is also the proposed start date of the Californian laws.

The ESA, which represents game publishers in North America, says that it is "disappointed" by the vote in favour of the bill, and is encouraging Schwarznegger to strike down the legislation.

"We believe that AB1179 is unnessecary and will restrict the first amendment rights of California's citizens," commented the ESA's general counsel, Gail Markels.

"Instead of signing this clearly unconstitutional bill into law, we're asking the governor to focus his resources on a more effective resolution, working with the industry in our efforts to help parents make the right game choices for their unique families."

Markels went on to point out that at present, the government does not regulate sales of books, films, music or TV, and accused the proponents of the bill of attempting to "substitute the government's judgement for parental supervision."

Here in the UK, as in many other European countries, videogames ratings are already enshrined in law and strict penalties exist for retailers who sell 18-rated games to children - although there has been some debate about whether these laws are enforced vigorously enough, and whether the ratings are understood and respected by parents.


Here we go again with scum lawyers spouting off about First Amendment rights. -ohbfrank-

Ooooh, it's really going to hurt me if a salesperson asks for my ID (I'm 44, but a very young looking 44 ;) ), just so I can buy Leisure Suit Larry in 3D.

Dumbass lawyers!

But wait, they're getting paid $200 an hour to fight this, so maybe they are not so dumb after all! :(

Chris

The only problem I see with this is stores like Walmart will not carry titles that fall under this bill. They will pretty much be treated the way adult (read:Porn) movies are.

I thought we already had something like this in place, but it was always ignored!

Why have ratings on video games anyways if no one (especially the parents) are just going to ignore them?

Nothing like this was in place. We have the ratings, but stores aren't required by law to enforce them and thus can sell M-rated games to minors if they want to.

Overkill. Not Needed.

111

I think it's totally needed. The ratings are useless if stores can just sell them to whoever they want.

A law would help keep them out of minors hands and stop a lot of the media backlash and politicians bitching.

If it's illegal to sell them to minors, then all responsibility is shifted to parents where it should be in the first place. But unfortunately we all know how lazy many parents are these days.

California has a bunch of radical conservatives running the state. Wait....damn, I'll tell you, it really is difficult to know which way California will go next. They are all over the map.

Well it says 'legislation'.

Now I could be wrong and it's been 26 years since I've been in high school, but I don't think legislation is law yet.

Once it is passed, then it is a law???? Seriously, I don't remember!

Chris

Please get your facts straight. CA has a bunch of radical liberals running the state. Arnold is the lone conservative and he tries way too hard to appeal to the liberals.

I can't see why parents would want this because if they were the ones who bought these games for their kids who else could they blame and sue?

:lol: It was a joke.

But it seems the Video Game Forum don't cotton to no jokin'


:(

Ironically, games "starring" Arnold will probably get this rating ; ) (IE Terminator, etc)

Thank goodness the government is around to take over parenting for those that really don't want to or spend the time to.

I have no doubt Arnold will sign this bill. I personally, however, think it's not necessary.

I don't like media backlash against games either, but that is no reason to support law regulating the game industry. This law is not a move in the right direction. The government should never step in and determine the rules for how the games are restricted. It is not needed on movies, music or books, why games? Once one law is passed and not overturned by the courts, it could start tougher regulation by the government.

Now, the article may be missing some information, but who determines what a "violent" game is that warrants a sticker? Is it just an M rated game? What if the M rating is all sexual? Why can the ESRB be trusted with handing out ratings and decided what is appropriate versus not appropriate and not stores restricting sales? If this law passes and stays, this is where things get sticky and could take a turn for the worse.

That said, I think the game industry as a WHOLE does a piss poor job of regulating itself and I have said for year they need to pull their collective heads out of their asses and do a better job to avoid crap like this.

I just can not ever understand why so many adults support government regulation of games just because "I'm old enough, doesn't affect me." I don't think minors should have adult-content, but I also don't think we need government, state or federal, controlling that content.

That is exactly the thing that cracks me up. People think laws like this will actually put the reposnsibility in the hands of the parents and protect children better. Bullshit. All it does is create a safety blanket of thought that if the child can buy it, it is obviously harmless, so parents will take less responsibility. Then, if the child somehow does end up with the game (older sibling buying, etc.), there will be a greater backlash, because this game is somehow supposed to "not available" to the child.

Aren't movie ratings enforced by law in some states, and theaters fined if they don't card people? I seem to recall reading about that in the newspaper in the past.

If that's the case, and it works for movies, what's the difference between doing something similar for games?

Laws like this wouldn't be needed if parents did their god damn job! Instead, they are perfectly content to let video games and MTV raise their kids. Not like the law is going to matter anyway. Little 8 year old Johnny will show mommy the new "Grand Theft Auto: Pimpin' Dem Hos" video game that just came out...mommy, being the obliviot she is, will give the box a cursory glance and toss it in the cart and buy it for Johnny thinking it will be a good way to keep the brat out of her hair the next few weeks...then a secret sex scene will be found via a hack and mommy will join the class action lawsuit against the people "making that trash for out kids".

I agree...without all that jive-talk.

I believe the bulk of that is voluntary, other than local laws. You don't even have to get a rating for your movie (iirc) but most places won't play a NR movie.

What is a "violent" game? Is it only "M" rated games, which aren't to be sold to anyone under 17? Is it an "AO" game? Is it any game which has violence in the content rating?

I *almost* wish that the big one would happen, and California would just fall off into the ocean... :rolleyes:

It would just keep M rated games from being sold directly to minors.

I really don't see why anyone would be opposed to this, other than our few members under 17.

I think the more important question is:

Why aren't M rated games kept out of minors hands now?


But really, someone needs to send Arnold a copy of the new PC Gamer with the article on game violence and crimes rates highlighted. Then he will see that despite all this media blame, teenage violence and crime are *DOWN*.

Exactly. Apparently I was wrong about movie laws. So we have a similar situation with movies where the are ratings with voluntary enforcement. And we don't have big problems with kids getting R rated movies as theaters and stores generally card people.

Why's it not the same with games? I think the main fault is all the game stores care more about profit than keeping M-rated games out of kids hands. Wal-mart and the other big stores generally card for M-rated games, but the game stores generally do not.

They need some pressure applied on them somehow, by legislation or otherwise.

Yeah, because they are all playing Grand Theft Auto : San Andreas.

But what happens when they get tired of the game and the next GTA is months or years away?

Then, watch teenage violence and crime *SKYROCKET* :lol:

Chris

I think the big difference between R rated movies and R rated games is that usually with a movie, a young person will watch it once or a couple of times and that is it.

With a game, they can spend hours, days, weeks and months seeing the same 'adult' images over and over again. It's kind of like a brainwashing, if you will.

Chris