• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Your opinion on California's Violent Video Game Law?

Do you agree with the law?

  • Total voters
    36
I always thought minors were already restricted by law from buying M rated games, R or above rated movies, or Explicit Content music? Hmm... learn something new every day.
 
Your Star said:
No, it would give the ESRB(Entertainment Software Rating Board), a privately owned, and run organization the ability to restrict the sale of certain titles from a portion of the populous under law. They are the organization that rates games, and it would be the first time in this country that a privately owned organization has that kind of power.
Click to expand...

The MPAA is not a private organization?

\My kneejerk reaction is to not like this, but on thinking about it, children can still get these games, they just need the help of an adult, hopefully their parents. This law as I understand it does not stop children from playing these games, it just forces parents to be involved in the process of questionable games. I am really split on this, both as it is going to be a less than effective law(can you say online sales?) and that I dislike the thought of censorship, however I think getting bent out of shape about a law saying kids need to have an adult to buy certain games is not inappropriate either.
 
Redress said:
The MPAA is not a private organization?

\My kneejerk reaction is to not like this, but on thinking about it, children can still get these games, they just need the help of an adult, hopefully their parents. This law as I understand it does not stop children from playing these games, it just forces parents to be involved in the process of questionable games. I am really split on this, both as it is going to be a less than effective law(can you say online sales?) and that I dislike the thought of censorship, however I think getting bent out of shape about a law saying kids need to have an adult to buy certain games is not inappropriate either.
Click to expand...
Not just online sales - any even vaguely PC competent kid these days could probably find all the games (not to mention porn) they could ever desire on the internetz - for free, to download.
 
Aunt Spiker said:
But now you're a grownup.
Aren't you, then, actually bothering the kids? :)
Click to expand...

Nope :D

Microphones bust easy. Instead I get only listen to high pitch boys gloat.....brag....trash others.
 
Exactly it is only one piece of the larger issue," if not here then they cant there either". If ya cant ban everything that isnt age appropriate then forget about it. Its like beating a dead horse.Then asking us to shew flies off of it for you because you dont like them flyin around the HORSE. Every time there is a problem about the poor kids on some issue we are asked to protect their poor innocent psyches and help protect them. BS- Who protected my kids? I did and now that they are grown I expect them to protect theirs- Not the NANNY STATE! Go figure. We are talkin about Commiefornia though. Enough- My arms are getting tired from waving Flys off of the latest Poor horse( personal cause) to have fallen dead from being beaten by a bunch of misguided knee jerk reactionaries. Who boldly insist that it (Their personal cause) has not been rendered dead its tired and needs more attention and with my help, it will get up on all fours; and be the grandest of all the personal causes yet championed by any and everyone. Ugh....
 
The law is a waste of paper. The average kid could download the game he/she wants P2P. Games are not properly rated anyway.
 
Phantom said:
The law is a waste of paper. The average kid could download the game he/she wants P2P. Games are not properly rated anyway.
Click to expand...

What do you see as an example of a mis-rated game?
 
Phantom said:
The law is a waste of paper. The average kid could download the game he/she wants P2P. Games are not properly rated anyway.
Click to expand...

Actually the ESRB does a really good job in rating games, and I think they have the best, and easiest to understand rating system out there.
 
Redress said:
The MPAA is not a private organization?

\My kneejerk reaction is to not like this, but on thinking about it, children can still get these games, they just need the help of an adult, hopefully their parents. This law as I understand it does not stop children from playing these games, it just forces parents to be involved in the process of questionable games. I am really split on this, both as it is going to be a less than effective law(can you say online sales?) and that I dislike the thought of censorship, however I think getting bent out of shape about a law saying kids need to have an adult to buy certain games is not inappropriate either.
Click to expand...

The MPAA, and it's rating system is enforced voluntarily, just like the ESRB, and their ratings are done now.
 
I'm sick and tired of this Nanny State that we have been moving towards for the past several decades. BOOT THE LAW!!!!
 
Post#3 pretty much captured the libertarian point of view.

I say, this law isn’t good enough; we need government to regulate all aspects of our lives.
I want government food centers.
I want government entertainment centers.
I want government thought centers.
I want them to not only treat me like a child; I want them to enslave me.
I don’t want to make choices.
I don’t want to think for myself.
I want tyranny.
 
