Schwarzenegger signs game-restriction bill

[the_new_simman 5]

Schwarzenegger signs game-restriction bill

Measure won't become California law until January, but the ESA is already planning a suit.

One was a Democratic Chinese-American child psychologist and anti-media-violence advocate representing San Francisco's sleepy Sunset district. The other was a Republican Austrian bodybuilder who became governor after making millions starring in violent Hollywood blockbusters. But today, Assemblyman Leland Yee and Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger found common ground over one subject: video games.

This afternoon, Schwarzenegger signed California bill AB1179, which Yee penned, into law. The bill, which will come into effect January 1, 2006, bans the sale or rental of violent video games to children. What exactly is a violent video game? According to the state's legal summary of the bill, a violent game is defined as a game in which the range of options available to a player includes killing, maiming, dismembering, or sexually assaulting an image of a human being. That definition would seem to cover virtually every M-for-Mature-rated game and many T-for-Teen rated games as well.

Under the new law, retailers that sell such games would be subject to a $1,000 fine. It will also require violent video games to bear a two-inch-by-two-inch sticker with a solid white '18' outlined in black on their front covers. That's over twice the size of the labels that currently adorn game-box covers and display the familiar Entertainment Software Ratings Board (ESRB) rating.

Given Schwarzenegger's close ties to the entertainment industry, it must have been a difficult choice to sign the bill. However, the governor played up the decision as a proactive move to shield youngsters from harmful material. This gets the parents involved in the decision-making process, he said in a statement. I believe as an actor in the ratings system. It is very important to protect children.

The Entertainment Software Association (ESA), the top US game industry lobby and parent of the ESRB, was quick to respond. We are disappointed that politicians of both parties chose to toss overboard the First Amendment and free artistic and creative expression in favor of political expediency, said ESA president Doug Lowenstein in an statement. AB 1179 is punitive against retailers, will waste limited taxpayer dollars, and when it is struck down by the courts, as has been the fate of similar statutes, parents will be no better off for this effort to damage one of the state's fastest growing and most exciting industries that is providing some of the most compelling entertainment in the world today. Lowenstein said the ESA is already planning a lawsuit to have the bill deemed unconstitutional.

California is the latest state to restrict the sales of video games. It follows Michigan and Illinois, both of which passed measures restricting the sale of violent or sexually explicit games. Oklahoma and Mississippi are considering similar measures.

 

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

---

Great job Arnold and all the other politicians who our out there to take the fun out of gaming...What next? Make unhealthy foods illegal. Thanks for violating my 1st Amendment...expect to see me and a bunch of other people in court! ...did I mention protest?

[Duke87 1,070]

The funny thing is, there are by far more people out there that play violent video games than there are people who commit violent crimes... I think Tim Buckley hit that right on with today's Control-Alt-Delete comic... which I unfortunately will not be posting a link to because of language content....

If you're interested, PM me and I'll send you the link.

[nealos101 20]

Well... Im from the Uk... and Im 19, and it doesn't bother me the slightest.

Besides, didnt the article basically say label the games 18 and legally convict stores which sell such material to anyone younger than that age - what's the big deal dude? (illegal but true comment here) Get your parents to buy it! Don't like the sticker on the cover... Where r u from again? Dude, you r buying the game for it's material, not for it's cover! lol!

 

Nealos101

[horrorkid64 0]

Date: 10/12/2005 7:22:41 PM
Author: nealos101

Well... Im from the Uk... and Im 19, and it doesn't bother me the slightest.

quote>

But maybe it should.

A great deal of all video games come from the US. The more restrictive the US rating systems become, the more likely are game developers to self-censor their games. It already happens with the current ESRB ratings: since companies like Wal-Mart refuse to sell AO rated games, designers tone down their games to fit the M rating.

[nealos101 20]

That's true, but also think about the marketing - when GTA came out and sales hit the roof, the industry decided that violence games are the way in tomorrow, and of course today they are creating violence games, Im not worried about the gaming industry censoring their games - they've already released some good, bloody titles without due care to what it could do to the children...

