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.
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.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.
But now you're a grownup.
Aren't you, then, actually bothering the kids?
The law is a waste of paper. The average kid could download the game he/she wants P2P. Games are not properly rated anyway.
The law is a waste of paper. The average kid could download the game he/she wants P2P. Games are not properly rated anyway.
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.
The law is a waste of paper. .
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!
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
So I wanted to know what you guys opinion on the law is? Do you agree with, do you think it's constitutional?
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
This law would just make video games a persecuted form of speech,
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.
and give unprecedented power to the ESRB.
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.
It's a beautiful thing for politicians - nothing changes, but they get to hype a new law that might bet them re-elected.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.
It's a beautiful thing for politicians - nothing changes, but they get to hype a new law that might bet them re-elected.
Hmm, I misspelled "get" as "bet".Yup. Unlike other issues that actually matter.
Help us, anarchy,
you are our only hope.