• 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
samsmart said:
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.
Click to expand...
So change the definition, government does that all the time. Or simply call it that generic catch all "offensive" - because we'll know it when we see it.

samsmart said:
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.
Click to expand...
Which means we should leave it up to parents and get the government out of the babysitting business.

samsmart said:
Rather, I think new regulations for violence in games should be separate from regulations for sexuality in video games.
Click to expand...
All for the common good no doubt. It does take a village to raise children right? :roll:

samsmart said:
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.
Click to expand...
You may want the government to be a surrogate parent, I don't. If a parent needs help parenting, that's what grandparents are for. Kids sneak things all the time - it's in their nature to be curious where experience is lacking. Making games harder to get simply makes them more desirable. If that's the goal - this new surrogate parenting government style will certainly make every 12 year old boy get their older brothers to get them the game or, they'll sneak it or get copies of it anyway, then this new law will be wildly successful.
 
Ockham said:
You may want the government to be a surrogate parent, I don't. If a parent needs help parenting, that's what grandparents are for.
Click to expand...

This is hardly the government being a surrogate parent. There's nothing wrong with the government labeling games as violent and preventing kids from buying them. Stores are doing this voluntarily anyways. All it means is that instead of being done by the industry itself it's being done by the government.

Ockham said:
Kids sneak things all the time - it's in their nature to be curious where experience is lacking. Making games harder to get simply makes them more desirable.
Click to expand...

It may be that kids sneak things all time. But that doesn't mean that just because they do, we should let them get away with it.

Kids sneak alcohol all the time. That doesn't mean we should let 12-year-olds go into dive bars and strip clubs, does it?

Ockham said:
If that's the goal - this new surrogate parenting government style will certainly make every 12 year old boy get their older brothers to get them the game or, they'll sneak it or get copies of it anyway, then this new law will be wildly successful.
Click to expand...

This isn't surrogate parenting. Most parents don't want their kids easily exposed to sex and violence. If parents do want their kids exposed to it, they'd buy their kids the game and let them play it. Just like parents can let their kids watch Cinemax late at night despite porn DVDs being restricted from being sold to minors. But most parents don't want their kids getting it on their own. Which is why it's restricted nation-wide. And not surrogate parenting.
 
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...

The government doesn't need to be interfereing here. It's time for Arnold to be removed from the government.... as an alternative.... he can do an over-the-hill verison of Conan.
 
samsmart said:
This is hardly the government being a surrogate parent. There's nothing wrong with the government labeling games as violent and preventing kids from buying them. Stores are doing this voluntarily anyways. All it means is that instead of being done by the industry itself it's being done by the government.
Click to expand...
You said it yourself ... I'm just agreeing with you. The government is helping out parents ... sounds like a surrogate to me. Maybe parents should... I don't know... BE a parent? But I like where it goes... once the governemnt steps in, parents have full deniablity: The government failed at keeping violent games from a child which is why he grew up to kidnap, kill, skin and eat people and why the parent then sues the government for a hefty sum. Yay lawyers!

samsmart said:
It may be that kids sneak things all time. But that doesn't mean that just because they do, we should let them get away with it.
Click to expand...
That's a parent's job and not my point at all. My point was this guarantees kids will sneak around more and virtually guarantees it.

samsmart said:
Kids sneak alcohol all the time. That doesn't mean we should let 12-year-olds go into dive bars and strip clubs, does it?
Click to expand...
Nice strawman and irrelevant example. All this goes away with parent's being accountable and responsible. If you want the governemnt involved, put fines on parents when kids are caught or are found to have these games. That at least provides an incentive for parents to be more involved in the childs well being instead of passing the buck to the surrogate nanny government.

samsmart said:
This isn't surrogate parenting.
Click to expand...
It so is. As I've explained already.

samsmart said:
Most parents don't want their kids easily exposed to sex and violence. If parents do want their kids exposed to it, they'd buy their kids the game and let them play it. Just like parents can let their kids watch Cinemax late at night despite porn DVDs being restricted from being sold to minors. But most parents don't want their kids getting it on their own. Which is why it's restricted nation-wide. And not surrogate parenting.
Click to expand...
It so is.
 