...Also, have you noticed alot of PC games have parental controllers, like in SOF, Empire Earth and such? The PS2 games and games which don't run on hard drives or RAM have clear enough explaination as an under-18 why you shouldn't buy it. The industry is doing the right thing answering the law, it's just people are... Twisted these days.

 

I used to think alot of this fettish about violent games kills people, but now I think - thanks to the few clueless children & parents out there you won't be able to play those seriously goery games that want to come out on the consols.  IMO, better safe than sorry...

 

Nealos101

[Compromise 1]

I belive in protecting children from vidio games which are harmful but this may be going over the top. I doubt it will make much difference anyway, childrens parents will just buy it themselves.

[PhilsCafe 8]

Basically, what's wrong with protecting children from harmful contents? Nothing, in my opinion. There are too many games out there that glorify violence and that are not meant to be played by kids (including teens). So, if the law makes it illegal to sell M rated games to teens, then that's a good thing.

The problem is though, that this bill may lead to an over-reaction and games that use violence as one element among a few others (like a lot of Hollywood films do) could also be affected. And since children are a main target group for the gaming industry, the law will also affect all these games.

I personally like realism in a game and violence is part of our reality. So there has to be a law that gives leeway to that but also protects children from harmful contents.

- Phil

[horrorkid64 0]

First, one has to determine what might be harmful.

There is, for example, no indication that pornographic content is in any way harmful for minors. (1),(2)

There is still very much doubt that violent content does make the player more violent. It can be at best said, that there is a short term rise in the aggression level of the player, but that is the case after playing football too.

Most studies that find corelation between games and violence are severely flawed. (3)

Media in general has been blamed for violence for ages, but so far critics have failed to provide evidence. (4)

OVER 90% OF M VIDEO GAMES SOLD ARE IN THE PRECESNSE OF AN ADULT! How would this law change this?

Previous laws of the same content have been declared unconstitutional. Maybe this law is just playing the family value card as well as a waste of taxpayer's money?

Why treat the game industry different than other media?

(1) The Dangers of Pornography? A Review of the Effects Literature

(2) Not In Front of the Children: Indecency, Censorship, and the Innocence of Youth

(3) Evaluating the Research on Violent Video Games

(4) Ten things wrong with the media effects model

[PhilsCafe 8]

Date: 10/17/2005 8:12:57 AM
Author: horrorkid64

First, one has to determine what might be harmful.

There is, for example, no indication that pornographic content is in any way harmful for minors. (1),(2)

There is still very much doubt that violent content does make the player more violent. It can be at best said, that there is a short term rise in the aggression level of the player, but that is the case after playing football too.

quote>
That's true. The reason why nearly any kind of sexual contents are banned in the US is because of the conservative moral point of view of some groups (it's a fact, no offence or politics here). It's just strange that there is hardly any discussion about violent contents but as soon as it comes to naked body parts, it is hottly discussed. The best exapmle is GTA San Andreas. People got upset because of the sex minigame but not about the rampage missions that occur in the same game. I mean, what's more harmful: sex or violence?

Don't get me wrong. I'm not against violence in computer games... but I ask myself, why are there thirteen year old kids stabbing eachother or participating in car races on public streets? Because it's cool? Well, where do they get that? Hopefully not from their parents. They must have some role models somewhere... on the streets, in films, in certain computer games (I'm thinking of the GTA main character or NFS Underground)... THAT's harmful in my humble opinion. I think, it's not about aggression, but about role models... and of course, there are always people who can handle this, that's why I'm against a general law.

OVER 90% OF 'M' VIDEO GAMES SOLD ARE IN THE PRECESNSE OF AN ADULT! How would this law change this?

Previous laws of the same content have been declared unconstitutional. Maybe this law is just playing the 'family value' card as well as a waste of taxpayer's money?

quote>
This law wouldn't serve its purpose in my opinion. Those who want to play these games will find a way to do so. This bill is disproportional.