Fiddytree said:
Now, if there was a way to segregate minors from adults in Xbox live and other gaming servers, I would be a happy guy. Kids ruin the gaming experience.

old man voice Back in my day, if we wanted to play video games, we did so without bothering the grownups! Now with the internet, it has all been downhill!
Click to expand...

Video games back in the day weren't as prolific with graphic violence and sex. Most of this was due to 1) the low resolution of graphics of platforms at that time, and 2) self-regulation of the video game industry, such as Nintendo's Seal of Approval.

I think the only extremely violent game there was back in the day was "Mortal Kombat." But that game is quite tame in comparison to the "Grand Theft Auto" series.
 
Your Star said:
On November 2 the Supreme Court will hear EMA v Schwarzenegger, in which they will judge the constitutionality of a California law that bans the sale of violent, and sexually explicit(games rated M, and AO) video games to minors. If the law is upheld by the court it will be an unprecedented ruling, marking the first time the government would give a privately owned, and run entity, the ESRB the power to restrict the sale of a product. While it may have popular support(72% of recently polled Californians agree with the law) many legal analyst suspect the law to shot down as unconstitutional, and thus giving video games the same protection under the law as other forms of speech.

So I wanted to know what you guys opinion on the law is? Do you agree with, do you think it's constitutional?

Personally I think it's unconstitutional, and will be shot down. The thing to remember is that the movie, and music industry's are not subjected to the same kind of laws, or restrictions. So why should video games be subject to a different standard than other forms of speech?

Here is some more info on the case
Schwarzenegger v. EMA -- Media Coalition
Click to expand...

I have no problem with the state of California restricting the sales of video games to those under the age of 18. In fact, I'd prefer it if we started restricting things of a violent nature more and restricting things of a sexual nature less.

And there's already precedence to this - we restrict the sales of pornography magazines to those under the age of 18 still, despite the fact that any kid can go to a porno site and get it that way.

I also think that such restrictions on selling games with adult themes to children will help the video game industry more than it will hurt. Let games written for kids be sold to kids. Let games written for adults be sold to adults.

Considering the number of adults who play video games now, the industry will still cater to adults. In fact, this could be a big boost to video game stores. Most likely, big mart stores such as Wal-Mart and Target won't bother to sell such restricted video games. That will leave it to specialty video game stores such as GameStop to sell them instead. That gives video game stores a niche market on which they can capitalize.

This ruling doesn't worry me in the least, and I can think it can actually be helpful to the video game industry.
 
Your Star said:
So I wanted to know what you guys opinion on the law is? Do you agree with, do you think it's constitutional?
Click to expand...

It's just another useless law.

The only way a kid can get a hold of a video game (which is expensive) is by the parents buying it for them.
Similar law in UK as well and hasn't stopped me buying my underage brothers 18+ games.
 
samsmart said:
Video games back in the day weren't as prolific with graphic violence and sex. Most of this was due to 1) the low resolution of graphics of platforms at that time, and 2) self-regulation of the video game industry, such as Nintendo's Seal of Approval.

I think the only extremely violent game there was back in the day was "Mortal Kombat." But that game is quite tame in comparison to the "Grand Theft Auto" series.
Click to expand...

Proliferation was not as bad, no. However, Custer's Revenge was good enough of an example.
 
samsmart said:
I have no problem with the state of California restricting the sales of video games to those under the age of 18. In fact, I'd prefer it if we started restricting things of a violent nature more and restricting things of a sexual nature less.

And there's already precedence to this - we restrict the sales of pornography magazines to those under the age of 18 still, despite the fact that any kid can go to a porno site and get it that way.
Click to expand...

If so, then isn't it easier to simply declare these questionable games pornographic and use the same rules & regs? I agree that the states have the right to make these decisions and if their voters support such a restriction, it's fine. It's a state issue or even better - local government issue. I don't like the part of this that tries to be the parent where parents are absent, nor the supposed need of such parenting.
 
Ockham said:
If so, then isn't it easier to simply declare these questionable games pornographic and use the same rules & regs?
Click to expand...

No.

