By Mark
Well folks, it was going to happen sooner or later. In a case that has made every major (and minor) media outlet, the Supreme Court will hear the final appeal of the case Arnold Schwarzenegger, Governor of California, v. Entertainment Merchants Association. No, that isn't the Governator's next movie, it's an actual court case that details whether or not it is legal to sell video games to minors.
A little background might be needed here. Way back in 2005, Gov. Schwarzenegger signed into law a bill that makes selling "violent video games" to minors illegal, which went into effect in 2006. The language is actually fairly vague, as it doesn't automatically denote what "violent" is deemed to be. It doesn't specifically say for instance, M rated games can't be sold to kids under 17, which would be in line with the ESRB's recommendations. Instead, it uses the term "violent video games", leading many to argue the law itself would be problematic to enforce since the term is very open-ended. The bill has been winding its way through the courts ever since.
The showdown needs to be watched mainly because it has big implications for the future of gaming retail, and the bigger argument of whether or not video games can be regulated if they contain not only violent themes, but also themes in which organizations, individuals, or other groups may find offensive. Details about when first arguments will be held are scant, but this case comes to the court after an appeal by the state of California. Already, the U.S. Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals has sided with the EMA, stating the bill is unconstitutional and violates the first amendment.
I think the bill violates common sense. I've always felt it is the parents' responsibility first and foremost to manage what their kids get into and play. Nowadays, game companies do push out violent games like Grand Theft Auto, Modern Warfare, etc. They do it because first and foremost they sell, but also because they're more than just a "shoot-em up"; they're actually good games for the most part. What confounds me is the fact that most of the parents who complain about violent video games are the ones that usually buy them for their kids in the first place! The standard reaction is, "Oh, I didn't know this game was so violent!" Really? It says it right there on the box next to the label "M For Mature". I mean, even a title like Grand Theft Auto or Manhunt should give you a clue in the first place. And if you believe your kids are going behind your back and buying them themselves, then poke around! You're their parent, you have a right to know what's going on. If you suspect your child is doing something you don't like, then they don't get privacy until they're either mature enough to handle these games, or until they're 18 and moved away to college.
This isn't a government problem, it's a parenting problem. I hope the Supreme Court holds up the appeal and declares it unconstitutional. For too long, video games have been an easy target for people like Jack Thompson who want to depict them as the reason teens get sucked into violence. There are numerous reasons why kids grow into assholes, murderers, and drug users/pushers. One of the big reasons is family life, with the other being genes and environment. Genes are difficult to deal with, and depending on your economic stance, so is environment. However, I believe there is NO excuse for poor parenting. You don't want your kid playing a violent game, do something about it YOURSELF, rather then let some government bureaucracy do it for you. Don't let it fall on the employees at Gamestop - step up and get educated about what your kids are into.
Step up and shut up.
Source: Gamespot
3 comments:
I agree whole-heartedly here. I myself am completely disturbed by games such as Grand Theft Auto, for mostly moral reasons, it's my personal opinion; but I would never tell you or Steve that you can't play them because they are violent and express immoral themes. I fully believe that you and him are mature enough to understand what the game involves.
It is retarded of people to think that games like GTA or God of War, or heaven forbid, Dungeons & Dragons promote the themes they depict. Yes you shoot people in those kinds of games, yes you can sleep with a hooker or beat up some random innocent bystander, you can use magic to incinerate some demon... but it is fiction first and foremost. If your child begins to act out the scenes, it is obvious that they do not have a firm grasp on reality.
It is a too long standing tradition for parents to blame outside sources for their children's behavior. Good morals and behavior begin always with the parent. If you allow them to watch violent movies, stupid TV shows, or play games with grown-up themes the fault is yours and yours alone.
If the Supreme Court rules in favor of something so downright idiotic then there is more wrong with our society that some violent video game.
But what is that saying? It takes just one to ruin the fun?
Cheers on a good post!
I totally agree with it being the parents fault, but on the other hand I really can't see this bill hurting anyone except minors ages 16-18. Kids don't really have a lot of money, and if they buy a game it's with birthday money or a couple months worth of allowance. Even still, they have no way to get to GameStop without their parents driving them, and thus all it will require is the person behind the counter to say that "This game has violence in it." and in effect is just informing the parents on what they are buying for their children.
The only people hurt by it are those who have jobs and/or a license and could go buy it themselves. Now they'd need their mother to come a long to buy it. Not cool. But at that age, you should have friends by then who could hook you up. Right? Right!?
That's actually an interesting point. I think you're right in the sense it won't affect anyone besides 16-18 year-olds, and potentially 15 year-olds. But if that's the case, then that means the bill is very weak to begin with if the whole point is to prevent games from getting into the hands of "minors". One of the things the bill doesn't necessarily define (or at least the crafters of the bill didn't define) is who the bill is really targeted for. If the intent is to prevent younger children from getting their hands on violent games, then the bill is worthless. If it's to prevent the 16-18 category from obtaining these games, then it's great. Either way, you're right in the sense it still falls on the parent as the primary buyer of the game.
So going on the fact the bill doesn't really affect a majority of the "minors" out there, I tend to look at this bill as more symbolic of the fact parents want to delegate out their responsibilities to the politicians and courts. I imagine younger kids will still get games like these mostly because the parents will buy them for their birthday or christmas without taking the time to realize what they're buying. It'll probably be those same parents that later complain about the violence in a game they bought.
I'm just disturbed because this bill is one step down a very slippery slope when it comes to regulation.
Post a Comment