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...
You know, I never thought of that. This is another reason why I oppose it now. I private organization shouldn't have that kind of power.
 
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.
Click to expand...

The closed minded prudes will say yes, the progressive, open minded will say no... Next case...

ricksfolly
 
Ockham said:
Nice strawman and irrelevant example. All this goes away with parent's being accountable and responsible. If you want the governemnt involved, put fines on parents when kids are caught or are found to have these games. That at least provides an incentive for parents to be more involved in the childs well being instead of passing the buck to the surrogate nanny government.
Click to expand...

Nice strawman yourself.

Nobody wants to take parenting away from parents. Nobody wants the government to parent for them. Nobody is talking about fining parents for allowing their kids to play violent video games. All the law is about is using the force of government to prevent children from video games deemed too violent. That's it.

And at first you're saying it's too much and causing a nanny state despite the law already being used to restrict the activities of children, such as driving and purchasing pornography, and then in the same paragraph you're saying we should actually punish parents for choosing to allow their children to play violent video games.

The issue isn't whether or not children should be allowed to play violent video games. The issue is whether or not the government should use the force of law to prevent children from purchasing video games because not all parents want their children to be able to purchase it. If a parent is okay with a child playing a violent video game, they can just buy the video game for their kid. Which they do already since stores voluntarily restrict selling violent games to children.

Which means you're either 1) being purposefully silly, or 2) unable to discern nuance on an issue. Restricting video game sales to children is a very moderate law, one that many stores are already voluntarily doing anyways. Why do you feel compelled to either make it a point of a nanny state taking over parenting which needs to be struck down or go to the opposite extreme and advocate using the force of law to punish parents who allow their children to play violent video games? The only one here advocating such extreme measures is you.
 
Personally, I am always amazed at how many Americans' are proud of living in the freest nation in the world. Yet they go through great lengths on censoring material that would make communist Russia proud.

And I am surprised that over 70% of Californians agree with the law...if anything its the 10 people in California who bothered with voting so how can 7 decide what is ok for over 30million people? When the majority do not care about politics and would rather be the decider than the government?.....oh well it is what happens with a society so focused on being cool......
 
Gray_Fox_86 said:
Personally, I am always amazed at how many Americans' are proud of living in the freest nation in the world. Yet they go through great lengths on censoring material that would make communist Russia proud.

And I am surprised that over 70% of Californians agree with the law...if anything its the 10 people in California who bothered with voting so how can 7 decide what is ok for over 30million people? When the majority do not care about politics and would rather be the decider than the government?.....oh well it is what happens with a society so focused on being cool......
Click to expand...

If a person isn't directly involved, it's hard to even get his/her attention, no involvement, no interest, no intelligent response.

ricksfolly
 
Gray_Fox_86 said:
Personally, I am always amazed at how many Americans' are proud of living in the freest nation in the world. Yet they go through great lengths on censoring material that would make communist Russia proud.

And I am surprised that over 70% of Californians agree with the law...if anything its the 10 people in California who bothered with voting so how can 7 decide what is ok for over 30million people? When the majority do not care about politics and would rather be the decider than the government?.....oh well it is what happens with a society so focused on being cool......
Click to expand...

Nobody's censoring anything. Nobody's saying violent video games can't be sold in stores. Nobody's preventing the production of violent video games.

All this game does is restrict selling video games with extreme violence to minors. Those who are over 18 are free to buy those games. Parents aren't prevented from buying those games and allowing their kids to play them. This is hardly censorship.
 
samsmart said:
Nobody's censoring anything. Nobody's saying violent video games can't be sold in stores. Nobody's preventing the production of violent video games.