Why treat the game industry different than other media?

quote>
We shouldn't... I'm not talking about censoring the news though. It's a matter of common sense. I also think that there is a difference between playing bad guys killing innocent people and playing a good character who uses violence for a higher purpose. Sounds strange but what I mean is that it's not all black and white.


- Phil

[horrorkid64 0]

Date: 10/17/2005 9:22:30 AM
Author: PhilsCafe

Don't get me wrong. I'm not against violence in computer games... but I ask myself, why are there thirteen year old kids stabbing eachother or participating in car races on public streets? Because it's cool? Well, where do they get that? Hopefully not from their parents. They must have some role models somewhere... on the streets, in films, in certain computer games (I'm thinking of the GTA main character or NFS Underground)... THAT's harmful in my humble opinion. I think, it's not about aggression, but about role models... and of course, there are always people who can handle this, that's why I'm against a general law.


- Phil

quote>

Be careful - what was there first?

Isn't it more the case that there were illegal car races in the tuner scene BEFORE there were games dealing with the subject? One could argue that games are merely portraying something that already exists, like all other forms of media.

Besides one must think wether there really is a rise in illegal car races or in violent youth crimes. As far as I know the offending rates for 14-17 year olds are at an all-time low in the US.





Another point is the role model issue: even if a few individuals take pieces of media as role model or justification for violent crimes (examples: The Catcher in the Rye, The Beatles: Helter Skelter, The Bible), does that mean we have to right to ban or censor those media? Where do we start and where should we stop?

Would it be justified to ban certain media for several million of people because of a few indivuals? And would those individuals not easily find inspiration elsewhere?

Here's a interesting article that deals with the morality of games that might be of interest: Playing a Good Game: A Philosophical Approach to Understanding the Morality of Games

[PhilsCafe 8]

Good point . And thanks for the stats. You're right, the media only portrays these developments and although crime rates have gone back, I think there's still the risk that teenagers take these characters as role models, because they not only see these events in the news but also can be like their role models themselves in the virtual reality. Well, of course that doesn't mean that they really commit that crime in real life too (Most of them obviously don't, according to the figures), but they may start to admire people who commit such a crime (we're still talking about the car races, but this also works for any other crime). I don't want to dramatize that, but it is abnormal, if you ask me.

I agree, that's still no reason to censor violent games, because those who commit crimes also find their inspiration elsewhere, as you've pointed out. But we should care more about this issue. And we certainly mustn't send the message that sexuality is bad, but violence is okay, in an educational point of view... that's wrong.

Thanks for the link, btw. It's quite an interesting article indeed.

- Phil

[horrorkid64 0]

Date: 10/18/2005 4:25:20 AM
Author: PhilsCafe
Good point . And thanks for the stats. You're right, the media only portrays these developments and although crime rates have gone back, I think there's still the risk that teenagers take these characters as role models, because they not only see these events in the news but also can be like their role models themselves in the virtual reality. Well, of course that doesn't mean that they really commit that crime in real life too (Most of them obviously don't, according to the figures), but they may start to admire people who commit such a crime (we're still talking about the car races, but this also works for any other crime). I don't want to dramatize that, but it is abnormal, if you ask me.


I agree, that's still no reason to censor violent games, because those who commit crimes also find their inspiration elsewhere, as you've pointed out. But we should care more about this issue. And we certainly mustn't send the message that sexuality is bad, but violence is okay, in an educational point of view... that's wrong.


Thanks for the link, btw. It's quite an interesting article indeed.


- Phil

quote>

I think the whole issue with those laws is maybe some kind of generation gap thing, the ones in power are no video gamers and have no idea of the gamer culture. Or as some guy from a blog put it:

How could it be that there is such a contrast between the opinions of non-gamer members of your generation and the opinions of gamer members of my generation?

If you want to read more articles on games & censorship, then you should take a look at the IGDA anti-censorship site .

The ESA and the VSDA have already taken action against the law:

This just in from Bo Andersen, President of the Video Software Dealers Association (VSDA):

Today, the Video Software Dealers Association and the Entertainment Software Association filed a lawsuit against the state of California, seeking to have the recently enacted restrictions on 'violent video games' declared unconstitutional.

We wish we did not have to take this action, but we must protect the First Amendment rights of video game retailers and distributors and their customers. Courts have consistently held that restrictions on video games because of depictions of violence within the games violate the First Amendment guarantee of freedom of speech. The California law is also unconstitutional because it is so imprecisely drafted that it is impossible to decipher which video games are covered by its provisions. The law also ignores the existing video game rating system and retailers' programs to enforce those ratings in their stores.

It is appropriate that we file the lawsuit today, as this week has been declared to be 'National Freedom of Speech Week.'

Doug Lowenstein of the ESA adds:

Today the Entertainment Software Association (ESA) filed a lawsuit in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California in San Francisco seeking to strike down California's new ban on the sale of certain video games to minors. We believe this bill will meet the same fate as virtually identical statutes that federal courts have routinely struck down in recent years.

It is not up to any industry or the government to set standards for what kids can see or do; that is the role of parents. Additionally, everyone involved with this misguided law has known from the start that it is an unconstitutional infringement on the First Amendment freedoms of those who create and sell video games.

So, once again, we urge all people of good will involved in this to come together to work on cooperative, legal ways to help parents make the right choices about the entertainment their kids consume. We all know that parents are not well served by the time and money spent on court battles and legal fees. Rather, they would be far better off if government and industry worked together to educate them about video game ratings, and other tools to help them make informed purchasing decisions for their families.

From here .

[Ninja12 3]

Great Now We have it

[+Guest]

it seems like the governator has spoken: all violent computer games shall be eliminated and exterminated

[Superchan 23]

sc4 rh has the word violence in the rating, right above everyone.

[Compromise 1]

Yes I think there is some danger of showing dodgy content to children especially with all this evidence appearing now that your brain treats vidio games as real life which can cause problems but the effects are often over exadrated.

[horrorkid64 0]

Date: 10/23/2005 8:42:19 AM
Author: Compromise
Yes I think there is some danger of showing dodgy content to children especially with all this evidence appearing now that your brain treats vidio games as real life which can cause problems but the effects are often over exadrated.

quote>

I'd still like to see the study you mention.

I only remember one study that claimed that the brain would treat game violence and real violence as the same, but this study has a serious flaw:

Originally posted by LONDON (Reuters)
LONDON (Reuters) - The brains of players of violent video games react as if the violence were real, a study has suggested.

Klaus Mathiak at the University of Aachen in Germany studied the brain patterns of 13 men aged 18 to 26 who, on average, played video games for two hours a day.

Wired up to a scanner, they were asked to play a game involving navigating through a complicated bunker, killing attackers and rescuing hostages.

Mathiak found that as violence became imminent, the cognitive parts of the brain became active and that during a fight, emotional parts of the brain were shut down.

The pattern was the same as that seen in subjects who have had brain scans during other simulated violent situations.

It suggests that video games are a training for the brain to react with this pattern, Mathiak says.

The research was presented at a meeting in Canada and reported by New Scientist magazine.

Whether violent videos make people more aggressive though is hard to prove, the magazine noted. Studies have suggested players of violent games are in fact more aggressive but have left open the question of whether the games made them that way.

quote>

As you can see this study compares one form of simulated violence (violent games) with another form of simulated violence (unspecified).

Same results? Hardly surprising. But you cannot come to the conclusion that the brain treats game violence as real violence if you only compare it to another form of simulated violence.

[Compromise 1]

I read it in sevaral different newspapers so I don't know where to find info about it on the internet. I think it was more of a genaral report of growing evidence in this area in genaral instaed of a individual investigation . If hear or/and find any more about it I will say.

Proving it in Science is very difficult and I think some of this evidence is based on sevaral insidents of vidio game fanatics doing some terrrible things in real life releated to things in vidio games, this can never be proved. Remember, there is not one drop of prove that the evolution is real.

[horrorkid64 0]

Date: 10/24/2005 8:01:30 AM
Author: Compromise

I read it in sevaral different newspapers so I don't know where to find info about it on the internet. I think it was more of a genaral report of growing evidence in this area in genaral instaed of a individual investigation . If hear or/and find any more about it I will say.

quote>

Strange, I read the complete opposite in several different newspapers. And as you can see above, an article which simply claims something with a study that cannot support that claim, doesn't make the claim right (even if several newspapers copy such an article).

Recent long term studies have found no link between real-life violence and violent games.

For example:

1. No Strong Link Seen Between Violent Video Games And Aggression
2. Schlachten in der Cyber-Welt

Proving it in Science is very difficult and I think some of this evidence is based on sevaral insidents of vidio game fanatics doing some terrrible things in real life releated to things in vidio games, this can never be proved. Remember, there is not one drop of prove that the evolution is real.

quote>

If the evidence is based on sevaral insidents of vidio game fanatics doing some terrrible things in real life releated to things in vidio games, then it only shows that there is some really bad science out there.

Of course, science can not prove anything. It can only find strong evidence for a theory. So far, even after many studies, science has not been able to find strong evidence that game violence (or movies or books) causes real life violence.

[Compromise 1]

I think you are now blurring my point here so it fits your point of view. I diden't say anything about it causing aggresion in genaral of which your studies are talking about. I said earlier...

Yes I think there is some danger of showing dodgy content to children especially with all this evidence appearing now that your brain treats vidio games as real life which can cause problems but the effects are often over exadrated.

 

What I mean is that people can get so carried away with games that they can do some very negative things, one example would be a boy stabbed her younger sister because he lost the game because of her distraction.

 

Also children can start copying things that happen in the vidio game e.g violence. I have seen this happen in real life many times and as a young person myself I have first hand expirance.

 

The things the newspaper reports and I are talking about is commen sence not Science studies about weather or not vidio games cause aggresion to the average person.

 

Unfortunatley there is no proof for this as you say but there is no proof about your thery either so I conclude with the fact that we can never prove this we can just guess which makes it opinionist and that is what we are both doing. Nethier of us are nessaseerly right, it just depends on where you stand.

[horrorkid64 0]

Date: 10/24/2005 2:08:39 PM
Author: Compromise

I think you are now blurring my point here so it fits your point of view. I diden't say anything about it causing aggresion in genaral of which your studies are talking about. I said earlier...

quote>

I adressed your point, didn't I? And I provided two links to studies that found no evidence for connections between video and real life violence, which is after all, what this thread is about: prohibiton of the the sale of violent games to minors, because of assumed potential harm.

The things the newspaper reports and I are talking about is commen sence not Science studies about weather or not vidio games cause aggresion to the average person.

Unfortunatley there is no proof for this as you say but there is no proof about your thery either so I conclude with the fact that we can never prove this we can just guess which makes it opinionist and that is what we are both doing. Nethier of us are nessaseerly right, it just depends on where you stand.

quote>

Common sense does not necessarily mean something is right. Common sense would tell me that the earth is flat, because it appears to be flat. Scientific studies have found that it isn't.

If the brain treats games like real life, then how come, that a friend of mine who gets physically sick and has to throw up when he sees blood, does not have problems with blood in movies or games?

What would be the real life counterpart for games like pac man?

How come that I like violence in games, but not in real life - if my brain treats both as the same?

How can my brain clearly distinguish between reality and virtual reality, if, as you say, my brain treats both as the same?

Besides, I'd still like to see the article you are referring to. I hope you can find it.

And as I said before, science can not prove anything, it can only find very strong evidence for something. We have for example very strong evidence, that Newton's theories of gravitation can describe the attraction of masses, as long as the involved masses are not on an atomic level or moving with near lightspeed. Is that also only an oppinion to you?

I admit that there not many studies about games and the ones that are there are often seriously flawed.

Here is an excerpt from Ten things wrong with the media effects model and it is totally unrelated to your post:

Finally, and underlying many of the points made above, is the fundamental problem that the entire argument of the 'effects model' is substantiated with no theoretical reasoning beyond the bald assertions that particular kinds of effects will be produced by the media. The basic question of why the media should induce people to imitate its content has never been adequately tackled, beyond the simple idea that particular actions are 'glamorised'. (Obviously, antisocial actions are shown really positively so infrequently that this is an inadequate explanation). Similarly, the question of how merely seeing an activity in the media would be translated into an actual motive which would prompt an individual to behave in a particular way is just as unresolved. The lack of firm theory has led to the effects model being based in the variety of assumptions outlined above - that the media (rather than people) is the unproblematic starting-point for research; that children will be unable to 'cope' with the media; that the categories of 'violence' or 'antisocial behaviour' are clear and self-evident; that the model's predictions can be verified by scientific research; that screen fictions are of concern, whilst news pictures are not; that researchers have the unique capacity to observe and classify social behaviour and its meanings, but that those researchers need not attend to the various possible meanings which media content may have for the audience. Each of these very substantial problems has its roots in the failure of media effects commentators to found their model in any coherent theory.

[Compromise 1]

Your missing my point now and going round in circles. This is like TETRA.

Anyway I will keep an eye for more info about this, thanks for sharing your opinion with us.

[Voar Tok 4]

All of this is hilarious.  I once read an article in a magazine in the barbershop while I was waiting to get my hair cut.  In it, the movie industry was talking about how violent games are going to corrupt everyone, and that they shouldn't be sold to anyone under the age of 17.  However, they will be more than happy to sell you a ticket to a R-rated movie if you are with someone who is 17.

In the US, there is a congressman named Joseph Libermann who has been trying to get these kinds of games off the market for years.  He hasn't gotten any farther than when he started, except for getting the creation of the ESRB.

 

In the editorial Game Theory, by Thomas L. McDonald, (which I am paraphrasing for this) Sister Pat Wolf, of the Interfaith Center on Corporate Responsibility (ICCF), said in a press conference Many adults who have not played video games may not realize that these 'games' will typically force an impressionable child to kill in order to 'win'.

 

Now, I am going to quote what he said in the next paragraph. 

Note that the words she puts in quotes are 'games' and 'win' (two objective facts), but not 'kill' (not an objective fact).  It is an actual game, and you may in fact win at it, but absolutely, positively no one wil be 'killed' before, during, or after the game unless they file down the edge of the disc and use it to saw open their carotid artery.  (This editorial was written for the February edition of magazines that carried his editorial).

Well spoken Mr. McDonald.  All that people are killing in a game like Half-Life 2 is simple pixels on a screen cleverly arranged to look like an alien.  I've played the Soldier of Fortune series, and you can blow people's arms, legs and head off in those games.  Even more, if you blow an arm or leg off, and he doesn't die, he will jump up and down until you kill him.

 

People who play violent video games and then go out and shoot a school up had a problem before they started playing the games.  These kinds of games are starting to get used in the military, and they military hasn't seen any signs that soldiers are getting more violent.  Scientists that have studied the brain during any type of gaming have seen that as the work becomes more difficult, the player is absorbed into the game's reality.  However, when the mission is accomplished, the person always snaps out of it.  Basically, what scientists determined the brain was doing was creating a temporary world where it could think and focus without the distractions of regular life.  Scientists came up with a term for this state--they called it concentration.

[DragonMasterNYC 0]

here what i got to say no matter what they do kids can still get there hands on these games the the first thing

secondly ya crime has gone down why let me think ................. well maybe its because more people are playing games now so people arent out side that much as before thus less crime

that all i got to say