Video games and the law

[Calax]

http://www.escapistmagazine.com/videos/vie...-Voters-Network

 

Ok, This is again a two subject post.

 

One: what do you think about the cali law that restricts M rated sales and will impose fines if a seller is found to have sold an M rated game?

 

Two: Do you think that the VGVN has become a tool to be used by the ESA? This may sound weird but seeing the below quote makes me think that the VGVN isn't going to be it's own device, it'll be a tool to be used by the ESA in cases where they feel things are a but mucked up. If he hadn't specifically cited the VGVN I'd be more ok with it... Gah, I'm making little sense about it, but it feels like the VGVN isn't there for the gamers, it's there for the companies and the ESA to use to pressure people in politics.

 

Video gamers across the country are anxiously awaiting November 2 when the U.S. Supreme Court will hear oral arguments in a case close to our hearts.

 

The case, Schwarzenegger v. Entertainment Merchants Association and Entertainment Software Association, involves a 2005 California law that seeks to restrict the sale and rental to minors of computer and video games that are determined by the state to contain "unacceptable" violence.

 

As two lower courts in this specific case and a total of 12 lower courts in similar cases concluded, computer and video games are First Amendment-protected free speech, entitled to the same protections as books, movies and other forms of artistic expression. Therefore, any attempt to impose a content-based restriction on games must demonstrate a compelling state interest that would be addressed by this restriction and apply the least restrictive means of achieving the state's intended goal.

 

A compelling interest does not exist. California tried to argue that video games cause violent behavior, but the argument was shot down faster than Master Chief takes down members of the Covenant. In fact, no scientific evidence exists to link video game violence to real world violence. This reality was acknowledged by the Ninth Circuit Federal Court of Appeals in its decision to strike down the California law and by 82 social scientists who filed a legal brief urging the Supreme Court to reject California's statute.

 

Even if there was a connection between virtual and real-world violence, the California law is unconstitutional because there is a less restrictive

[Tale]

Generally, the protection of freedom of speach/expression is thrown about here. The government can't restrict children from accessing forms of expression (with the exception of pornography). That's my general understand.

 

Also it's been tried with everything before (music and comics are relatively recent examples) and has failed. This would be a drastic turnaround of the existing precedent if it were allowed.

Edited October 19, 2010 by Tale

[Gfted1]

Has a game ever gotten an M rating for just violence? Its usually for "adult situations" or drug use, right? So the Cali decision for "unacceptable violence" is separate from the "M" rating issue?

[Purkake]

Generally, the protection of freedom of speach/expression is thrown about here. The government can't restrict children from accessing forms of expression (with the exception of pornography).

 

Needs more lines in sand.

 

What happened to America's "we'll do it ourselves, go away government" thing?

Edited October 19, 2010 by Purkake

[Raithe]

Generally, the protection of freedom of speach/expression is thrown about here. The government can't restrict children from accessing forms of expression (with the exception of pornography).

 

Needs more lines in sand.

 

What happened to America's "we'll do it ourselves, go away government" thing?

 

Thats been an iconic myth they've kept telling themselves for a few centuries now..

[Tale]

Generally, the protection of freedom of speach/expression is thrown about here. The government can't restrict children from accessing forms of expression (with the exception of pornography).

 

Needs more lines in sand.

 

What happened to America's "we'll do it ourselves, go away government" thing?

It's very selective, depending on who you talk to. Radical survivalists may be completely "go away government" but conservatives are "go away government, unless there's minorities in need of oppressing or my business is failing" and liberals are "go away government, unless I need help."

[Wrath of Dagon]

It's not a question of "government go away", it's a question of what the proper role of government should be. Also under the federal Constitution, the powers left to the states are less restricted than the powers allowed the federal government, and this is a question of the constitutionality of a state, not federal, law.

[Walsingham]

Devil's advocate here, but are games just speech? Games are more than just speech. They are immersive and are widely accepted in industry and the military as teaching key skills and drills. Viz America's Army.