All this game does is restrict selling video games with extreme violence to minors. Those who are over 18 are free to buy those games. Parents aren't prevented from buying those games and allowing their kids to play them. This is hardly censorship.
Click to expand...
Sorry. I should have made my post clear instead of the dribble that I did.

What I meant by censoring is when they show a movie on a cable channel the movie is normally censored and violence and sex and bad words are edited out. Think FX when I mean by cable. Is that ok? Most do it because they fear backlash from the federal government because moralists who are radicals-and any extremist is a dangerous thing-would take up to arms on tv companies showing "bad" things that would harm the public.

And the thing about restricting. It is just as bad as censoring because when you restrict you have more people just doing it. Look at the illegal drugs, americans consume those drugs like crazy because they are illegal to a degree. Take the danger out of it and watch drug use go down. Same with videogames make a note of it that it is just entertainment and watch controversy go down. But then again, most americans cannot live without conflict. So that in it is a problem in itself and a very big problem.
 
[quote="Gray_Fox_86]What I meant by censoring is when they show a movie on a cable channel the movie is normally censored and violence and sex and bad words are edited out. Think FX when I mean by cable. Is that ok? Most do it because they fear backlash from the federal government because moralists who are radicals-and any extremist is a dangerous thing-would take up to arms on tv companies showing "bad" things that would harm the public. [/quote]

Absolutely it's okay. It's their network, they can do whatever they want. Are they being forced to do so? No. Cable channels can do whatever they want because they are not using the public airwaves. It's their choice to censor if they want, it's your choice whether or not you want to watch their network based on their choices. Networks can choose, based on their perceived audience, to show whatever they want to. You can choose whether or not to change the channel.
 
Cephus said:
Absolutely it's okay. It's their network, they can do whatever they want. Are they being forced to do so? No. Cable channels can do whatever they want because they are not using the public airwaves. It's their choice to censor if they want, it's your choice whether or not you want to watch their network based on their choices. Networks can choose, based on their perceived audience, to show whatever they want to. You can choose whether or not to change the channel.
Click to expand...

Not too long ago they use to show movies unedited. But now things have changed. Why? Is it really because most people who have cable television do not want to be watching gory things? I think not. I think most companies have caved to the demand of adults who want to be babysitters to other adults.
 
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...

The industry already does self-regulate. The ESRB is completely voluntary, but retailers generally refuse to sell unrated games. Also, retailers virtually never sell M games to people under 17 without a parent. If you don't want your kids buying violent video games, don't let them.
 
Gray_Fox_86 said:
Not too long ago they use to show movies unedited. But now things have changed. Why? Is it really because most people who have cable television do not want to be watching gory things? I think not. I think most companies have caved to the demand of adults who want to be babysitters to other adults.
Click to expand...

A lot of them are trying to be family friendly so they do censor. If you don't want censorship, go for HBO or Showtime, neither one censors anything. Many cable networks are owned by over-the-air broadcasters who already have that mindset. Like I said before, don't like what the network does, don't watch it, or you could start your own and show anything you damn well please.
 
Gray_Fox_86 said:
Not too long ago they use to show movies unedited. But now things have changed. Why? Is it really because most people who have cable television do not want to be watching gory things? I think not. I think most companies have caved to the demand of adults who want to be babysitters to other adults.
Click to expand...

There's also another factor to edited content: it's done by the tv stations themselves. The reason why is because those stations get paid for by advertisers. If tv stations air offensive content that does not violate any obscenity laws, viewers can complain to the advertisers. So a lot of content is self-regulated, especially cable television.

Take, for example, when Comedy Central aired that episode of "South Park" when they had the word sh*t uttered a couple of hundred times. It wasn't censored by the government because the law clearly states that cable stations can air obscene content after 10:00pm. The reason why most don't even though they have the power to do so is because viewers may not like that offensive material, which means they won't be watching the ads for that content, which means advertisers won't pay for ads, which means the station loses out on money.
 
