Anti-Democracy At Work

[Anonymous]

http://www.gamespot.com/news/6135332.html

[Anonymous]

*Sigh*

What's next? TV?

[Anonymous]

The best part is the fact that SCHWARZENEGGER is heading the campaign; the star of most of the most violent movies ever made and he's telling us that we can't play violent video games. Isn't irony so ironic?

[Anonymous]

I find it weird that a conservative is backing this.  Usually its Liberman, Tipper, and Hilary bitchin about videogames.  I guess Maria Shriver and her kennedy spell is being cast on Schwarzenegger.

[Anonymous]

No true, both parties want to "protect" our childen from such horrible games!!!*end sracasm*
It just come down that they want good PR saying that they are banning "bad" thing from our childern.

[Ketamininja]

Hmmn, well we can spot the irony, but that doesn't mean that it's not right.
I think there is already a tighter control on Video/DVD rental, but it needs to be strict if it is to ahve any effect. I'm sure that kids can still buy them in stores without being questioned, or age checked.

Technically, the ESA can't really say much since they have already had the games certificated. If its a M for Mature, then they are not targetting the underage customers, and will therefore lose no money but this... technically.

[Manic Velocity]

Eh, I don't live in California and I'm over 18.  I don't think I'll be losing any sleep over this.

Though, I think it's funny that this bill is coming out of California, where at least one day out of every week you can turn on the television and see a news story about another freeway shooting.  Kids don't need video games to see violent images.

But honestly, it's not up to the state to decide when a child learns about violence and sexuality.  I'll give Schwarzenegger one guess as to whose responsibility that is.

I think the ESA is getting a little overzealous in attempting to identify this law as unconstitutional.  The fact is, they don't have the constitutional right to sell violent and/or sexual images to a minor without parental consent.

[Anonymous]

Well, one step closer:

"Today, after sitting on the bill for nearly a month and constant political pressure, Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger signed Assembly Bill 1179, the bill that would prohibit the sale and rentals of violent video games to minors. Again, the Entertainment Software Ratings Board and the Video Software Dealers Association (VSDA) are challenging the bill. According the the VSDA, the bill is faulty in that a game is decided whether or not it is 'violent' by juries, and different juries could have different opinions on what is defined as 'violent'."

The thing is that we already have a little government run organization that rates games on the matter of Mature, Teen, Everyone, etc. These ratings are there for a reason. If that isn't enough, you can turn around any game and on the back, it clearly states why it was given that rating. Mature rated games are for sale of people 17 and up for a reason. Whether or not storeowners in California enforce that rule, is between them and regulations they are breaking. The consumers shouldn't be the ones getting punished for lazy store clerks trying to give some kids a break and make more money. Granted, this doesn't affect me, but it affects a hell of a lot of other gamers out there.  

Now, for California to pass a bill that would ban games that are demed "violent" (the main thing is their definition of violent can change and there is no clear cut defintion) and ban them from sale to minors (this even includes games that are rated Teen.) This is clearly overstepping their boundaries and attempting to have more power than the government run ESRB. That is where I think the problem lies, they don't want loose cannon states banning certain games as it would be very unorganized. Especially since you can just buy the same thing over the internet from another state and have it shipped in or even from another country. The ESRB gives a Teen rating and not a Mature rating for a reason and that reason is that it might not be so bad for teens to play the game and have fun with it.

The whole law is very stupid since there are already regulations that do about the same thing and hold those who break them accountable. This is just some big name people who want to make a name for themselves and attacking freedoms, once again. I wrote a research paper on stuff like this happening and how it only hurts us, but I don't want put in too much of my own views on the matter.

I'll sum it up like this:
In any civilized society, every person must take responsibility for their own actions and parents must take responsibility for their kids. It's time to step up to the plate parents, and regulate your kids. If you don't want your child playing a certain game, then don't let them and do whatever you have to do to keep them from playing it. However, just because a few retarded kids kill some people and blame it on GTA, doesn't mean it's the games fault. A few parents are getting lazy and looking for the government to enforce a personal issue and now that issue is made public to stop the minority at the expense of the majority. To me, that doesn't sound like democracy, but maybe that's just me.

The thing that puzzles me is that many other states already have laws like this. So why does it only make the big news and start lawsuits when California is doing it?

[Anonymous]

Anyways, there is always some good and some bad with every decision. So, this might be good for the people of California and they might come out better because of it. Regardless, I just don't agree. Peace out homies. lol