 

If they are not just speech, but a powerful influencer, does this lay them open to additional control? Especially if the effects of that influence are not immediately obvious to the user, as with subliminal messages in visual media?

[Wrath of Dagon]

Being a powerful influence doesn't prevent them from being "speech" for legal purposes. The real issue here is that children don't have the same free speech rights as adults, and society has the right to seek to prevent harm to children. Not that that law would be the least bit effective in any case, as it's all really up to the parents. Edit: May be it would be somewhat effective in sending a message to parents that children really shouldn't be playing certain games, as so far that message doesn't seem to have gotten through.

Edited October 20, 2010 by Wrath of Dagon

[Calax]

Devil's advocate here, but are games just speech? Games are more than just speech. They are immersive and are widely accepted in industry and the military as teaching key skills and drills. Viz America's Army.

 

If they are not just speech, but a powerful influencer, does this lay them open to additional control? Especially if the effects of that influence are not immediately obvious to the user, as with subliminal messages in visual media?

Don't people also use videos to teach things in the same way as Army?

[Walsingham]

Devil's advocate here, but are games just speech? Games are more than just speech. They are immersive and are widely accepted in industry and the military as teaching key skills and drills. Viz America's Army.

 

If they are not just speech, but a powerful influencer, does this lay them open to additional control? Especially if the effects of that influence are not immediately obvious to the user, as with subliminal messages in visual media?

Don't people also use videos to teach things in the same way as Army?

 

Point.

[LadyCrimson]

I'm not for censorship & as written I don't agree with CA's 2005 law to criminalize such sales. I do, however, think the ESRB needs a better system of ratings (for that matter, so do the movies) that better reflect current social trends of the day. Such things aren't static & the boards need to re-evaluate/change ratings systems (to apply to new releases after said change) more frequently then they do, imo.

 

As long as there are parents tools to help them block out what they don't want their kids playing, I don't see an issue beyond that. I mean, if parents of relatively young children are that worried, don't buy them an Xbox/tv & keep the child's PC in a public viewable room blah blah. That's up to the parent.

 

I wouldn't be adverse to having better, much more descriptive content 'warnings' in larger text on the front of the box & game disc. I don't think that would be "bad" and at least parents can't then say they were "unaware" of what the game contained because it was unclear what "Violence & Blood Gore" actually meant.

[Nepenthe]

I'm not for censorship & as written I don't agree with CA's 2005 law to criminalize such sales. I do, however, think the ESRB needs a better system of ratings (for that matter, so do the movies) that better reflect current social trends of the day. Such things aren't static & the boards need to re-evaluate/change ratings systems (to apply to new releases after said change) more frequently then they do, imo.

 

As long as there are parents tools to help them block out what they don't want their kids playing, I don't see an issue beyond that. I mean, if parents of relatively young children are that worried, don't buy them an Xbox/tv & keep the child's PC in a public viewable room blah blah. That's up to the parent.

 

AFAIK, the gist is that the law's there to allow the parents to make that choice. Instead of a bunch of preteens going to buy those alien sideboobs from the store without them knowing. And generally, if you want to legally disallow something, you have to either attach a fine to it or prepare to make yourself ridiculous. We have some choice examples of the latter from the past few years.

[Orogun01]

Devil's advocate here, but are games just speech? Games are more than just speech. They are immersive and are widely accepted in industry and the military as teaching key skills and drills. Viz America's Army.

 

If they are not just speech, but a powerful influencer, does this lay them open to additional control? Especially if the effects of that influence are not immediately obvious to the user, as with subliminal messages in visual media?

The army has also used movies and music to motivate their troops and desentize them to war and to their enemies. Most of the army's "games" are simulators with less blood than any AAA game. This is in no way proof of games causing violence.

[~Di]

How is this different than our movie rating system, which prohibits minors from viewing certain movies without an accompanying adult? Or am I missing something sinister here... and I could be, because I only gave it a cursory read.

