New Californian censorship law for games in the near future?

Lemonhead

Lemonhead

Keeper of the Watch
Original Sin Donor
Original Sin 2 Donor
Joined
June 4, 2008
Messages
1,000
Location
The Great White North
I didn't know there was a new censorship law in the works but it doesn't sound good. You might want to read what Ted from Insomniac Games has to say about it. The article rants about some other things as well…

http://www.insomniacgames.com/blogcast/blog/from_ted/152554368

"Unfortunately for those of us who develop games, our right to express ourselves is hanging in the balance. If you’re not aware of it, today there is a California law sitting at the US Supreme Court which, if upheld, could completely change the game business. The law would make it illegal to sell games with content “inappropriate” for minors to anyone under 18. The law would ignore ESRB ratings and use completely arbitrary and vague definitions to describe what is allowed and isn’t allowed. Ultimately games would be treated as restricted substances – similar to cigarettes, alcohol and drugs.

It’s very important to note that no other form of media has to contend with this kind of restriction. It’s not illegal for those under 17 to attend a R rated movie, to read a Stephen King book or to listen to Howard Stern. But if the Supreme Court rules against the game industry, it could be illegal for someone under 18 to buy Resistance if the game is deemed inappropriate for minors under the new law. And as content creators, if there is a chance that our games will appear in an “Adults Only” section of game stores we will have to restrict what we create to avoid going out of business. To me such a situation is tantamount to government censorship."
 
Joined
Jun 4, 2008
Messages
1,000
Location
The Great White North
It’s not illegal for those under 17 to attend a R rated movie, to read a Stephen King book or to listen to Howard Stern.
Click to expand...

I think that is the most important thing. Recent studies have shown that it is easier for teens to see a R movie or buy Playboy than to get a M game due to strict self-policing. That tells me these people are on a crusade not based in reality.

I mean, I don't want my kids to be able to buy M games arbitrarily at 12 & 14 any more than I would want them admitted to R movies without me present, but neither should there need to be a new law to enforce it.
 
Joined
Oct 18, 2006
Messages
14,951
Warren Spector's Call to Action:

Dear Friends,

Computer and video games are art, a form of artistic expression deserving of and, currently, protected by the First Amendment.

That hasn't stopped states though from trying to restrict the rights of our medium's artists, storytellers, and technical innovators. On November 2, the Supreme Court will hear arguments on the constitutionality of a California law that would restrict the sale of video games. This is a case of great significance to you and me — to all people who play or create games and believe in the First Amendment.

Let's not beat around the bush — if the Court's ruling goes against us, this law could lead to the future censorship of games, could irrevocably harm developers and would validate the absurd notion that video games are somehow a lesser form of creative expression.

We must act now. On October 19, I'm asking you to join me in urging all of your friends and co-workers, real-world or virtual, to stand up for video games by joining the Video Game Voters Network, an advocacy group fighting for their First Amendment protection.

Many people, including some of my personal heroes, like Stan Lee, have already encouraged us to take a stand. Now is the time for gamers to come together and spread the word through our social networks. Now is the time to ask every gamer we can reach to stand up with us and protect our First Amendment rights.

Here's the link: Video Game Voters Network: No Censorship

Thank you for considering this call to action.

— Warren Spector
Click to expand...

The thread I started on this very topic - Warren Spector Issuing a Call to Arms Against California

Homepage of Videogamevoters.

My opinion - Screw California!!!

Moral of this story - Iowa is more progressive than California.
 
Joined
Feb 3, 2007
Messages
5,347
Location
Taiwan
There's a thread about this going in the P&R forum as well.
 
Joined
Oct 18, 2006
Messages
13,545
Location
Illinois, USA
Had the same thought as you. ;) Maybe I should have titled it "Screw California" and left Warren Spector out of it
 
Joined
Feb 3, 2007
Messages
5,347
Location
Taiwan
Not complaining—just letting folks know there's additional discussion/info available if they want it. I know some people avoid the P&R forum on general principle, so I thought I'd point to a "small corner of the shark tank" where they might be interested in swimming.
 
Joined
Oct 18, 2006
Messages
13,545
Location
Illinois, USA
Lol, some people like me :D I normally avoid that area of the swimming pool, buuuttt this is something that I can actually do. Pointing out websites is more my thing anyways.:) I'll let you guys do the debating.
 
Joined
Feb 3, 2007
Messages
5,347
Location
Taiwan
This is the one which means retailers can't sell M games to under 17s, right?

If it is, then I don't get why it's "censorship". In the UK, as many people might be aware, the BBFC is used to rate the more mature titles and that is, as far as I'm aware, legally enforceable in stores. A 16yr old cannot go into a store and purchase an 18 rated game. The rating itself won't change, nor will the general situation.

It doesn't have any effect on game developmentm, either. Rockstar have a bunch of studios across the UK (Including Rockstar North, which I think is their "primary" studio which churns out most Grand Theft Auto games) and they're still stirring up controversey left, right and center.
 