Pornography tends to describe media of a sexual nature. What would be done for games that have excessive violence but no sex? Instances of this are FPS games that can be highly violent but no sex.

Also, some parents have no problem with exposing their kids to sexual situations but are against exposing them to violent situations. Other parents have no problem with violence but are against sexuality.

Rather, I think new regulations for violence in games should be separate from regulations for sexuality in video games.


Ockham said:
I agree that the states have the right to make these decisions and if their voters support such a restriction, it's fine. It's a state issue or even better - local government issue. I don't like the part of this that tries to be the parent where parents are absent, nor the supposed need of such parenting.
Click to expand...

Parents can't be with their kids 24-hours a day. If they could, then we wouldn't have all these missing and exploited children cases. And this regulation doesn't try to take over any parenting. Rather, it tries to help parents do their parenting. I don't see what's wrong with that.
 
samsmart said:
I have no problem with the state of California restricting the sales of video games to those under the age of 18. In fact, I'd prefer it if we started restricting things of a violent nature more and restricting things of a sexual nature less.

And there's already precedence to this - we restrict the sales of pornography magazines to those under the age of 18 still, despite the fact that any kid can go to a porno site and get it that way.

I also think that such restrictions on selling games with adult themes to children will help the video game industry more than it will hurt. Let games written for kids be sold to kids. Let games written for adults be sold to adults.

Considering the number of adults who play video games now, the industry will still cater to adults. In fact, this could be a big boost to video game stores. Most likely, big mart stores such as Wal-Mart and Target won't bother to sell such restricted video games. That will leave it to specialty video game stores such as GameStop to sell them instead. That gives video game stores a niche market on which they can capitalize.

This ruling doesn't worry me in the least, and I can think it can actually be helpful to the video game industry.
Click to expand...

The thing is the movie, and music industry would not be under the same scrutiny under law as would the game industry if the law was upheld. Also there is no scientific evidence that violent video games cause violence.
Another thing is that the restriction of sales of M rated games to minors is already voluntarily enforced by every major retail store that sells games. So it's not like a 13 year old can go up, and buy GTA 4 by themselves anyway. If the store is doing its job, which I think they are. The last several M rated games I've bought I have been carded to make sure of my age. This law would just make video games a persecuted form of speech, and give unprecedented power to the ESRB.
 
Your Star said:
The thing is the movie, and music industry would not be under the same scrutiny under law as would the game industry if the law was upheld.
Click to expand...

They can always pass laws regarding the movie industry and the music industry. I wouldn't mind violence in those media to be restricted from children either.

Your Star said:
Also there is no scientific evidence that violent video games cause violence.
Click to expand...

I never said there was, and I agree with you that there isn't. However, there are parents who don't want their children exposed to violence in video games, or at the very least want to be able to make informed decisions with regards to the video games they purchase for their children. I don't see why this can't be helped through the use of law.

Your Star;105899Another thing is that the restriction of sales of M rated games to minors is already voluntarily enforced by every major retail store that sells games. So it's not like a 13 year old can go up said:
Well, if restriction of sales of M-rated games to minors is already voluntarily enforced by every major retail store that sells games, then what's the problem? All this law does is make it apply to all stores in California.

Your Star said:
This law would just make video games a persecuted form of speech,
Click to expand...

Magazines aren't a persecuted form of speech because Playboy and Penthouse can't be sold to minors. Movies aren't a persecuted form of speech because kids can't buy "Biloxi Booty Babes #156." And those are laws that are nationwide. Likewise, video games won't be persecuted either.

Your Star said:
and give unprecedented power to the ESRB.
Click to expand...

The ESRB are a non-profit self-regulatory organization, not a government agency. I don't know the details of that law, but I'd rather a separate state agency be made to decide how the law will be enforced, not a non-profit.
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
samsmart said:
Well, if restriction of sales of M-rated games to minors is already voluntarily enforced by every major retail store that sells games, then what's the problem? All this law does is make it apply to all stores in California.
Click to expand...
It's a beautiful thing for politicians - nothing changes, but they get to hype a new law that might bet them re-elected.
 
The Mark said:
It's a beautiful thing for politicians - nothing changes, but they get to hype a new law that might bet them re-elected.
Click to expand...

Yup. Unlike other issues that actually matter.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom