California Violent Game Bill Passes

[Section_Ei8ht]

Calif. Violent Game Bill Passes

The state approves a ban on selling violent games to minors.

by David Adams

September 9, 2005 - A long-contested California bill which would ban the sale of violent videogames to minors passed State Assembly late on Thursday, though the legislation awaits the signature of Gov. Schwarzenegger in order to become law. The legislation passed Assembly by a bipartisan 65-7 vote.

Assembly Bill 1179 makes game retailers liable for up to $1000 in fines for selling mature-themed games to minors, and requires that violent games be clearly labeled as such. The bill was authored by California Assemblyman Leland Yee, who has championed similar legislation for years now.

"Unlike movies where you passively watch violence, in a video game, you are the active participant and making decisions on who to stab, maim, burn or kill," said Yee in an official statement. "As a result, these games serve as learning tools that have a dramatic impact on our children."

Opposing the bill are representatives of the game industry, who believe that existing measures, such as the ESRB rating system, are already sufficient in keeping mature-themed games from young players.

Gov. Schwarzenegger now has 30 days to either sign or veto the bill.

http://pc.ign.com/articles/649/649866p1.html

If The Terminator signs that, that will be the most ironic thing ever.

[ginsengavenger]

so is it based on the ESRB ratings, or something else? if it passes will minors not be able to purchase M games? because there'd be a bit of a disconnect between the ESRB's 17+ rating and CA's 18+ regulation. oh well.

EDIT: durr, I guess I could have actually read the bill itself before posting.

It lays out very specifically what it considers "violent". This is completely dissociated from the ESRB. And the qualifications are really brutal, the game basically has to let you torture or kill your victim in a terribly cruel and heinous way. CS would not fit the bill but Manhunt would. And games sold in California have to be specially packaged with a 2"x2" 18 in bold, outlined.

Incidentally Manhunt is the only game that has made me physically ill from the deeds I was committing. I had to quit after a few levels.

Something I find a bit more disturbing is this declaration:

SECTION 1. The Legislature finds and declares all of the

following:

(a) Exposing minors to depictions of violence in video games,

including sexual and heinous violence, makes those minors more likely

to experience feelings of aggression, to experience a reduction of

activity in the frontal lobes of the brain, and to exhibit violent

antisocial or aggressive behavior.

(b) Even minors who do not commit acts of violence suffer

psychological harm from prolonged exposure to violent video games.

I don't think there is any scientific evidence to back that up.

Then again, I don't think nine-year-olds need to be playing Manhunt. As far as I'm concerned the bill is more or less well-intended and fair; I honestly wouldn't argue too hard against it.

I'm assuming this is meant to be self-regulated. We're not about to set up a commission to review games before they hit the press - a publisher would determine on their own whether their games fit the qualifications and package them appropriately. The maximum penalty is just $1000, and salesclerks are not liable for it like they are for alcohol sales. Violations can only be reported by parents/guardians and can only be prosecuted by a city attorney, county counsel, or district attorney so I don't *think* we need to worry about people suing game publishers or retailers over this legislation, but I'm no lawyer.

Of course, if a game has been out for a few weeks without the label, and a parent complains and eventually it's found the company was liable for not labeling it appropriately... I guess that opens the door for everyone else who has rented or bought it to have them fined another $1000 for each infraction, and that would add up real fast.

damn i edited this post a lot.

[Bic-B@ll]

i dont see how this makes a difference, the parents are giving the kids the money to but the gmae anywho. hell, i actually like it, now they cant bitch about how its ruining their kids because hey fucker, you bought it

while on the other hand its one up for censoring video games

[Section_Ei8ht]

Im sure that all of use played Wolfenstein 3D, Doom, Duke Nukem, etc. Back in the day, those games were complete immersion. I'm sure I'm not the only one that actually felt (for lack of a better term) like I was inside the game. Thats the reason we PLAY games is to escape reality and be given the ability to be someone else and do things we could never do. Yes, sometimes this could involve brutally murdering someone in there sleep.

Anyone here brutally murder someone in real life?

Anyone here jack a car and drive on the sidewalk feeling no disregard for the pedestrians you ran over?

etc...

I dont recall who said it, but they were damn right when they said fucked up children are fucked up. PERIOD. A video game will not make a damn bit of difference.

i dont see how this makes a difference, the parents are giving the kids the money to but the gmae anywho. hell, i actually like it, now they cant bitch about how its ruining their kids because hey fucker, you bought it

right on.

[JynxDaddy]

Am I not understanding this?

This just trying to enforce game ratings, and not a form of evil censorship.

[Kosmo]

What did I say when the news about the state of Illinois was going to fine clerks who sell games to minors? I predicted this!

[JynxDaddy]

What's wrong with that?

[Kosmo]

What's wrong with that?

You mean about fining if someone sells a game to a minor?

Well first of all, they are comparing it to tobacco or alcohol as how dangerous it is to people, another rule to control the masses, and they are generalizing that all kids are capable of murdering innocent people just by playing violent videogames.

What is RIGHT with that?

[JynxDaddy]

If a game has been deemed unsuitable for minors, why shouldn't it be 'enforced' (this is more like persuading) to not sell it to them.

It's like what happens at the cinema here, if you don't have ID or a guardian, you cant get into movies that are rated above your age.

[GrayFox]

What's wrong with that?

You mean about fining if someone sells a game to a minor?

Well first of all, they are comparing it to tobacco or alcohol as how dangerous it is to people, another rule to control the masses, and they are generalizing that all kids are capable of murdering innocent people just by playing violent videogames.

What is RIGHT with that?

I agree, but you don't die after smoking one pack of cigs either... and yet I'm pretty sure you don't like the idea of shops selling cigs/alcohol to minors.

[Kosmo]

Jynx, I agree that when a game is harmful to children like Harvester back in 96' it's not something kids should be able to buy. But games like GTA series are not that kind of games, the whole system is just fucked up, ESRB is tightening the ratings and at the same time this kind of law is being pushed out everywhere.

Grayfox, your logic doesn't work. Even one pack of smokes is bad for your health, besides they have nicotin that creates addiction, if that is not bad for you I don't know what is.

And are you implying that after some set amount of games, everyone is dangerously violent and might even kill people? Like how cigs after a long time, messes up your health totally and might even kill you.

[JynxDaddy]

GTA isn't for kids. So it should at least not be sold to them, not that it will stop alot of kids getting their hands on it.

[Kosmo]

not that it will stop alot of kids getting their hands on it.

Yeah it's just another way to control people and relief parents from responsibility of their chidlrens actions.

[DD]

http://www.mapcore.net/forums/viewtopic.php?t=3248

I don't know who the asshat is who locked my thread, but same post.

[The Postman]

So he passed a bill that no one will ever follow and stupid parents will continue to avoid in an effort to quell their snivelling brats' collective whining. Yeah, good job.