 

The "violent games cause violent behavior" crap is just that, crap. We've had violent movies and violent books for decades, which kids eat up with a spoon. I've never understood the level of hysteria that video games cause in otherwise rational sentient beings.

[Orogun01]

How is this different than our movie rating system, which prohibits minors from viewing certain movies without an accompanying adult? Or am I missing something sinister here... and I could be, because I only gave it a cursory read.

 

The "violent games cause violent behavior" crap is just that, crap. We've had violent movies and violent books for decades, which kids eat up with a spoon. I've never understood the level of hysteria that video games cause in otherwise rational sentient beings.

The movie rating system; as it was implemented back in the 60's was also very restrictive. Things like sex scenes were completely banned, and even kisses were limited to just a few seconds onscreen. This put limitations on filmmakers, the same way that any overly restrictive game legislation would make game development harder.

 

This law in particular gives leeway for them to say which games are not fit for minors and will penalize any mistake. The problem is that they did not have any concrete definition of what constitutes a disapproved game, which makes this a make it up as you go game for them and puts distributors in a bind since they don't know which games are appropriate.

 

Result: less distribution of mature games and the market is cornered on child's play.

[LadyCrimson]

I don't actually care that much about game-specific industry sales or other impact concerns. I'm sure if I worked in that industry I'd care, but frankly I'm more about the issue that video games/movies/books aren't tobacco/booze etc. that either is or is potentially harmful to everybody. Until they prove otherwise, leave it up to the parents, not the government.

 

We've had violent movies and violent books for decades, which kids eat up with a spoon. I've never understood the level of hysteria that video games cause in otherwise rational sentient beings.

I think the hysteria comes from the issue that games require participatory action (player must initiate the game violence) rather than just watching or reading, if that makes sense. Rubbernecking vs. conscious decision to shoot animated ppl in the face. I'm not saying I agree with that notion, just my thought as to why it may seem worse to some.

Edited October 21, 2010 by LadyCrimson

[Wrath of Dagon]

I'm not for censorship & as written I don't agree with CA's 2005 law to criminalize such sales. I do, however, think the ESRB needs a better system of ratings (for that matter, so do the movies) that better reflect current social trends of the day. Such things aren't static & the boards need to re-evaluate/change ratings systems (to apply to new releases after said change) more frequently then they do, imo.

Can you give a specific example of ESRB misrating games? I see ESRB get a lot of crap, but IMO they do a pretty reasonable job.

 

This law in particular gives leeway for them to say which games are not fit for minors and will penalize any mistake. The problem is that they did not have any concrete definition of what constitutes a disapproved game, which makes this a make it up as you go game for them and puts distributors in a bind since they don't know which games are appropriate.

 

Result: less distribution of mature games and the market is cornered on child's play.

I'm not sure what you mean by distributors. It would be the retailer who's responsible for not selling the prohibited games to minors, there would be no other restrictions on distribution of games. As far as the law being too vague, that could be the main reason the law is overturned. Basically every retailer would have to play every game and come up with a list of games that are unsuitable for minors. Of course, they could just take the shortcut of not selling any M-rated games to minors, but I don't think that holds water legally.

Edited October 26, 2010 by Wrath of Dagon

[Tale]

Also under the federal Constitution, the powers left to the states are less restricted than the powers allowed the federal government, and this is a question of the constitutionality of a state, not federal, law.

This is a question of freedom of speech, as protected by the first amendment from the federal government. And due to the incorporation doctrine of the fourteenth, the states may also not infringe on this right.

[Wrath of Dagon]

It's not necessarily a First Amendment case, because the state has the right to protect children from harm and they don't have the same free speech rights as adults. The reason I distinguished between the legitimate powers of the state and federal government is because you lumped everything under "government go away" rubric, which you happened to leave out when you quoted me.

[Tale]

It's not necessarily a First Amendment case, because the state has the right to protect children from harm and they don't have the same free speech rights as adults. The reason I distinguished between the legitimate powers of the state and federal government is because you lumped everything under "government go away" rubric, which you happened to leave out when you quoted me.