Joined
Jul 17, 2010
Messages
655
Location
England, UK
It's the whole "slippery slope" argument that's got people up in arms. The law that sets up the "no M games to under 17" stipulation does not set up standards for what qualifies as an M game. Having mobile goalposts makes it tough for game designers, and any time you've got subjective criteria it's asking for problems. Particularly in the USA, Big Brother tends to be rather silly when setting up subjective criteria as the extremists of both sides have the loudest voices in the discussion.
 
Joined
Oct 18, 2006
Messages
13,545
Location
Illinois, USA
If you use the ESRB as a system, then I don't see the problem. We have two in existence, with the specialised PEGI system (Used across Europe) to become enforceable in the very near future. Neither organisation we use is Government controlled, but independent organisations created for this very purpose.
 
Joined
Jul 17, 2010
Messages
655
Location
England, UK
I agree with you. Unfortunately, I don't think the California law makes any mention of ESRB. I wouldn't expect it to--the people that would favor this type of structure would want to control the decision making process as well. Both the moral crusader extreme righties and the nanny state extreme lefties think only they know what's best for everyone else.
 
Joined
Oct 18, 2006
Messages
13,545
Location
Illinois, USA
dteowner said:
It's the whole "slippery slope" argument that's got people up in arms. The law that sets up the "no M games to under 17" stipulation does not set up standards for what qualifies as an M game. Having mobile goalposts makes it tough for game designers, and any time you've got subjective criteria it's asking for problems. Particularly in the USA, Big Brother tends to be rather silly when setting up subjective criteria as the extremists of both sides have the loudest voices in the discussion.
Click to expand...

^ This!

If it was 'M' as decided by the ESRB, that would be one thing - though I would want the law to cover all currently voluntary enforcements such as movie theaters and DVD sales/rentals. But the Cali law makes it pretty much possible for anything to be covered as 'illegal content'.
 
Joined
Oct 18, 2006
Messages
14,951
I don't think it's any of that - I think it's a cheap political show law that the lawmakers knew very well was totally unconstitutional. They just did it to win some votes by going out and saying how they are 'protecting children from violent video games.' Every level of court decisions has overturned the law.

We're not the ones who should be outraged about this, Californians should be. Their state government is in terrible debt as is, they can't afford to prosecute this tripe just so Lee and friends can save money on their re-election campaigns.
 
Joined
Aug 3, 2008
Messages
8,253
Location
Kansas City
exactly, Zloth.

We've got much deeper and more serious issues to deal with in Cali than this bullshit. For that reason alone it should get shot down in flames. I hate politics
 
Joined
Oct 18, 2006
Messages
5,228
Location
San Diego, Ca
The problem is that as this crap is put out there it is gaining more and more mindshare.

Pair that up with articles showing how the military is using games to train soldiers, and it gives the appearance of credibility to those braindead 'killologists' ... and feeds parents the idea that while the stuff in movies might be objectionable and desensitize kids to violence, video games take it a step further and actually train their minds to be violent ...

So the problem I have is that while right now we see politicians being their normal selves, eventually if this keeps up they will find a way to make something that passes constitutional muster.
 
Joined
Oct 18, 2006
Messages
14,951
I have seen an article in the local newspaper referring to a British study saying that TV violence is ... what's the word ? mind-numbing ? people towards aggression.

It's late here now, I cannot put it correctly into words anymore ...

But I can look for the article. Tomorrow.
 
Joined
Nov 5, 2006
Messages
21,950
Location
Old Europe
"Desensitizing" is my guess. Thing is, both the TV and video game violence charges have been going on for decades.

Before that was fear about Pen and Paper games like D&D.

Before that was comic books.

Before that was movies - the overturning of which is what taught all the judges to be wary of this kind of attempt at censorship.
 
Joined
Aug 3, 2008
Messages
8,253
Location
Kansas City
I once heard a story that at the beginning of electrification people would know where the nearest town was.

Because of the humming of the big transformators.

People could hear it - a few kilometres, even I was told.

We are constantly desensitizing ourselves now. Just consider the noise of car traffic, or railway stations.

What will the result be - of this desensitizing, if it goes on for a few hundred years more ?
 
Joined
Nov 5, 2006
Messages
21,950
Location
Old Europe
Hundred!? Jeez, if you want to go that far, you have to take the effects of genetic engineering into the equasion.
 
Joined
Aug 3, 2008
Messages
8,253
Location
Kansas City
I don't think requiring a title to be rated (for sex, violence or whatever), and having a label to that effect and making it illegal to sell to minors is censorship. If that's the case here I don't understand why it's so wrong. I pretty much agree with Dwagginz.

I don't think games should be singled out though, that I agree with. But some things aren't suitable for kids, and it should be illegal for vendors to sell them to kids. I live in what I consider a largely progressive country. There's an independant ratings board who classify movies and games and whatnot and I think that's an important thing to do. They don't censor things. They classify. If you take the most recent Fallout games they're rated R18, the highest restriction, which means they shouldn't be sold to under 18 year olds. I think that's fine. I can't see a problem with a similar system.

At the end of the day I'd rather have a strict and enforced rating system, than actual censorship where a body would cut and censor products based on what they thought was appropriate or not. That's censorships.
 
Joined
Apr 4, 2009
Messages
526
Location
Auckland, New Zealand
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom