California Game Law Ruling Currenly Being Overturned

[I Palindroem I]

Hi all.

First off, here's the link to the main article, found on The Escapist.

http://www.escapistmagazine.com/articles/view/columns/the-needles/7576-The-Needles-Master-Chief-Goes-to-Washington

I'm honestly shocked right now. How could people possibly be so stupid?

I know that a majority of this website is Canadian, however, it should still be of great concern. A country like the United States suddenly breaking it's own founding documents will not bode well for the rest of the world, I can assure you of that.

The thing in and of itself is not the problem. Honestly, I agree that the ESRB needs to do a little more in protecting children from Gears of War, and other such titles, that are obviously not appropriate.

No. The heart of the problem lies in the fact that this is going up to the Supreme Court, the final say in all legal matters in the United States, and the court with the power to "interpret" the Constitution - and by proximity the Bill of Rights - in any manner they see fit.

A similar problem arose before, with the right of "Habeas Corpus" (This is latin, translated to "show me the body"). Habeas Corpus is a right that more or less dictates that all people are innocent until proven guilty. Due to a large number of court cases that went largely under the radar due to widespread apathy, this eventually made its way to the Supreme Court. Starting to sound familiar?

Within a short amount of time, a legal precedent was set that more or less caused the right of Habeas Corpus to be defunct.

This can't be allowed to happen again. The only reason that this court case is being seen at all is because of the HC precedent. This case is, however, much more important, as it could potentially undermine the Bill of Rights, and ultimately, the entire system of the United States.

If you live in the United States, I strongly urge you to email your congressman or representative of your choice, and tell them about this. Tell them that this is a horrible, horrible idea. Will it do much? Probably not. But they will hear us if we all speak up.

This is it. This is do-or-die time here. The outcome of this case could severely impact the entire industry, and potentially, the structure of the United States.

[ecocd]

There are plenty of Americans around here, probably a majority, actually. There has been so much precedent favoring the gaming industry in state supreme court after state supreme court. The ESA will have to take a dump on the SCOTUS bench to lose this case. I'm not worried, but you're right that we need to take notice.

[Darkobra]

They pretty much do the same here with games ranked 18. If you're not over 18, they don't sell you the game. I agree with this too. Games marked 18 are usually given this rating for a reason. Extreme violence, gore, brutal swearing, racism, glorifying drugs and drink, the things that give a game some drama and impact. Would you sell such a game to a minor?

Besides, most of the time the kids just get the parents to buy the game.

[Metcarfre]

I had no idea the ratings for movies in theatres were voluntary. Interesting.

[Darkobra]

They sure as hell weren't voluntary here. My uncle took us to go see the first X-Men movie. My brother was around 13 or so and because he didn't have ID, we were ALL thrown out, even though my uncle was vouching for him. X-Men!

[Metcarfre]

That really has nothing to do with whether the system is voluntary or not.

If the theatre can be fined for letting minors in, then it's a legal issue.

[Matt]

I had no idea the ratings for movies in theatres were voluntary. Interesting.

I did, because it's been a main factor of comparison in every games-rating legislation overturn to date.

I'm not overly concerned, presumably SCOTUS will look at 12 different overturnings of legislation and see the writing on the wall.

(also, I'm canadian, so there's no direct effect on me regardless).


as to the OP's point regarding the ESRB needing to do more: did you miss the part where Mr. Chalk noted that it's the most effective ratings system for media currently in use. Virtually all major retailers enforce the guidelines set forth by the ESRB. (I've seen the numbers. the ESRb has significantly higher compliance than any other form of entertainment, by a wide margin.)

In the current market place, kids aren't buying these games. Kids are getting them because their parents don't care until after the fact.

-m

[Darkobra]

That really has nothing to do with whether the system is voluntary or not.

If the theatre can be fined for letting minors in, then it's a legal issue.

My mistake. I apologise.

[I Palindroem I]

...as to the OP's point regarding the ESRB needing to do more: did you miss the part where Mr. Chalk noted that it's the most effective ratings system for media currently in use. Virtually all major retailers enforce the guidelines set forth by the ESRB. (I've seen the numbers. the ESRb has significantly higher compliance than any other form of entertainment, by a wide margin.)

In the current market place, kids aren't buying these games. Kids are getting them because their parents don't care until after the fact.

-m

As for your first point, I do agree that as of yet there is no rating system better than the ESRB, but I can't help but feel that there is something they could be doing more. Perhaps more widespread education about games themselves, and the ratings systems, would help to alleviate these troubles.

And the second point is right on the money. I couldn't agree more, and couldn't be more unhappy with the level of ignorance on the American populace's part.

[Matt]

I disagree, because (I'd have to look it up to verify, so I'm ballparking) I remember reading the the ESRB's compliance rate is in excess of 90%.

There's only so much a regulatory agency can do. They already put out tons of educational and advertizing materials on games rating, they've made the rating system more comprehensive, descriptive, and easier to read. They've signed enforcement policies with retailers. They've run informational campaigns.

Parents simply don't care to learn.

you can take a horse to water, but you can't make it drink.

-m

[I Palindroem I]

Hmm, you know, now that Matt has given us his two cents, I'm interested to hear what the rest of the cast thinks about this, especially Graham. It would be interesting to get all those different viewpoints on the subject.

[epocalypse]

I had no idea the ratings for movies in theatres were voluntary. Interesting.

Yep, Otherwise, no NR movies could be released, and, besides that, it'd be censorship. 1st Amendment up in this bitch, ya feel me? Again, this is by and large an issue of parents not wanting to take responsibility.

[Metcarfre]

Late, but;

[Jillers]

Everything Matt said.
The ESRB does an excellent job at informing parents of the age the game is intended for. They can't indiviually take the parents by their hands and make them read up on what the game actually is.
I really can't think of anything more the ESRB could do, other than issuing a written test to the parent when trying to buy an age-inappropriate game for their child:
1.) What is the name of this game?
2.) What is the ESRB rating?
3.) How old is your child?
4,) Why do you think your child is ready to handle the violence/sexual content/language/etc... of this game.

Plus, parents are also deluded as to their children's maturity levels anyway - remember that most of them think their kids are more advanced than the other kids.

I'm honestly not too concerned.

[MotorWaffle]

I doubt any amount of legeslation to prevend minors from buying m-rated games will be useful, because the kinds of children allowed to play those games will have no problem getting their parents to buy the games for them. In short, it's not the ESRB's problem, it's the parents. If they can't see the M on the corner of the game, then maybe they need to be sterilized lest they continue to spawn.
When I was growing up, a "T" rating to my parents meant that I wasn't allowed to play it until I was at least 13, no ifs, ands, or buts. I didn't even consider the possiblility of asking for a rated "M" game.

[I Palindroem I]

Remember people, the problem here isn't the actual law - its the legal precedent that it will create.

It will give lawmakers the ability to overstep the Bill of Rights, which as we all know, CANNOT happen. Once that goes down, I don't know about you guys, but I think I'll be moving to Canada.

HOWEVER, if we try as a whole to prevent this, that won't happen. Personally, I like the ability to walk by the Capitol and flick off senators for fun. Once the First Amendment is "interpretable", people can't do that anymore.

In all seriousness, though, if the Bill of Rights becomes "interpretable", we'll see lobbying groups imposing their view of rights, which will only help them and hinder the rest of us.

[Bananafish]

It will give lawmakers the ability to overstep the Bill of Rights, which as we all know, CANNOT happen.

heheeheahaha

A country like the United States suddenly breaking it's own founding documents

Haha, suddenly, hahahaha. okay, sorryhaha

[Cade Antilles]

Like Matt said, the Supreme Court will likely see the writing on the wall. It'll be seen as a violation of the First Amendment and they'll slap it down like the little bitch it is. But, it is possible that it could be upheld, and that doesn't surprise me.

Now, before people get all bent out of shape over the "right" of the First Amendment, keep in mind that it is a privilege, not a right. Yes, yes, I know it's called the Bill of Rights, but hear me out.

The First Amendment can be, and historically has been, overruled. In particular, during the Second World War, the First Amendment was nullified in the interest of national security. And the citizens had no say in the matter, nor could they protest anymore because they no longer had the right to. It was reinstated when the war ended, and the fact of its status during those years has been brushed under the rug. After all, the government doesn't want it's populace to know that they can just take away "rights" whenever it's "necessary".

So, what I'm saying here is, just because the government says there is a rule, doesn't mean they have to follow it. And, there's nothing we can do about it. So, suck it up and hope for the best.

[I Palindroem I]

-Snippity Snip Snip-

Ah yes, the Second World War's effects on the US. Probably the best kept secret that is right in front of everyone's face.

But still, you're right, and I can't begin to describe just how disappointed I am in my government, and in the American people. Oh well, as I said, there's always Canada...

[Metcarfre]

It's not going to happen. Just because something goes before the court, doesn't mean it automatically goes through. As stated, all the legal precedents are in favour of the status quo, and such a ruling would violate First Ammendment rights. It's highly unlikely the Supreme Court would overturn all that.

[Bananafish]

Go into how this will limit free speech because your op is p vague, tia

[tux789]

You know what, I'm going to be honest here. I don't see what the big deal is.
A) most of these measures are already in effect in regards to M rated games so what would really change
B) How is disallowing minors from buying a video game a violation of anyones rights? No content is being pulled off the shelf or blacklisted, a parent or guardian just has to sign off on it.

[Bananafish]

It's not going to happen. Just because something goes before the court, doesn't mean it automatically goes through. As stated, all the legal precedents are in favour of the status quo, and such a ruling would violate First Ammendment rights. It's highly unlikely the Supreme Court would overturn all that.

And it's being opposed by corporations like Disney and Microsoft

[Metcarfre]

Oh, well then pfft. No prob, Bob.

[I Palindroem I]

You know what, I'm going to be honest here. I don't see what the big deal is.
A) most of these measures are already in effect in regards to M rated games so what would really change
B) How is disallowing minors from buying a video game a violation of anyones rights? No content is being pulled off the shelf or blacklisted, a parent or guardian just has to sign off on it.

Well, let me start off by saying that:
A) There is no such law in place about the sale of video games. It does not exist, nor has it ever existed. That's why the ESRB exists, its an independent "company" designed to make sure minors don't get a hold of inappropriate content. Similar systems exist for movies, television, and literature.
B) Understand that the problem is not the actual law, although it is something to be concerned about, but the repercussions of said legal precedent. By passing this law, it would go beyond the realm of just a way to protect minors, but would make video games unable to be protected by the First Amendment. How that would work from there is that harsher and harsher censorship would be enacted on video games until the industry as we know it ceases to exist, and then they'll move onto the next thing. Before you know it, the First Amendment will become a hollow shell of its present form, and nobody wants that.

EDIT: Wow, I used the word "exist" a lot there didn't I?