I didn't lump anything under anything, I was responding to Purkake. He brought up "government go away."

 

Video games aren't about the free speech of children, they're not the children expressing anything. And the right to protect children from speech can only be exercised in very limited cases. There's actually not a lot of legal precedent for prohibiting children's exposure to violent media. Sex, yes. Profanity, yes. Hate speech, yes. Violence, nope.

 

And these cases almost always focus on violence.

Edited October 26, 2010 by Tale

[Calax]

It's not necessarily a First Amendment case, because the state has the right to protect children from harm and they don't have the same free speech rights as adults. The reason I distinguished between the legitimate powers of the state and federal government is because you lumped everything under "government go away" rubric, which you happened to leave out when you quoted me.

No. The state has the "right to protect children" although its more a "responsibility to protect their citizens" but in this case, the law breaks fed constitution, so even if this was "Don't let the KKK hold a protest on a brooklyn school's playground" the freedom of speech would still have it be allowed (assuming proper permits were given etc). Just because you think something shouldn't be said, or is harming somebody by saying it, doesn't mean that it is censurable. This blatantly is the Cali legislature trying to parent the millions of children within their boundaries. IT IS NOT THE STATES JOB TO BE A PARENT IN PLACE OF THE ACTUAL PARENTS.

 

If this law ends up sticking, You'll see a deluge of legislation aimed at this, and other media that are considered adult to criminalize their sale, which will lead the distributors to stop selling it, which will end up causing all forms of entertainment to be most "risque" at PG.

Edited October 26, 2010 by Calax

[Wrath of Dagon]

@ Tale

By and from aren't really important here. It's the same First Amendment principle. And the standard in limiting exposure to speech would probably be a compelling government interest, which may not be that hard to show.

 

Edit:

It's not necessarily a First Amendment case, because the state has the right to protect children from harm and they don't have the same free speech rights as adults. The reason I distinguished between the legitimate powers of the state and federal government is because you lumped everything under "government go away" rubric, which you happened to leave out when you quoted me.

No. The state has the "right to protect children" although its more a "responsibility to protect their citizens" but in this case, the law breaks fed constitution, so even if this was "Don't let the KKK hold a protest on a brooklyn school's playground" the freedom of speech would still have it be allowed (assuming proper permits were given etc). Just because you think something shouldn't be said, or is harming somebody by saying it, doesn't mean that it is censurable. This blatantly is the Cali legislature trying to parent the millions of children within their boundaries. IT IS NOT THE STATES JOB TO BE A PARENT IN PLACE OF THE ACTUAL PARENTS.

It's not censorship to make something available for sale, but not to minors. And no, you probably couldn't have a KKK rally at a playground unless the kids were removed first.

If this law ends up sticking, You'll see a deluge of legislation aimed at this, and other media that are considered adult to criminalize their sale, which will lead the distributors to stop selling it, which will end up causing all forms of entertainment to be most "risque" at PG.

I don't see why they'd stop selling anything to adults if they were prohibited from selling it to children. Prohibiting the sale of porn to kids didn't exactly make it go away.

Edited October 26, 2010 by Wrath of Dagon

[Calax]

Except that if a retailer can't sell an item to those below the age of 17, they might not carry it, which would kill that products sale and possibly it's developer. Also, comparing this to porn is... stupid. It's better to compare it to what comic books went through in the 70's with the Comics Code Authority after a whack job said "If you show your kids comics they'll become homocidal maniacs!" using the same logic as "If you let your kids breath they'll become Homocidal Maniacs!" It took until the 90's for them to get rid of the CCA and they only got rid of it because they did a PSA specifically for the government.

[Thorton_AP]

By and from aren't really important here. It's the same First Amendment principle. And the standard in limiting exposure to speech would probably be a compelling government interest, which may not be that hard to show.

 

Isn't "by" and "from" exceptionally important here?