I dislike censorship. I am biased for the idea if a violent video game produces violence .. then there is something wrong before the game came along. Violence = uncool and stupid. Separating reality from fantasy is a normal process with people who are mentally sound.
 
Gabriel said:
I dislike censorship. I am biased for the idea if a violent video game produces violence .. then there is something wrong before the game came along. Violence = uncool and stupid. Separating reality from fantasy is a normal process with people who are mentally sound.
Click to expand...
Methinks it's more of a parent problem than a video game problem - If they didn't teach their kids to seperate fantasy from reality, it's not the game's fault.
 
The Mark said:
Methinks it's more of a parent problem than a video game problem - If they didn't teach their kids to seperate fantasy from reality, it's not the game's fault.
Click to expand...

Sure but I think the thing is separating reality and fantasy is something that most normal people do automatically without the presence of brainwashing etc. I think most enjoy gaming because it isn't reality.. that's why they do it. If it was reality.. the enjoyment of being able to do something you already can do would decrease reason to play the said game.
 
Gabriel said:
I dislike censorship. I am biased for the idea if a violent video game produces violence .. then there is something wrong before the game came along. Violence = uncool and stupid. Separating reality from fantasy is a normal process with people who are mentally sound.
Click to expand...

That's not even the issue.

Now, proponents may want to make it the issue to support this measure. And opponents may want to make it the issue to refute this measure. But that's not the issue.

The issue is "Should underage children be allowed to purchase video games found to have extreme violence on their own without any parental oversight, and if not should the California state government have the legal authority to prevent it?"

I say No, underage children shouldn't have the innate right to purchase overly violent video games without parents' permission. I also think the California state government should have the legal authority to regulate this.

And, should a parent decide their children can handle an overly violent video game, then that parent can just purchase the video game for their child and let their child have at it. Which, I think, is more preferable than the child making that decision for himself or herself.
 
samsmart said:
lNice strawman yourself.

Nobody wants to take parenting away from parents. Nobody wants the government to parent for them. Nobody is talking about fining parents for allowing their kids to play violent video games. All the law is about is using the force of government to prevent children from video games deemed too violent. That's it.
Click to expand...

And that's a parents responsibility. :shrug:

samsmart said:
And at first you're saying it's too much and causing a nanny state despite the law already being used to restrict the activities of children, such as driving and purchasing pornography, and then in the same paragraph you're saying we should actually punish parents for choosing to allow their children to play violent video games.
Click to expand...

I'm appealing to the totalitarian streak. What? Too Wilsonesque? Heres and idea... Let parents decide what video games their kids play and if they don't know or don't care, it's none of the governments concern. No matter how much you claim government isn't being a surrogate, you keep proving my assertion in every post. Well done.


samsmart said:
AndWhich means you're either 1) being purposefully silly, or 2) unable to discern nuance on an issue. Restricting video game sales to children is a very moderate law, one that many stores are already voluntarily doing anyways. Why do you feel compelled to either make it a point of a nanny state taking over parenting which needs to be struck down or go to the opposite extreme and advocate using the force of law to punish parents who allow their children to play violent video games? The only one here advocating such extreme measures is you.
Click to expand...

Moderate is subjective. Government involvement is rarely positive. I simply want parents to be responsible and accountable whereas you want government to be a surrogate. I think vie made my view on that very clear. I don't want government telling me how much salt to put on my fries, tell me what is and is not "moderate" and has no business being mommy and daddy. Either you are a closet totalitarian or you've been brainwashed by the "it takes a village" crowd or maybe both.
 
samsmart said:
That's not even the issue.

Now, proponents may want to make it the issue to support this measure. And opponents may want to make it the issue to refute this measure. But that's not the issue.

The issue is "Should underage children be allowed to purchase video games found to have extreme violence on their own without any parental oversight, and if not should the California state government have the legal authority to prevent it?"

I say No, underage children shouldn't have the innate right to purchase overly violent video games without parents' permission. I also think the California state government should have the legal authority to regulate this.

And, should a parent decide their children can handle an overly violent video game, then that parent can just purchase the video game for their child and let their child have at it. Which, I think, is more preferable than the child making that decision for himself or herself.
Click to expand...

To be honest I believe that reality have a greater effect on a persons behaviour then fantasy. I dislike censorship generally speaking. I would not want to be in charge of what people are permitted to see or not in terms of content. I can also attest to the fact I have played video games since I was a boy .. as well as playing advanced dungeons and dragons as a pre teen. I do not think or believe that these activities cause violence in society. You can in no way convince me otherwise I have not a violent bone in my body and view "fights" negatively in nearly all situations.

The rational behind censorship is that nurturing is everything and human nature a blank slate. I disagree in so many ways. I agree nurturing is key but it's not the lock and key. Somehow/someway we are all a combination of nurturing and our individual natures.

Clearly if video game violence was a serious factor in causation of social violence then it would be even more wide spread. Obviously though a boy at home on friday night "fraging" his friends on xbox live is not a cause for concern.

Just my opinion.
 
Ockham said:
And that's a parents responsibility. :shrug:



I'm appealing to the totalitarian streak. What? Too Wilsonesque? Heres and idea... Let parents decide what video games their kids play and if they don't know or don't care, it's none of the governments concern. No matter how much you claim government isn't being a surrogate, you keep proving my assertion in every post. Well done.




Moderate is subjective. Government involvement is rarely positive. I simply want parents to be responsible and accountable whereas you want government to be a surrogate. I think vie made my view on that very clear. I don't want government telling me how much salt to put on my fries, tell me what is and is not "moderate" and has no business being mommy and daddy. Either you are a closet totalitarian or you've been brainwashed by the "it takes a village" crowd or maybe both.
Click to expand...

So do you think we should repeal laws that require age limits for driver's licenses?

So do you think we should repeal laws that prevent children from purchasing alcohol?

So do you think we should repeal laws that prevent children from purchasing tobacco products?

So do you think we should repeal laws that prevent children from purchasing porn?
 
Gabriel said:
To be honest I believe that reality have a greater effect on a persons behaviour then fantasy. I dislike censorship generally speaking. I would not want to be in charge of what people are permitted to see or not in terms of content. I can also attest to the fact I have played video games since I was a boy .. as well as playing advanced dungeons and dragons as a pre teen. I do not think or believe that these activities cause violence in society. You can in no way convince me otherwise I have not a violent bone in my body and view "fights" negatively in nearly all situations.

The rational behind censorship is that nurturing is everything and human nature a blank slate. I disagree in so many ways. I agree nurturing is key but it's not the lock and key. Somehow/someway we are all a combination of nurturing and our individual natures.

Clearly if video game violence was a serious factor in causation of social violence then it would be even more wide spread. Obviously though a boy at home on friday night "fraging" his friends on xbox live is not a cause for concern.

Just my opinion.
Click to expand...

Well, again, the way I see it it's not even an issue about whether or not violence in video games should be censored. It's about whether or not the law can prevent children from purchasing video games deemed too violent.

We already allow parents a great amount of control over their children and what they are and aren't exposed to. Because of that, I see this law as merely an extension of that.

It doesn't censor anything. All it does is give parents more power in what their children are exposed to. And once those children are 18-years-old, they are free to purchase video games that are as violent as video companies make and that 18-year-old can afford.

And it doesn't even do that. If a parent decides his 15-year-old son can handle a violent video game, that parent can still buy it for him and let him play it. All this law does it take that determination away from the child and back to the parent.
 
samsmart said:
So do you think we should repeal laws that require age limits for driver's licenses?

So do you think we should repeal laws that prevent children from purchasing alcohol?

So do you think we should repeal laws that prevent children from purchasing tobacco products?

So do you think we should repeal laws that prevent children from purchasing porn?
Click to expand...
I'm tempted to say "Yes", to all except the top one.

Mwahahahahah!!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom