California Anti-Game Bill Defeated...

ferrarimanf355

Bullets QB
Joined
Feb 15, 2004
Posts
4,724
... for now at least. Assemblyman Yee is threatening to reintroduce it next year. Stay tuned.
From the San Francisco Chronicle.
DATELINE: Sacramento

BODY:
Two bills aimed at keeping violent video games out of the hands of minors were defeated during their first legislative test on Tuesday.

While the author said he would try again to win approval, members of the Arts and Entertainment committee said they were deeply concerned about the bills, suggesting they would restrict free speech and open up retailers to frivolous lawsuits.

Assemblyman Leland Yee, D-San Francisco, tried to persuade committee members to approve the bills by showing a brief clip from some of the video games he hopes to regulate.

The images included a person shooting and beating a police officer, and setting the scene on fire.

"I think your motives are very pure, and I tell you, I watched the video and found it deeply disturbing," said Assemblywoman Rebecca Cohn, D-Saratoga. "But you are biting around the edges of the First Amendment, which we need to protect."

The primary bill, AB1792, would have prohibited selling to minors any video game in which the person playing the game virtually commits realistic and serious criminal injury to human beings in a "manner that is especially heinous, atrocious or cruel."

That bill received 5 "yes" votes and 4 "no" votes. It needed seven affirmative votes to get out of the 13-member committee.

The second bill, AB1793, would have required retailers to display any game with an "M" for mature rating out of reach of children. Video games are rated under a voluntary system, including age recommendations and content descriptors. That bill was defeated on a 3-4 vote.

Representatives of the video game industry and retailers said not only do they believe the bills may be unconstitutional, but holding stores liable if video games are not separated could open them up to a barrage of lawsuits.

"What if an (adult) customer picks up a game and then puts it down somewhere else in the store?" asked Pamela Boyd Williams, vice president of the California Retailers Association. "I can't be responsible for something done by someone who is not an employee."

Yee said he was willing to work out the issues with opponents and members of the committee, but most members said that while they agreed that the video games were over the line, it was not their place to regulate them.

"No one should play this video game," said Assemblyman Tony Strickland, R-Moorpark (Orange County). "I commend the author for bringing the issue forward. But I think what we need is for people not to buy these types of games, and then the industry won't market them."
E-mail Lynda Gledhill at lgledhill@sfchronicle.com.

For anybody that is going to say, "Ehhh, I don't mind, it won't harm me anyway" (which appears to be a good chunk of you fellas), may I remind you that such a line of logic nearly destroyed comic books? :shame:
 
Last edited:

jaydubnb

Windjammers Wonder
Joined
Nov 17, 2002
Posts
1,379
The primary bill, AB1792, would have prohibited selling to minors any video game in which the person playing the game virtually commits realistic and serious criminal injury to human beings in a "manner that is especially heinous, atrocious or cruel."
The second bill, AB1793, would have required retailers to display any game with an "M" for mature rating out of reach of children. Video games are rated under a voluntary system, including age recommendations and content descriptors.

Please explain how this bill is "anti-game" if a kid can purchase anything under a M-rated title?

I suppose keeping R-rated films away from Lil Timmy is "anti-movie."
 

Nesagwa

Beard of Zeus,
20 Year Member
Joined
May 17, 2002
Posts
21,322
Look. The point of the bill was to limit the sale of M rated games to minors.

The same thing is in affect for movies rated R.

Its as simple as getting carded when buying the game. It isnt going to be some comic book code (which was in affect during some of the best comic books ever made might I add).
 

SuperMegaUltra

Geese's Thug
Joined
Dec 15, 2003
Posts
288
Originally credited to Assemblywoman Rebecca Cohn, D-Saratoga
I think your motives are very pure, and I tell you, I watched the video and found it deeply disturbing. But you are biting around the edges of the First Amendment, which we need to protect.

Wow, very aptly put.

It really isn't easy. I'm very much against this increasingly inappropriate and explicit material being touted under protection of free speech, but I'm just as much against the increasingly liberal trend of Federal intervention of said issues.

Assemblyman Tony Strickland, R-Moorpark (Orange County) also made a very commendable point.

Originally credited to Assemblyman Tony Strickland, R-Moorpark (Orange County)
No one should play this video game. I commend the author for bringing the issue forward. But I think what we need is for people not to buy these types of games, and then the industry won't market them.

While that is possible, given the attitude and upbringing of this generation, it's not very probable.
 

ferrarimanf355

Bullets QB
Joined
Feb 15, 2004
Posts
4,724
Nesagwa said:
Look. The point of the bill was to limit the sale of M rated games to minors.

The same thing is in affect for movies rated R.

Its as simple as getting carded when buying the game. It isnt going to be some comic book code (which was in affect during some of the best comic books ever made might I add).

You don't need legislation to do that. IEMA member stores are stepping up efforts to do that voluntary.
 

Nesagwa

Beard of Zeus,
20 Year Member
Joined
May 17, 2002
Posts
21,322
Re: Re: California Anti-Game Bill Defeated...

SuperMegaUltra said:
Wow, very aptly put.

It really isn't easy. I'm very much against this increasingly inappropriate and explicit material being touted under protection of free speech, but I'm just as much against the increasingly liberal trend of Federal intervention of said issues.

Assemblyman Tony Strickland, R-Moorpark (Orange County) also made a very commendable point.



While that is possible, given the attitude and upbringing of this generation, it's not very probable.

He is saying something with that last statement that he has no right to say. What gives him the right to tell anyone what they should play. If I want to go watch a movie where people are shown being torn apart by zombies or ears being cut off or play a game where I beat up a hooker or steal a car that is MY moral decision, NOT his.
 

SuperMegaUltra

Geese's Thug
Joined
Dec 15, 2003
Posts
288
Re: Re: Re: California Anti-Game Bill Defeated...

Originally posted by Nesagwa
He is saying something with that last statement that he has no right to say. What gives him the right to tell anyone what they should play? If I want to go watch a movie where people are shown being torn apart by zombies or ears being cut off or play a game where I beat up a hooker or steal a car that is my moral decision, not his.

Not true, I'm afraid. Using your logic, you should be allowed to view pictures of digitally created children performing explicitly pornographic acts from the comfort and seclusion of your own home without the moral intrusion of others. However, the law -- both moral, civil, and federal -- says otherwise.

The real issue here is just how far things should go. How far should the freedom of speech go until it becomes an abomination? How far should moral law go until it becomes an abhorrence? If I had to err one way or the other, I'd gladly do so in favor of the latter.

No easy answers, here; that's for sure. :(
 
Last edited:

ferrarimanf355

Bullets QB
Joined
Feb 15, 2004
Posts
4,724
Re: Re: Re: California Anti-Game Bill Defeated...

Nesagwa said:
He is saying something with that last statement that he has no right to say. What gives him the right to tell anyone what they should play. If I want to go watch a movie where people are shown being torn apart by zombies or ears being cut off or play a game where I beat up a hooker or steal a car that is MY moral decision, NOT his.

I concur.
Anyways, Yee's e-mail address is Assemblymember.Yee@assembly.ca.gov. E-mail him and explain why this bill is wrong, but please keep it civil. He doesn't need any more examples. :cool:
Also, nominate Yee, Congressman Baca and Rep. Dickerson for a Muzzle Award. This could send a message that we will not stand for censorship of our beloved video games.
 

jaydubnb

Windjammers Wonder
Joined
Nov 17, 2002
Posts
1,379
Just about every form of media has some type of rating to protect children from adult themes: you can block channels on your TV; porn is usually stashed in the back/behind a curtain and kids arent allowed to buy/rent; movies have a rating system. Why is there a problem if videogames follow the same route? Games will still be accessible to them...
 

galfordo

Analinguist of the Year
15 Year Member
Joined
Mar 14, 2003
Posts
18,418
Nesagwa said:
Look. The point of the bill was to limit the sale of M rated games to minors.

The same thing is in affect for movies rated R.

Its as simple as getting carded when buying the game. It isnt going to be some comic book code (which was in affect during some of the best comic books ever made might I add).

I feel the same way.
 

quixux

Crossed Swords Squire
Joined
Dec 21, 2003
Posts
194
ferrarimanf355 said:
... for now at least. Assemblyman Yee is threatening to reintroduce it next year. Stay tuned.
From the San Francisco Chronicle.


For anybody that is going to say, "Ehhh, I don't mind, it won't harm me anyway" (which appears to be a good chunk of you fellas), may I remind you that such a line of logic nearly destroyed comic books? :shame:


"Assemblyman Leland Yee, D-San Francisco, tried to persuade committee members to approve the bills by showing a brief clip from some of the video games he hopes to regulate.

The images included a person shooting and beating a police officer, and setting the scene on fire."


I love how they try to use the extreme examples to try to enforce this shit. They try to make it seem as if such an end is the only end forseeable in a game. Anyway, it doesn't matter, since it's just fiction. Hopefully they can learn this, and realize that associating video game role playing with an eventual criminal lifestyle is a slippery slope. But logic has never been the strong suit to these purely ideological types.
 

dragonwillow

Ghost of Captain Kidd
Joined
Oct 28, 2003
Posts
1,664
Man, I'm 16 and I don't give a fuck.
They should pass that... I could care less.
 

Michael Yagami

I was wondering if I might get a rank with a Castl
Joined
May 1, 2002
Posts
5,928
OrochiEddie said:
i knew it was going to happen. I despise antigamers.

Please explain to me how keeping M rated games out of the hands of minors is "Antigamer"?

Mike
 

galfordo

Analinguist of the Year
15 Year Member
Joined
Mar 14, 2003
Posts
18,418
Michael Yagami said:
Please explain to me how keeping M rated games out of the hands of minors is "Antigamer"?

Mike

Every 8 yr. old kid has a God-given right to watch whatever he/she wants. You would'nt want to infringe on their rights, now would you?
 

Blaine

Hinako's Cook
Joined
Jul 16, 2001
Posts
3,113
I'd almost be for carding kids for every game.

Not so much as to prevent them from harming themselves with exquiste sex and wholesome violence (while growing up, my favorite video tape contained, in order: Beetlejuice, Full Metal Jacked and New Jack City) but to help clear out the stores when I want to make a purchase.

And the Comic Book code was voluntary. My comic geekness has atrophied since the early 90's but...

The issue of Spiderman, the one that dealt with drugs (I think it was Harvey ) (He's like on the cover with this tube thing behind him), Marvel did that without approval.

Honestly though, the restriction of sales to minors is not that bad.

The media and people have been coming down on video games for a long long time. Always with respect to "kids & violent games".

If the industry doesn't make some concessions to appease the tight-ass religious zealouts and soccer moms of the world, they very well may stop trying to come down on the "kids" part and just focus on removing the "violent games".

It's been tried before.

I'd rather say to hell with everyone under 18. If you can't get your parents to buy it for you, then you're a miserable excuse for a child. They have to accept responsiblity for ownership of thier parents....or at the very least, cooler uncles and older cousins.
 

dragonwillow

Ghost of Captain Kidd
Joined
Oct 28, 2003
Posts
1,664
galfordo said:
Every 8 yr. old kid has a God-given right to watch whatever he/she wants. You would'nt want to infringe on their rights, now would you?

We also have the natural right to kill people for fun, but that's what laws are for, eh?
 

leepantalone

Pm'ing Rot. Always a Risk.,
Joined
Jan 26, 2003
Posts
1,401
Typical California.....

Californian legislators want to violate the law and have butt pirates marry each other, but violent video games have to go.

Hmmmmmm. Tubesteaks in the corn hole? Or digital images of cops being beaten?

The choice seems simple.
 

Jon

Mr. Tater
25 Year Member
Joined
May 11, 2001
Posts
2,986
I guarantee that the game that Congressman Yee showed to his fellow collegues was probably one of the Grand Theft Auto games--most likely Vice City. While I don't agree that taking certain games of the shelf is a bad idea, I definitely agree that some games should be toned down quite a bit.

Take Vice City for example. The company that made it, Rockstar games, has had a long track record of releasing violent games. While I don't really have a problem with blood, violence, whatever...at least make the damn game good! Vice City sucked so much I traded it back in within a week. The missions were boring, animations sloppy, poor story, and it was definitely full of mindless violence. If you wanted to, you could just go around in your car and continuously run over people for an hour, (before your wanted rating got so high, the police mowed you down). You could walk up to people on the street, beat them to death, steal their money, and beat them some more until someone tried to stop you. I'm sorry but, that kind of crap just gets old after awhile. If you're going to do it, at least make it have a point for Pete's sake!

It's only real redeeming quality was the cool (well, not ALL of them were cool) '80's music you could listen to in DTS. The most fun I had out of the game was just driving around town, obeying traffic laws, and listening to the music.

Rockstar definitely needs to get its act together in my opinion. But, as long as they have a loyal following of mindless, violent people, their games will continue to sell.

As I said before, I don't think they should get rid of violent games...just make them have a point!!!

Jon
 
Top